SERIES: PART 1 - WHY IS STARK COUNTY TAXPAYER MONEY GOING OUT OF COUNTY "UNBID" BY STARK COUNTY COMPANIES?

Consider this video of Commissioner Steve Meeks s,peaking relative to the awarding of a Stark County contract.  Then consider the SCPR take on the bidding process below:



Credit Commissioner Meeks for highlighting the fact that Stark County funded construction contracts are going out of county.

So?

No Stark County companies are bidding on some of these contracts.

Stark County taxpayers should be irate that Stark County business officials are allowing this to happening.

Shouldn't the commissioners themselves be taking action to make sure that Stark County companies are bidding?

Perhaps, but doing so could lead to charges that they have a "conflict-in-interest."  Commissioners have a legal obligation to take the "lowest and best" bid on county contracts.  Obviously, "best" leaves wiggle room.

Commissioners' primary obligation, as the SCPR sees it, is to get "the best bang for the Stark County taxpayer buck."  Such would seem to put the focus on "the lowest" and assume that it is also the best unless some unreal jumps out on them (e.g. bidding company has a known  reputation for doing shoddy work).

Moreover, commissioners going out a soliciting Stark County bids could give contractors the idea that campaign contributions could grease the skids for them in getting commissioners to accept a bid that was not the lowest but is the "best" in a subjective evaluation.

Let's say Contractor "A" does make a political contribution to at least two of the commissioners.  Adding to this, that one or more of the commissioners had "encouraged" the bid in the first place; would not set to well with Stark County tax paying public if a bid gets awarded to a Stark County company; not because it was the lowest, but because it was the subjectively based "best."

So it does appear to the SCPR to encourage commissioners to be out promoting Stark County companies to bid on county contracts is a good idea.

But there are Stark County-based business promoting and trade groups who could and should be doing this.

To The Report, the fact that there are unbid by Stark County companies contracts being awarded by Stark commissioners is indication that "private" business and trade organizations are not getting the job done for Stark County companies who presumably hire of majority of Stark County workers.

Over ensuing weeks, the SCPR will be digging more into this phenomenon and envisions publishing a series of blogs on this topic.

U.S. SENATOR BROWN: OUT MAKING A NAME FOR HIMSELF NATIONALLY; MEANWHILE HIS UNIONTOWN, OHIO CONSTITUENT IS LEFT OUT IN THE COLD -- AT LEAST UNTIL HIS 2012 REELECTION BID?

Back on December 15, 2009, the SCPR wrote (CLICK HERE TO SEE THE BLOG) how Uniontown citizen Chris Borello (president of the Concerned Citizens of Lake Township - CCLT) was hopeful to get United States Senator Sherrod Brown and Congressman John Boccieri (both Democrats and Boccieri representing Stark County in the U.S. House) to take up her cause of getting the Industrial Excess Landfill cleaned up (or, at least neutralized).

The SCPR's impression is that Borello has completely given up on Boccieri.  But she has been holding out hope that Senator Sherrod Brown would help her group out.

For Brown is a "bleeding heart liberal," if there ever was one.  He shows shades of Congressman Dennis Kucinich (a populist/left-wing Democrat from Cleveland).   Accordingly, Brown tries to portray himself as a huge supporter of environmental stewardship.

Here is a list of Brown office press releases which show his leftist/populist tendencies:

Here is Brown on the national political talk show "Hardball" in response to a Chris Matthews question as to whom should pay for the oil spill occurring now in the Gulf of Mexico, to wit:

I think the issue is the law has to compel this company, which made a mistake and which has a history of violating OSHA rules—we can talk about that in a second, what happened in Texas City, Texas, five years ago and what hasn‘t happened since with OSHA rules and environmental rules.

And it was—you know, the last decade, Chris, as you know, has been a question of the oil industry and Wall Street and others staying a step ahead of the sheriff.  And the sheriff hasn‘t really been on the beat with the Bush administration on environment or on worker safety rules.  That‘s why this is a different day, and we‘ve got to make sure that they do what they are supposed to do under the law.

But, it may be, that Borello is beginning to realize that Uniontown and the IEL is not a big enough political fish for Senator Brown.

Yes, Brown is a "green" senator, but only when the public relations is high grade.

Is Hardball or any other national political speak show about to have Brown on talking about the IEL and getting an Environmental Protection Agency clean up of the Uniontown site?

Of course not!

So Borello can forget Brown doing anything for CCLT on what is known also as being the "Uniontown Dump."

In fact, Borello tells the SCPR that a Brown staffer is telling her that they (Brown staffers) cannot even get the EPA to converse with them on the IEL issue.

So what is Brown's office going to do about the EPA's incommunicado on the IEL matter?

Apparently, nothing.

The staffer leaves it at "EPA will not answer us!"

To repeat:  It is obvious that to the SCPR that Senator Brown is not interested in the Uniontown IEL and Chris Borello and her CCLT fellow members can forget getting any attention to their cause for the time being.

Perhaps, in two years he will listen and maybe push the EPA to at least address the Borello group concerns one more time.

Why in two years?

Well, Brown will be up for reelection.

For a guy like Brown, who obviously basks in the national spotlight, the only hope for locals like Borello to get an ear is the periodic (every six years in the case of the U.S. Senate) need to finesse local voters into reelecting them.

Otherwise, Brown has more important fish to fry, no?

CANTON DEMOCRATS ARE INFIGHTING OVER MAYORALTY; NORTH CANTON REPUBLICANS ARE INFIGHTING MAYORALTY

It is old news that Canton Democrats (Smuckler and his many friends on Canton City Council; Healy and his "few" friends on Council) are lining up to determine who will be the next mayor of Canton.

Healy has alienated all but about two or so Canton councilpersons in his bid to be reelected mayor.  However, he has developed an alternative strategy to remain mayor.

The SCPR believes the odds of Healy returning are not looking good.

The "new" news is that North Canton is looking like it is going to have a mayoralty contest come May, 2011.  And, like Canton, because a lopsided Republican registration factor in the Dogwood City, the primary will determine who is to be North Canton's new mayor.

Who are the likely foes in North Canton?

Councilman Jeff Davies and current Mayor David Held.

There has been bad blood between these two for some time now.  Moreover, there has brewing dissatisfaction on many Council members' part with the Held administration, to wit:  Held, himself and City Administrator Earle Wise, Jr. but not so much other members of the administration leadership mix.

Davies and Held do not get along.

Davies thinks Held is a weak mayor.  Held thinks Davies is brash and uncouth.

Held and a number of others in North Canton government has complained about Davies.  However, the complains were dismissed by North Canton's law director as not being actionable. 

Held and Davies are North Canton's mix of oil and water; just like Cantonians Smuckler and Healy.  Even though they are of the same political party; partisan ties are not enough to keep them together.

North Canton Council is different than Canton's.  Of the seven councilpersons, four are announced Republicans (Canton:  all but one are Demcrats). 

How will North Canton Council wade in on a Held/Davies match up?

It's hard to say.

What they will be doing in the opinion of the SCPR is weighing the lesser of two political evils.

Davies' perceived temper and brashness versus Held's perceived inability to lead North Canton with strength and purpose.

Both will be lobbying Council for support over the next year and who wins that battle could have a leg up on next year's primary.

The SCPR believes the likelihood of a Davies/Held contest is good for North Canton in the sense that political competition will clarify the issues and characteristics between the two from which to make a choice.

In 2009, Held ran unopposed.

North Cantonians should be urging Davies and others to run for mayor next year.  The more candidates, the better for North Canton!

SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!

As readers of the SCPR know, The Report has been pushing for months to get the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) to scan in candidate filed petitions, campaign finance reports and the like as they are filed and make them available to the general public on line instantly.

Yesterday, yours truly stopped by the BOE to get "paper" copies of the "Save Tomorrow" campaign finance report filed April 22nd.  The SCPR has in the works a public accountability project involving campaign contributions made and the disposition of monies flowing to the Northwest schools as a consequence of Northwest voters having approved a 1% earned income tax on May 4th.

This Northwest project will be one of many designed to inform Stark County voters of campaign contributions made to Stark County-based candidates/issue efforts so that voters - perhaps, with a little analytical help from the SCPR - can follow the money trail to whom is influencing whom to come to certain outcomes based on campaign contributions made.

So The Report was expecting to have to wade through the Save Tomorrow campaign finance report and make notes or, alternatively, to have paper copies made.

Lo and behold!  Surprise !  Surprise !! and Surprise!!! again.

The very helpful BOE employee (Christine Jones) astonished The Report with a statement to the effect:  "Mr. Olson, would you like a scanned copy of the Save Tomorrow report on CD-Rom?"

Would the SCPR want a scanned copy of the campaign report?

Of course!!!  In fact, The Report ordered a copy of each and every candidate and political action committee (PAC) campaign finance report on file with the Stark BOE in scanned format.

On the Save Tomorrow campaign finance documents, Ms. Jones went the extra step and e-mailed the report to The Report at her initiative.

While The Report is pleased with the "scanning" advance has been made at the Stark BOE, The Report's job to get them made available online is incomplete.

On further inquiry with Jones, she told yours truly that the documents are not available online and she does not know of any specific plans to place them online to be readily available to the Stark County public.

As happy as The Report is to have CD Rom access, yours truly is saddened that the leadership of the Stark BOE has been uncommunicative to the SCPR on the fact that the scanning has been underway.

But The Report is not surprised by the "mum is the word" posture of the Stark BOE leadership and yours truly.

As reported by The Repository this week, the Stark BOE (meaning the board members themselves) stopped the SCPR from videotaping a February, 2010 meeting in seeming contravention of Ohio's sunshine law.

Apparently, wiser counsels prevailed at the Stark BOE and now The Report or any other Stark County citizen can video tape a BOE meeting as long as they comply with guidelines recently published by the BOE.

Even though the SCPR has communicated (via email) with the director of the Stark BOE on the "draft" regulations on videotaping, The Report only learned about the promulgation of the regs through the above-referenced Repository article.  Hmm?

Accordingly, it is no surprise, despite a number of face-to-face and email communications on the topic with Director Mullane. that the SCPR was not informed (via follow up email) of the availability of scanned-in campaign finance reports.

The SCPR has been highly critical of the four politically member board for their cavalier way in dealing with yours truly on the videotaping issue and on the scanning issue  (i.e. refusing to put a SCPR request for discussion of BOE scanning plans on its agenda).

Two of the members (Maier and Braden) and the former director, now deputy Drector Jeff Matthews (in their varying other Stark County political and/or elective capacities) have been the subject of a number of SCPR blogs.

Could it be that the "find out about it the best way you can, Olson" attitude perceived by yours truly as emanating from the BOE leadership is comeuppance for The Report's incisive blogging on these various personages in their public capacities and, indeed, on the operations of the BOE itself?

WHAT'S THIS: A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL SAYS SOMETHING GOOD ABOUT A CITIZEN WHO GET'S THEIR GOAT?

"You make a good point," is a refrain that one can hear frequently at North Canton City Council when citizen Chuck Osborne takes to the mike during the "public speaks" portion of a Council meeting.

For every North Canton government issue, Osborne has an opinion.

Moreover, he comes in "armed to the teeth" with facts.  However, his facts often prove embarrassing to the North Canton administration and Council.

Lately, Osborne has been pushing and pushing hard on the North Canton/Aqua of Ohio water supply agreement.  He has been working hard to get what he thinks would be a much fairer agreement for the taxpayers of North Canton than what has been in place.

Much to the consternation of city officials, Osborne has been using the facts generated by a company (Arcadis) commissioned by North Canton to study the cost/price aspects of the now "scraped" 20 year between The Dogwood City and Aqua.

Why consternation?

Because, depending on how one interprets the Arcadis study, one could come to the conclusion that North Canton is not making a fair profit on the water sold to Aqua.  And since Hoover closed its doors in North Canton, the city's investment in its water infrastructure in probably its most important asset.

Edd Prichard of The Repository reported of this past Monday meeting (North Canton officials, Aqua reach a deal):

Councilman Jeff Davies, Ward 3, said the proposed contract changes were discussed and reviewed more than any other matter brought to council over the last two years.

And why was "the proposed contract changes ... discussed and reviewed more than any other matter" over the past two years.

Indeed!  Citizen Chuck Osborne is the reason.  If it were not for Osborne, North Canton would likely be languishing under the terms of the old 20 years agreement;  It is unbelievable to the SCPR that North Canton negotiated a 20 year agreement in the first place.  And now to "improve" it, according to Council president Revoldt (as one of the changed aspects) to being for "only" ten years is absurd, too.

Osborne is not happy with the revised agreement.

The SCPR suspects that Osborne is correct in thinking that the new agreement is not what it should be.

The Report believes that future North Canton councils will dig out the minutes of council meetings on the Aqua agreement deliberations and come to fully appreciate the work of Osborne.

On the other hand, future council members will likely be saying among themselves of the 2010 edition of Council:  "What were they thinking?"

Pritchard reports thusly about Osborne's efforts:

Davies thanked former council member Charles Osborne for constantly raising questions during the course of the discussion. “He held our feet to the fire,

A SCPR "hats off" to Davies for recognizing Osborne and to Prichard for reporting it (Prichard often ignores Osborne's input).

What's next:  A North Canton good citizen award to Osborne?

Don't hold your breath!

For the SCPR has reason to believe that more Council members loathe Osborne than like him.  Hence the graphic "they like, they really like Osborne" is presented "tongue-in-cheek."

Government disdain of citizen critique is a core reason why about 80% of Americans do not trust (and impliedly) do not like government.

Such is not good for government!

CONTINUING RECORDERS' EDUCATION (CRE). IS IT REALLY "MANDATORY" THAT STARK CO RECORDER RICK CAMPBELL TRAVEL TO A PUT-IN-BAY SUMMER CONFERENCE FOR "CRE?" AND HE NEEDS TO TAKE TWO EMPLOYEES ALONG?

The Stark County Political Report learns the "coolest" things at the weekly Stark County commissioner meetings.

Not long ago, The Report learned about Republican Frank C. Braden (whom most of us "commonly" know as "Curt" Braden) making a Stark County Board of Elections related trip to Columbus, but failing to get the government rate at the posh Hyatt Regency in Columbus.  Of course, you know who paid for Braden's failure to get the taxpayer rate.  Of course!  The taxpayers.

Commissioner Bosley asked "mischievously" (so The Report thinks) when the post-travel reimbursement request came before the commissioners, "Frank C. Braden? Is this Curt Braden?"  "Yes," opined one of the other officials staffing the meeting.

It was Commissioner Meeks who caught the premium that Braden was asking taxpayers to pay.  Remember, Bosley and Meeks are both Democrats.

One might be impressed with Meeks' observation had he followed through and said "You know, Braden has to know better than not get the government rate, I make a motion that we reimburse him at the $99 per night government rate."

But Meeks didn't. He clearly dropped the ball.

Recently, three requests by Stark County recorder Rick Campbell came before the commissioners at an official commissioner meeting.

The requests were that the commissioners approve up to $1,907.00 for Campbell and two key employees (Gonzalez and Owens)
to go to Put-in-Bay, Ohio (on the shores of Lake Erie) for a summer conference on the resort island.

The Report does not recall exactly which hotel that Campbell et al will be staying at, but at least one of the inns on Put-in-Bay plays up the resort nature of Put-in-Bay, to wit:

What's more, the travel requests (all three) stated  (via a check marked box) that attending the conference is "mandatory."

Isn't Put-in-Bay in mid-June a "sweet spot" for one to have to go to for a "mandatory" summer conference?

Wow!  Who wouldn't want to be a county recorder or top level employee!!  Sign me up!!!

If Campbell can show that attendance is mandatory, so be it.  However, the SCPR suspects that it is not.  And, if it is not, then for county officials to be attending the conference is sending the wrong message to taxpayers at any time, but especially so in the midst of a county financial crisis.

Of late, the SCPR has been noting Commissioner Meeks' detailed questioning of many of the expense requests  that come befire the commissioners. The Report is not sure if such will continue if Meeks gets elected commissioner.  It is campaign season, after all.  But county finances are such that excruciating and detailed examination of each and every expenditure needs to be done as a matter of course.  And not just in a run up to an election.

Notwithstanding his apparent "inquiring mind," The Report believes Meeks had a bad day on scrutinizing Recorder Campbell's requests.

Really?  In what way(s)?

First, the requests (three in number, remember) all had the box "mandatory" checked on them.

Mandatory?

Really?

Yes, and The Report thinks Meeks - if he was exercising due diligence as questioner - should have requested support staff have Campbell come to the next regular commissioner meeting to answer in public view a series of questions:

First:  "Please explain why are these requests for mandatory travel."

Second, he would have wanted to ask:  "Why are three recorder employees attending the very same conference?"  (These are not just any three employees, but include the recorder himself, his chief deputy and another titled employee)

A third question would most certainly have been:  "How can you Recorder Campbell afford to have three key personnel out of the office at the same time?"

Campbell did tell The Report that having all three out of the office at one time will have an adverse affect, to wit:

As I believe continuing education is beneficial to my staff, my staffing level will be lower than optimal for several days.

Talk about euphemism:  " ... staffing level will be lower than optimal ... ."  Hmm?

As far as the SCPR is concerned, Campbell never has forthrightly answered The Report's inquiry for justification of the checked "mandatory" box on the travel requests.  Here is the sum total of Campbell's responses to The Report's pressing on that particular question, to wit:

The conference has discussions, workshops, classes, and networking that allow my staff and myself to learn and discuss issues, problems, laws, and legislation related to our jobs, so that we may improve in our service.

I earn continuing education credits, which allow me to keep my Ohio Recorders Association Certification for Continuing Education.  

Campbell's response beg more questions.  It does not answer the baseline question head on.

To repeat, the SCPR is suspicious that a case for mandatory does not exist.  Why?  Because a specific, direct responsive statement that Put-in-Bay is a mandatory event for him to fulfill his "certification" requirement is missing from email exchanges between The Report and Campbell.  Moreover, what are the specifics that make it mandatory for Gonzalez and Owens to attend?

Remember, all the commissioners have is a checked box on the document requesting travel.

An ongoing mission of the SCPR is to have commissioners (whomever they may be), thoroughly vet each and every expenditure that they approve out of the county general fund.  For if a 0.25% of one percent existing county tax is not renewed, according to County Administrator Mike Hanke; Stark County departments of government are looking at up to 35% in cuts come 2012.

If the approval process is to be anything other than a mere rubber stamp process, commissioners must go beyond the checked box answer.

At the approval meeting, Commissioner Meeks referred to some sort of discussion between the commissioners' office and Campbell on the requests prior to their approval at the formal commissioner meeting.

Why wasn't Campbell told to come to the formal meeting and explain his reasons for needing (in the mandatory sense of need) to spend up to $1,907.00 of taxpayer money?

The SCPR knows from experience that Recorder Campbell likes to come to commissioner meetings.  What could be a more appropriate setting for him having attended?

The Report believes the commissioners should revisit its approval of the recorder's requests with incisive questioning to ensure to taxpayers that they are convinced that, indeed, it is mandatory that Campbell and his two subordinates attend the Put-in-Bay conference.

The Report has heard all three commissioners pontificate about the need of county officials to be exacting in spending public money.

The Report's question is this.  Are the commissioners' words mere rhetoric or are they willing to ask penetrating questions and deny approval when they are not satisfied with the answers?

In short, are the commissioners creditable guardians of the public treasury?

ZERO TOLERANCE? POLITICAL GIMMERICKY IN CANTON UNLESS YOU ARE A SPEEDER?

Only in Canton, Ohio, no?

As most Stark Countians know, Canton police have apparently been directed by the administration of Mayor William J. Healy, II to crack down on speeding on Interstate 77 within city limits in order to help balance the city's budget err... to make the city safer.

Moreover, since Auditor Gary Young of the Canton auditing department is suggesting that he cannot say for sure (e.g. an unplanned shutdown of Interstate 77) that the crackdown for safety will provide the necessary money to balance Canton's budget, The Report is told by a Canton officials that Healy has directed Safety Director Thomas Ream and Police Chief Dean McKimm to crackdown for speed safety in Canton's neighborhoods which will make it much more likely that Canton will generate enough money to balance the 2010 budget with monies actually realized.

Obviously. the crackdown for increased revenues err ... speed safety. means that Canton's police have a lesser ability to deal with actual alleged criminal activity in the city.

The Stark County Political Report has learned that Canton Councilwoman Mary Cirelli (at-large) encountered an interesting situation this past recently at Aldi's out on Route 62 as she endeavor to go through the checkout to pay for merchandise she was purchasing.

As the story goes, she says that she was put on hold by the checkout clerk as store personnel were dealing with an in progress alleged shoplifting.

In a discussion that ensued, store clerks revealed to Cirelli that this was the third time that the store was engaged in trying to thwart the alleged shoplifter and that the Canton Police Department (CPD) refuses to send an officer to the scene.

The police's rationale:  Aldi's video record would later be examined by CPD officials and if the alleged theft was detected then the CPD would publish the photo of the person alleged to be doing the theft on its website in hopes that someone from the public would identify the person to police.

Cirelli, The Report understands, is concerned (as a councilperson) that the apparent disinterest of the CPD in responding immediately when the alleged thief is still in the store communicates the wrong message.  A supplemental Cirelli concern obviously is citizens (including a couple of teenages)  overhearing Aldi personnel describe repetitive occurrences of CPD personnel refusing to respond to an alleged crime in progress.

So Canton has a Zero Tolerance of crime policy, but can't respond to a report of alleged crime in progress?  However, patrolmen can prowl the streets and highways of Canton for speeders?  Wow!

From an email forwarded to the SCPR by a reader:

From: Mary Cirelli

To: mayor healy ; thomas.ream@cantonohio.gov ; dean mckimm

Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 1:59 PM

A direct quote excerpt from Cirelli email, to wit:

I find this totally unacceptable !!! please [Mayor Healy, Safety Director Ream and Police Chief McKimm] let me know the status of the situation so I can share it with my fellow Councilmember's as well as the General Public !!

So what is the reason that the Canton Police Department could not send an officer to Aldi's  to take a report on the alleged theft?

Is it because the Canton PD has strained its law enforcement resources enforcing speed laws throughout the city?

Is the Healy administration with its directives to the Canton Police Department making a mockery of the Healy campaign pledge (the 2007 campaign against Republican Janet Creighton) of Zero Tolerance on dealing with reported criminal allegations?

What's the expression?

"Not a way to run a railroad!!!"