(VIDEO - DAN SCUIRY ON REDISTRICTING) DEMOCRAT & REPUBLICAN PARTY PROS HAVE FORGOTTEN LESSONS LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN: "PLAY FAIR."

UPDATE:  08:00 AM

The Associated Press is reporting that the Ohio secretary of state's office says that Voters First is 130,000 short of reaching the require 385,000 signatures.

The SCPR understands that the petitioners have 10 days to obtain the required additional signatures.

ORIGINAL BLOG

Right up there at the top of the list in Rober Fulghum's All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten is "Play Fair!"

We are all familiar with the idiom "all is fair in love and war," which is a root expression for the extended version bandied about by politicians:  "all is fair in love, war and politics."

So from the innocence of childhood to the supposed sophistication of adulthood "fair" gets warped from "play fair" to "all is fair in ... politics."

Says a lot about adult political pros and their allies, no?

But that is exactly how the professional politicians like Bob Bennett (Ohio Republican Party chairman), Christopher Redfern (Ohio Democratic chairman) and the local likes of Jeff Matthews (Stark County Republican Party chairman) and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (former Stark County Democratic Party chairman) have progressed from Kindergarten to their grand glory of cynical adulthood.  In the view of the SCPR they are personifications of "all is fair in ... politics" people who are looking out for themselves and their political parties over the interests of everyday citizens.

When it comes to obtaining political advantage, "playing fair" is laughable and naive to these jaded political pros.

Given the opportunity, the likes of all of the above seize the opportunity to support the legislative political warping and contortion process known as gerrymandering:  that is constructing legislative districts so that it is next to impossible (absent a political castastrophe like Coingate-2005 during the Republican Taft administration) to change control of the legislature.

However, they are not alone.  Scores of our elected officials (especially legislators; hence the description of above of "the political pros and their allies") by their deeds ridicule the kindergarten lesson on "playing fair."

About 17% of Americans think well of congress persons currently.  But it has been as low as 9%.  No wonder.   Most of them are from "safe, non-competitive" districts which makes them likely to be arrogant and unaccountable to the American public.  Obviously, many of them support district gerrymandering as a way to perpetuate themselves in office.

And the same thing happens at the state legislative level.  Stark County might have one competitive legislative district.  That would be the 29th Ohio Senate district.

Countywide (which the 29th pretty much is, excluding only the western fringe), either a Democrat or Republican can win.  Statistically and as proven in actual political races either Republicans (e.g. Creighton as commissioner, Zumbar as treasurer and Harold as auditor) or Democrats (e.g. Swanson as treasurer, Ferrero as prosecutor, Campbell as recorder, Bennett as engineer, Reinbold as clerk of common pleas court, and Murthy as county coroner) can and do win.

Only the ineptness of the Stark County organized Democratic Party's leadership (over the chairmanships of Gonzalez, Maier and Ferrero) in terms of grooming quality, attractive candidates for the Ohio Senate keeps Republicans Scott Oelslager and Kirk Schuring trading the 29th back and forth in a version of musical chairs in which each gets a seat in the Ohio General Assembly, just a different seat and keeping the seat from switching over to the Democrats.  For their clearly is a path for Democrats to make this seat competitive and win it.

Democrat for many years now have had to sit and watch as Oelslager and Schuring have developed this musical game of the 29th in tandem with what used to be 51st House District (now pretty much the 48th - indexed Republican - likely to be held by Schuring this November) so that they can overcome term limits, a measure they both supported when it came up for a vote in the 1990s.

Democrat Stephen Slesnick has sat in a heavily Democrat indexed 52nd House District which is to be, in the upcoming election, the 49th House District.

If Republican leaders in Columbus cared about small letter "d" democracy, they easily could take Slesnick's district and reconfigure it in relation to the 48th and 50th to make it anybody's guess as who would political party would win in any one of the three Stark County districts.

But, of course, their number one priority is the the vigor and quality of America's democracy, it is the interests of the Republican Party and their candidates.

And yes, before anyone objects "but the Democrats do it too," such would undoubtedly be the case.

That rejoiner is always posited as some sort of justification of the unfair and undemocratic gerrymandering.

But it doesn't fly.
What the rejoiner "really" says is that both political parties are about their own interests more than those of everyday citizens.

Republican Christina Hagan (a lady who cheered the carving up of Stark County into three congressional districts [and, of course, she voted for it]) as she smugly sits ensconced in the 56% indexed 50th House District.

Hagan is a person who lost when she had to compete for office within the Republican Party.  Now she has wheeled and dealed with her father's help to gain a legislative appointment and is following his footsteps in having a rigged political district to run in.

 But help may be on the way.

The Ohio League of Women Voters is leading the way with a coalition of organizations that has turned in on July 3rd 430,000 or so signatures to the Ohio secretary of state for validation as to proper voter registration on the effort of a non-partisan group called Voters First.

Some 385,000 valid signatures are needed.

If they are obtained, then on the November ballot there will appear an initiative called the:  Ohio Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission Amendment.

Here is a summary of the proposed amendment:

Voters First’s proposal will create an Independent Citizens Commission.  Politicians, lobbyists and political insiders are prohibited from serving on the commission. The Commission’s work will be open and it will be accountable to the public.  The Commission will empower voters to choose their politicians instead of politicians picking their voters.

• Citizens, Not Politicians. Instead of the current procedures (in which politicians draw district boundaries that unfairly favor their own party and/or protect incumbents), a 12-member Citizens Commission will create the districts. Any member of the public can submit a plan for consideration.
• Openness and Transparency. All meetings, records, communications and draft plans of the Commission must be open to the public. No more backroom deals.
• Balance and Impartiality. The Citizens Commission will include equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents, and the approval of at least seven of the twelve members of the commission will be required for the adoption of any plan. This will ensure that the final plan fairly represents all Ohioans, not just those currently in power.
• Community Representation. Districts will be created that are geographically compact, and which minimize the division of counties, townships, municipalities and wards between different districts.
• Accountability & Competitive Districts. Politically balanced districts will be created, rather than “safe districts” which make it difficult or impossible for voters to hold elected officials accountable.
• Fairness. To the greatest extent possible, the share of districts leaning toward a party will reflect the political preferences of the voters of Ohio. 

Recently, the SCPR ran into Dan Scuiry, president of the Hall of Fame AFL-CIO who is a leading Stark County figure in collecting signatures for the Voters First effort.

Scuiry is an interesting public figure.

Yours truly has known him since the mid-1970s.  No doubt he is the consummate Democrat and moreover he is Mister Organized Labor in Stark County.

While there is no doubt that Scuiry carries heavy biases for Democrats and union workers, The Report finds that beneath all his prejudices, he is committed to fair play.

And in his quest to get fairness for those he advocates for he will take on any and everybody no matter who they are.

He has taken on Stark County Educational Services Center Board Superintendent Larry Morgan (what used to be the county board of education - of which yours truly's spouse is president).

He has fought with former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and until very recently had a more or less "blood feud" going on with current chairman Randy Gonzalez.

And the list goes on and on. 

While the secretary of state in busy validating the signatures turned in, Voters First workers are still collecting signatures and will be for the next two to three weeks in case the initial submission falls short of the 385,000 valid signatures needed.

Dennis Willard (former Repository and Akron Beacon Journal reporter), who now is the publicist for  Voters First puts the effort this way:

You may read or see news over the next few days about Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's letter to Voters First regarding the status of petition collection efforts, so I want to keep you up to date on the Fair Districts movement.

Voters First is on track and very confident that we are going to have the signatures to let voters make history this November by putting citizens in charge of drawing Fair Districts. Husted's letter is a normal part of the petition process, and it's not unexpected.

We never stopped collecting signatures even after filing our first round of petitions on July 3rd. And we’re going to continue to collect even more signatures for the next 10 days because we will leave no stone unturned in fixing this broken political system that currently rewards self-serving politicians and their lobbyist buddies.

The SCPR applauds the effort of the League of Women Voters/Voters First and Dan Scuiry.

Here is very interesting video of the SCPR's interview with Scuiry in which he speaks to the local effort to collect signatures.

VIDEOS - BOCCIERI (2) WILL BOCCIERI BE DIFFERENCE MAKER IN 7TH & 16TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT RACE OUTCOMES? A SURPRISE "STAR ATTRACTION" AT OPENING OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CANTON HEADQUARTERS!

UPDATE  07192012 AT 06:00 AM

Great coverage of last nights affair at President Obama's headquarters, Martin. The SCPR did an excellent job on coverage of the night. You certainly upstaged Mr. Wang and the Repository's very shallow coverage of a very important night.

Loved your take on John Boccieri's upstaging Mayor Healy, which he certainly did. Not intentionally, but it was Boccieri's night to shine, and shine he did. The crowd loved him, and he responded with a very moving and invigorating campaign speech for re-electing the President. I'm sure Mr. Obama would have been proud. Boccieri got the crowd fired up, and ready to go. I don't think Mayor Healy minded at all.

I thought the turnout was great, and everyone did a fantastic job. Kudos to Barb Lewis, who always works her butt off, and to the many field workers, many of whom returned from 08, and were just as eager to help re-elect the President as they were to get him elected in the first place. It was great to hear how these young workers are dedicated to this cause. They have not lost their enthusiasm for, or their faith in, their President. I haven't either.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!

ORIGINAL BLOG

It appears to the SCPR that the featured speaker at the Stark Democrats' opening the Canton office of the Barack Obama reelection campaign was Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II.

But when former 16th District Congressman John Boccieri appeared at the fringe of the crowd, one could sense the attention of people pivoting away from Healy and fixing on perhaps the most popular Democrat in all of Stark County.

Healy did his best to maintain the attention on himself.  But it seemed to The Report that the effort was futile and those assembled were antsy to hear from the former congressman.

Normally, one would think Healy would be incensed about being upstaged.  But not in this instance.  Because one of the beneficiaries of Boccieri's popularity among Democrats and many independents in Stark County could be Healy's sister Joyce Healy-Abrams who is running for Congress in the newly formed (required by decentenial redistricting) 7th congressional district.

When Boccieri was acknowledged and approached center stage, he did so to a wildly cheering (many standing and giving him a "standing ovation") crowd.  He immediately began a chant picked up on by the Obama loyalists of "Four More Years."

In his fiery speech, Boccieri reminded those gathered:

• of the 2008 victory which put Barack Obama in office and also made Democrat Boccieri congressman in the 16th congressional district, about 60 years had passed since a Democrat had represented the Canton area,
• that the president stands with the people whereas Republican Mitt Romney stands for persons who are corporations,
• that the Republicans left Obama with the debt (from a Clinton administration surplus) from two unfunded wars, two huge tax cuts, a Medicare prescription plan that was not paid for and that the president put the breaks on that kind of spending,
• that the president saved the American automotive industry which was a victory for working class people,
• that Republican Romney won't release extended years of tax returns and wanted to know:  "What is he hiding?"
• of Romney's using foreign financial institutions to invest his money in,
• that they needed to support the president by electing Democrats Sherrod Brown (U.S. Senate), Healy-Abrams and Betty Sutton (the 16th) to the Congress, and
• closed in telling a story of why he supported the Affordable Care Act.

Here is the video of Boccieri's speech.



After the speech the Stark County Political Report did a one-on-one interview with Boccieri in which he outlined what he planned to do in terms of campaigning in the Stark County area for President Obama (he identified himself as an Obama surrogate) and area Democrats running for Congress.

He appears to be genuinely optimistic that the Democrats can pull a surprise and replace incumbent Republican Congressman Bob Gibbs defeat the man who bested him in 2010 in the 16th; namely, Jim Renacci.

If so, the prospect could become a nightmare for state Rep. Christina Hagan (Republican - Marlboro) and Stark County Republican Party Chairman Jeff Matthews (whose wife works for Renacci).

Why?

Both thought it was wonderful that Stark County got split up into three congressional districts by their gerrymandering Republican friends in Columbus last fall.

Well, if the area ends up getting represented by three Democrats, how will they like it then?

And, of course, Heidi Matthews will be out of a job again as she was when Ralph Regula retired and the-then state Senator Kirk Schuring could not hold the seat for the GOP in 2008.

Here is the video of the Boccieri interview.

(VIDEO OF HEALY REACTION) CANTON MAYOR HEALY DENIES THAT LOUISVILLE HAS REPLACED CANTON AS THE "UTICA CAPITAL." LEASING OF CITY LANDS FOR OIL/GAS DRILLING WILL BE A TEST WHETHER OR NOT HEALY CLAIM IS CREDIBLE?

A mere four and one half months after Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II declared Canton as the "Utica Capital" and now he gets challenged on two fronts.

1. In yesterday's Repository was a headline which had to be a jolt to Hizzhoner, "Utica HQ in Louisville," and
2. A battle rages on between Healy's administration and Canton/Stark County anti-frackers to win "the hearts and minds" of Canton's city council members over whether or not Canton will offer up the possibility of having city owned property up for lease for oil and gas drilling to deep under the earth deposits in the Utica shale formation via a process known as fracking in which a chemical and sand mix are injected high pressure into a deep well to fracture shale in order to release oil/gas products to the surface.

Before yesterday's meeting, the SCPR spoke with Mayor Healy.

His reaction to the Louisville headline:

• Canton remains the "Utica Capital" much like it is the "Pro Football Hall of Fame" capital. While there are focal points of oil/gas drilling outside of Canton proper, Canton is the center of it all.  Louisville, has been in the making for months and it was simply a matter of Canton not having a suitable (acreage wise) site for Chesapeake and anyway, the Louisville site is just one mile outside Canton city limits.

His take on the battle going on in city council and the significance of the anti-frackers who have been besieging council both last night and two weeks ago:

• Interesting enough, the mayor does not know which way council is going to go on its vote as to whether or not to approve the ordinance to "authorize Service Director Warren Price to advertise for, receive and enter into a lease agreement(s) for mineral rights on selected city owned properties."
• That it does not appear that huge numbers of jobs are coming the Canton/Stark County area as a consequence of Canton being the "Utica Capital," and
• So far council has only heard from the anti-frackers.  Now that the administration gets the opportunity to put on its case, he appears confident that his administration can make a convincing case for council to at least put out requests for bids.  He points out that if the bids are not to liking of the council and administration, the process stops there and goes no further.

Here is the video of the SCPR interview of Healy.



The SCPR's take on the debate going on in council is that it is productive in that council members appear to listening carefully to both sides of the argument.

The Report is impressed with Council President Allen Schulman and his handling of the many, many presenters at council meeting on the issue.

In contrast to how Majority Leader David Dougherty handled the "trap-neuter-return" debate of a few months ago (Schulman was absent for that meeting), Schulman operates in a fashion that everyone feels welcome and appreciated and the debate is a study in orderliness and mutual respect.

As to the political significance of the debate the SCPR sees to points.

First, this lease issue could be a test of how much sway that Mayor Healy has sway has with council.  There is little doubt to The Report that councilpersons Babcock, Cole, Dougherty, Griffin, Smith and West will side with the mayor.  Moreover, there is little doubt that councilpersons Cirelli, Fisher and Hawk will vote "no" on the lease.  The battle ground is with Mack, Mariol, and Morris.

In order to have any hope of defeating the administration's proposal, the anti-frackers will have to convince Mack, Mariol and Morris to join with Cirelli, Fisher and Hawk and then get Council President Allen Schulman to side with them in his tie-breaking role.

Second, if the anti-frackers prevail, Canton's refusal to consider leasing will be trumpeted across America as one more win for the anti-fracking forces in the ongoing war between them and the oil and gas industry.

But, of course, the key is for the anti-frackers to get to seven votes.

Can they do it?

ANOTHER STARK COUNTY DOG POUND ADVISORY BOARD (SCDPAB) MEMBER CRITICIZES COMMISSIONERS' OVERSIGHT OF STARK COUNTY DOG POUND OPERATIONS. WILL THIS BE "THE STRAW WHICH BREAKS THE CAMEL'S BACK" AND CAUSE THE COMMISSIONERS TO DISBAND THE SCDPAB? OR, IS THIS A OCCASION TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE "A CUT ABOVE?"

One of the things that yours truly has said repeatedly about the current Stark County Board of Commissioners (with the election of Thomas Bernabei and Janet Creighton) is that they are much more open, accessible, communicative, responsive, attentive, accountable, transparent and politically mature than any board of commissioners going back quite a few years.

And the Stark County voters recognized the change in November, 2011 in providing the commissioners with a solid victory in approving a 0.5% sales tax issue as a signal that the commissioners have been successful in restoring voter trust in their stewardship of county government.

However, it could be that the current board's enthusiasm for a different way of being and operating is ebbing.  They have been through a lot of trying times in the one year and a half that this board has been in place.  Perhaps they are growing wary of the day-to-day of this problem, then that problem and here comes another problem syndrome.

Or, it could be that operations at the Stark County Dog Pound (Pound - SCDP) is something that is an aberration from their up-to-this-point general "embracing the problems" and solving them approach to county government.

The SCPR has observed that from the very beginning of the current regime of commissioners that they have not been all that well taken with the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB).  In this aspect of their boardmanship, they are much like their predecessor boards.

Rightly or wrongly, it appears to yours truly that the commissioners have taken on an attitude of "there is nothing we can do to satisfy these (advisory board members) people.

On July 6th, The Report did a blog (LINK) on another in a long series of complaints that a SCDPAB member (Judith King) have of Pound operations.

Recently, another SCDPAB member has written the SCPR.  Here is that letter:

Hello Martin-

As a member of the Stark County Dog Warden Advisory Board, I am not surprised that the commissioners are thinking of disbanding the board.

They do not return phone calls nor attend any of our meetings.

I am sure we are a thorn in their side with our pleas to improve the horrible conditions at the pound; however eliminating the board is not going to stop us or private citizens from demanding some action be taken with regards to the "catch and kill" mentality of some of the employees at the pound and the lack of interest by  warden (sic) Tetrault of the pound's conditions.

I would love to see the commissioners' institute a forum with a "come and let us reason together " attitude., as you suggested. Unfortunately, I doubt very much that will ever happen .

Sure, the ventilation problem is a big concern during this extremely hot summer; however there are also many other problems that need to be addressed, many of which only require a look at some  ( not all, but some) of  the staff's inadequate performance.

Aren't the commissioners at all concerned about the warden who is rarely seen outside of her air-conditioned office and has no knowledge of the dogs in the pound, instead asking volunteers to do various jobs for her?  How can she be a leader when she has no clue about what happens in the actual kennel area?

If you get the chance to talk to Ms. Creighton again, please ask her these questions for us ( since she no longer communicates with the Advisory Board)

Has the $70,000 - $80,000 been approved for the ventilation system yet or is this just another promise?

Have the commissioners advertised for bids for the project yet?

Could the commissioners evaluate the warden's performance ON SITE at the pound ( and not by the  very infrequent pre-planned visits which usually turn into a smiley "everything's great here!" photo-op.)

Rose Hayne

By the end of this month commissioners have four new appointments to make and such could be an occasion for disbanding the SCDPAB altogether.

The Report has the impression that the commissioners are exasperated with the current SCDPAB makeup and might be at the point ridding themselves of their problem.

But yours truly would be surprised and disappointed to see that happen.

The Report's take on the commissioners has been that they are a resilient lot who have, so far, demonstrated political maturity a step or two above a number of other county officials (e.g. Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero and Stark County Recorder Rick Campbell).

Were they to disband the advisory board in toto, such would in the view of the SCPR be an occasion for Stark Countians to be concerned about whether or not they are taking on a jadedness that so often plagues government types which may be increasingly be manifested as everyday citizens seek the ear of county government.

Governing often is uncomfortable and perhaps even frustrating to the point of being at one's wits end in trying to satisfy everyone among the governed.

But such is the lot of office holders, especially in modern-day America.

It has to be tempting to the commissioners to try to banish their problems.

But as Ms. Hayne says: 

I am sure we are a thorn in their side with our pleas to improve the horrible conditions at the pound; however eliminating the board is not going to stop us or private citizens from demanding some action ...  (emphasis added)

Whichever way the Stark County Board of Commissioners decide to go on "the disbanding the board issue," they will be sending a message and an indication to the Stark County public about the political character of the individual members of the board that The Report believes will serve as an insight into what Stark Countians can expect in terms of receptivity and response as future complaints and problems are brought to the commissioners attention.

In a specific context the question is:  Can the Stark County commissioners abide a difference of opinion from folks they appointed and, moreover, can they accept being challenged to reflect candidly with themselves on whether or not they have the correct read on conditions/operations at the Pound?

We do have in Stark County an elected public official who banishes those with whom he disagrees.  He makes no attempt to consider that maybe his take on a given situation is wrong and that he would be well advised to mull over their advice.  Rather than eliminate these folks, he should keep them around.  For all too many around him are careful to tell him what they think he wants to hear, as a matter of self-preservation.

One wouldn't think that the Stark County commissioners (who know this official all too well), would want to follow his example.

Before them is an occasion to demonstrate by deed which way they will go.

Either they have the political chutzpah that the SCPR and many Stark County citizens expect of them to deal effectively and maturely with the problems they encounter or they will take a step back by cutting and running in the face of a difficult situation,

By July 31st, Stark Countians should get an additional read on what our Stark County commissioners are "really" made of?

WILL LAKE'S TRUSTEES PUT SHERIFF SWANSON'S TOWNSHIP WIDE POLICE COVERAGE PLAN UNDER A MAGNIFYING GLASS IN A PUBLIC SESSION?

It could be that the Lake Township trustees have dug such a deep hole for themselves on the issue of expanding police services township wide that a levy for doing so has no chance whatsoever of passing.

Because of sloppy work by township legal counsel, the Stark County prosecutor's office and the Stark County Board of Elections, a hard earned victory for those of us who have been in favor of such an expansion for years (in some cases) may have been frittered away by the ineptness of several elements of local officialdom.

So as not to retread the if, buts and the like, here are a couple of links to prior blogs of the SCPR for readers to get up to speed/refresh on the saga of the goof ups that led up to the Ohio Supreme Court invalidating the electoral success of the pro-township-wide forces on May 16th of this year.

• First background blog LINK
• Second background blog LINK
• Third background blog LINK
• Fourth background blog LINK

The SCPR would not be surprised that the trustees, in their individual capacities, have come to the conclusion that the glare of publicity surrounding the bumbling of framing the levy issue in proper language form may well have cast enough of a negative tone on the whole process that it is hard to see how a majority of Lake voters would approve a new effort to go township wide.

The Report suspects that a primary reason why at least one of the trustees has not called for Sheriff Swanson (or his deputy McDonald) to come to Lake for a public session in which the Sheriff's Proposal gets thoroughly dissected and vetted, is that none of the three thinks that township wide is in the cards in the immediate future anyway so why bother.

For if one of them thinks that there remains a viable opportunity to convince Lake voters to once again approve an expansion, then it goes without saying that before trustees vote on the matter they must lay both the Uniontown Police Department expansion plan (UPD Plan) and the Sheriff's Proposal (CLICK HERE FOR INTERNET LINK) in full public view and do an "apples to apples" comparison and then go with the one which would provide Lake taxpayers with "the biggest bang for the buck!"

Yours truly, for one, though always in the nearly 40 years of residence in the township a supporter of township wide policing, would not support an expansion that does not authentically weigh the UPD Plan versus the Sheriff's Proposal and provide specific, objective and sustainable reasons why one approach was favored over the other.

At one meeting of township officials after the Ohio Supreme Court overturn of the November, 2011 vote on Lake Issue #6, township legal counsel Charles Hall, III came up with a line of blarney in saying that it was a good thing that the language got goofed up because the screw up drew a legal challenge and therefore Lake Township benefited all of Ohio's political subdivisions because now they know that ballot language errors will cause an issue that otherwise won to fail.

Hall may be right that the legal upset of the electoral victory is a good thing.

But not for the reason he gave.

What the judicial reversal does for those of us who voted for the expansion the first time around (without requiring the trustees to get a competitive bid) does is provide us (the Lake Township residents) with an opportunity to look much closer at the two approaches and make a much more informed decision the second time around, if there is a second time.

Many if not most of those of us who live in the Uniontown Police District have been largely pleased with policing services all these years, even if at a premium cost to us.

Very little changes for us either way.  If there is an expansion, we do save a little on our police levy assessment.  If not, our financial situation is unchanged and we go on with our high quality police protection.

In sitting back a watching this parade go by, the SCPR has this gnawing feeling that all is not as it appears to be.

The Report is beginning to consider the notion that the drive to make the UPD the township wide policing unit might be driven by influential "behind he scenes" de facto community leaders who want to keep their agenda hidden and that the trustees are willing to be the public face.

If that is the case, then it becomes very clear indeed why the Lake trustees might not want to have to face up with the Lake Township public with sheriff's department representative on hand to answer their questions.

To make things more meaningful, wouldn't it be great to have Plain Township Trustee Louis Giavasis on hand to answer the Lake Township residents' questions about Plain's actual experience in having the sheriff's office do the township's policing going back to 1992.

He tells The Report that he cannot for the life of him figure out why someone in Lake Township's position would want to take on all the complexity and difficulty (personnel management, et cetera) of administrating a police district when someone else will do it for $600,000 less per annum.

Giavasis says that Plain Trustees are able to maintain very tight control of township policing through its contract with the sheriff.  Any time there is any question, Plain officials are able to immediate responses and adjustments when and where needed.

As the SCPR sees it, the Swanson letter published at the beginning of this blog puts the Lake Township trustees on the spot.

He says you (the trustees) say our proposal is "incomplete?"

(Paraphrase)  "Let us [sheriff's representatives] come up to your place [Lake Twp Hall] and sit down with you in front of your public show the both of us [the sheriff and the Lake public] where our proposal is not an apples to apples comparison to what the Uniontown Police Department Plan is?"

And, of course, yours truly says:  Have Plain Trustee Louis Giavasis come, too.

As the SCPR sees it, the Lake Township trustees will likely do one of two things.

First, drop the matter of expansion altogether at least for the time being, or

Two, fully engage the Lake Township public and a thorough consideration of the two competing plans.

It would be a shock if they chose to totally ignore the Sheriff's Proposal and go once again with the UPD Plan in an uncompetitive fashion.

But if they do the latter, then they can look for a defeat in the ballot box that likely will be the equivalent of past failures.

MASSILLON'S COUNCILWOMAN NANCY HALTER UNDERSTANDS THAT "AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE," BUT APPARENTLY THE REST OF COUNCIL DOESN'T?

UPDATE:  9:50 AM

A huge move that is in its initial stages of development in the State of Ohio is spending millions upon millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars tearing down dilapidated residential buildings.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine has set aside $75 million from Ohio's $335 million share of a $25 billion national mortgage settlement with America's five largest mortgage companies in settlement of allegations of foreclosure abuse, fraud and improper practices.

DeWine bills his initiative as being the Moving Ohio Forward Demolition Grant Program.

Of the $75 million, Stark County is slated to get about $2.3 million due the efforts of the Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar.

It could be that by the fall of this year and certainly by early into next year Alliance, Canton, Massillon and other Stark County political subdivisions will be benefiting from Ohio's initiative.

And that is all well and good.  But the financial lament of having to have taxpayers tear down private market housing that has not been kept up over many years is such that we should label tear down necessity as a crying shame.

A good part of the reason why residential housing has deteriorated to the point that the only remedy is a tear down is that villages, city's and townships have allowed property owners to milk a property for everything they get out of it and then merely abandon it and walk away from it leaving it to the taxpayers to deal with it.

And that is what DeWine's program and the local application of the recently Stark County commissioner authorized creation of the Stark County Land Reutilization Corporation (a quasi-government, non-profit corporation - headed by Zumbar) is about, at least, in it initial stages.

For someone like Councilwoman Nancy Halter of Massillon (R - Ward 2) to get out in front of the problem and try "to prevent" dilapidation from occurring in the first place is laudable inasmuch as her effort is in the order of being a real, neighborhood saving cure designed to maintain serviceable residences in place.

The DeWine/LRC solution is to leave a vacant lot.

Halter's problem in getting the legislation through Massillon City Council (now on her fourth try) is that her fellow councilpersons seem determined to kill it by virtue of "a death by a thousand cuts" routine.

How convenient?  A thousand cuts and thereby how is one to be held politically accountable for having administered the fatal cut that killed an ordinance that has the potential to save Massillon neighborhoods of the future from the wrecking ball.

The SCPR is encouraged to read in Massillon Independent reporter Matt Rink's piece Halter vows to continue fight to register landlords (July 9, 2012) this quote:

“I’m going to keep this up until we pass this.  I’m just warning you. If it takes another year then so be it.”

A Stark County Political Report "tip of the hat" to Councilwoman Halter!

Conversely, her fellows on council should abandon what appears to be a "thousand cuts" campaign and take a proactive stance and help Halter find a way to make Massillon a city that gets ahead of its problems and does not sit back and wait for bad things to happen it.

"An ounce of prevention is, indeed, worth a pound of cure!"

(VIDEOS OF DORDEA & MCDONALD - STARK SHERIFF'S RACE) CHALK ONE UP FOR DORDEA IN LAKE TOWNSHIP ON DEALING WITH LAKE POLICING ISSUE? IS THERE A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE UPD CAN WORK WITH A SHERIFF MCDONALD?

On May 29th of this year, right on the heels of the Ohio Supreme Court (May 16th) decision upholding Stark County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Haas' decision that flawed ballot language on Lake Township's Issue #6 was fatal to the issue and that an "apparent"  election ballot victory for those in Lake who wanted the Uniontown Police Department (9 square miles in northwest Lake Township) to expand township wide was therefore invalidated, Stark County Chief Deputy Sheriff Mike McDonald (Jail Division) appeared before the Lake Township trustees at their regular meeting touting a plan for the Stark County sheriff to step in and provide the coverage for all of Lake Township except for Hartville.

It is the SCPR's perception that McDonald got a "cool," but respectful hearing from Trustees John Arnold, Ellis Erb and Galen Stoll.

Here is a video of McDonald's presentation.



The Report's take is that McDonald (who is the Democratic candidate for Stark County sheriff) couldn't have made a bigger political blunder in Lake insofar as township officials are concerned than to have appeared so soon after the Supreme Court decision at a time that trustees were obviously smarting from the loss and were grappling for ways to react.

Moreover, The Report has been told (confirmed to McDonald) that Uniontown Police Chief Harold Britt had a testy exchange with McDonald at the rear of the meeting hall regarding the appropriateness of McDonald's appearance with a contract proposal.

Yours truly was out of the country (in England) at the last Lake trustees meeting of June 25th.  But a Repository report of the meeting has several interesting points:

• "He (Trustee John Arnold) noted the possibility of accepting a proposal from the Stark County Sheriff's Office for township wide policing is clouded by the uncertainty of who will be elected sheriff in November," and
• "The proposal also previously has been termed incomplete by trustees compared to the ballot issue that expanded the Uniontown Police Department which was overturned by the courts."
  

"Of who will be elected sheriff in November."  

 Really?  What does that have to do with anything?

"The proposal also previously has been termed incomplete by trustees compared to the ballot issue that expanded the Uniontown Police Department."

Okay.  Don't the trustees owe it to Lake Township taxpayers to go to the sheriff and say:  "give us an apples to apples proposal?" 

Don't they have an obligation to Lake taxpayers, if Lake is to have township wide police services, to get "the best bang for the buck?"

And to all the foregoing add the following:

This past Monday night (at a regular meeting of the Lake trustees), yours truly was a party to a conversation post meeting among township fire and police officials in which the topic as to the amenability of the officials to having either McDonald or his Republican opponent Larry Dordea as sheriff of Stark County.

Somewhat alarming to The Report in yours truly's take was the willingness of a police official to express his enthusiasm for working as a Lake-based police official with Dordea as sheriff but apparently unwilling to accord the same ardor with McDonald as sheriff.

And yours truly said so in the context of that assembly.

It is not a matter of whether or not a police official has a personal preference. As a matter of police professionalism and as a matter of public safety and the expectation is that police officials work together cooperatively and collaboratively for the public safety.

It could be that the police official simply misspoke?

Hopefully, Chief Britt will and as will Trustee Erb (who was present during the conversation), in the light of the foregoing, reassure the Lake Township public that the vigor of collaborative law enforcement (whether it is the Uniontown Police Department or the Lake Township Police Department) in Lake Township has nothing whatsoever to do with who is elected sheriff in November.

The sheriff's office interacting with Lake officials on the matter of the sheriff providing Lake with police services via McDonald's presentation was not a first time event.

The sheriff has a contract with Plain Township and Trustee Louis Giavasis tells the SCPR that Plain residents are well satisfied with those services.

Several years ago Lake trustees were seriously considering a proposal to Lake voters that they support a ballot initiative to have the sheriff provide similar township wide coverage.

For reasons that remain a mystery (i.e. no one from the township side will say what they were and Sheriff Swanson tells The Report he does not know why), the matter got dropped as quickly as they had appeared.  The Report's recollection is that Trustee Ellis Erb was the trustee most actively involved in considering the sheriff option.

Next thing township residents know (yours truly is a Lake Township and Uniontown Police District (UPD) resident who has always supported expansion either by the UPD or the sheriff and, for the record, is in favor of another effort), up pops the notion of going township wide using the Uniontown Police District as the springboard to expansion.

Of course, the rest is history.

Township officials including the township's law director Charles Hall, III, the Stark County Board of Elections and the Stark County prosecutor's office all had a hand in not figuring out that the ballot language was errant.

Only the Ohio secretary of state's office figured out the error on a timely basis and communicated same to the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) on July 13, 2011.

The BOE claimed that one of its employees telephoned information about the error to officials at Lake Township Hall.  However, Lake officials deny that such was the case.

So that is how Lake got to the place the township is now in that it is in the process of determining whether or not expansion of police services are still on the table and if so, will it be by expanding the Uniontown Police Department or will the township pursue working out a contract with the sheriff's department.

And this is where Larry Dordea (Hartville Police Chief, former Alliance Police Chief and presently an Alliance city councilman-at-large) in the judgment of the SCPR made a politically swift move.

Dordea made an appearance on Monday night last to clarify what he said was perhaps a misunderstanding as to what his attitude would be as sheriff towards the Lake policing situation.

In essence, he says whatever direction Lake residents decide to do, he will fully supportive and work in a fully collaborative manner with Lake officials.

There was even a hint in his presentation (see below), at least in the SCPR's take, that should trustees forego an expansion at this time, a Dordea run sheriff's department would to better in providing patrol services of the outside of Hartville and Uniontown police district areas of the township.

To yours truly, Dordea's interface was a much more wise "politician-running-for-office"  course of action in substance, timing and manner than was demonstrated by Mike McDonald back on May 29th.

Here is the video of Dordea's presentation.



As far as the SCPR is concerned (as indicated above), Lake ought to have township wide services, however, if the trustees put an initiative (whether UPD expansion or contracting with the sheriff) on the ballot and Lake voters decide against it, so be it.

Such is our democratic process.

It appears to the SCPR that McDonald and Dordea are equally qualified to be Stark County sheriff. 

However, The Report will be examining the public positions taken by both over the next four months to determine whether or not either surfaces as an obvious choice.

Stark Countians need to be very careful that Stark County's top cop be the very best.

To summarize:

As far as Lake offcials are concerned, the SCPR likes to believe that:

• the trustees will in discharging their duty of trust in protecting Lake taxpayer interests; should they decide to propose policing township wide again, obtain an apples to apples proposal from Sheriff Swanson before deciding what specific proposal, if any, should be on the ballot,
• that whichever route they decide to go, or if they decide to leave the policing as it currently is, that it will be made clear that Chief Britt and the department is committed to working in a fully cooperative and collaborative manner with whomever is elected sheriff, and
• that the decision will not be made without a full and complete public meeting giving Lake citizens a thoroughgoing opportunity to weigh in on the decision.