THINGS ARE UNRAVELING FAST IN NORTH CANTON? COUNCIL TO CONSIDER LEGISLATION TONIGHT TO LIMIT THE MAYOR'S SPENDING AUTHORIZATION WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL?

Last week the SCPR reported on an apparent rift between North Canton City Council and the Mayor David Held administration.

Readers will recall that the springboard for the blog was that the Held administration (actually, City Administrator Earle E. Wise, Jr.) requested that Council authorize the administration to spend up to $15,000 for the administration to go out and hire temporary clerical help.

Not only did Council not approve the request, but did so in what The Report thinks was in an insulting way.  A councilperson did move to approve the request.  However, not one single councilperson would second the motion.

A day later The Report spoke with Mayor Held about the matter.  Held described to yours truly about being reduced to one clerical employee while Council has three.  He talked about how he had recently lost an employee to Council.  The mayor did allude to a situation with the move that indicated that it was in the best interest of all that the move be made.  But he did not get anymore specific than that.

Apparently, the request for money for a temporary employee for the administration was to be a "make-up" for the loss of the employee to Council.

Also, readers will recall that the Held administration is using employees from the engineer's office and the civic center to help cope with the excess of work that the administration is inundated with.

Readers of the SCPR know that The Report is not content with a vague reference to relational problems in the administration of city government as being reason for action or inaction.

So The Report turned to a favorite of North Canton government:  Chuck Osborne.

Osborne is a former councilman who is a burr to most of North Canton governmental officials.  A annoying factor about Osborne to a number of the officials is that, in some instances, he knows more about the happenings at North Canton City Hall than some of these same officials.

And Osborne has turned out to be a terrific source to provide the SCPR with "the rest of the story" of the "behind the scenes" activity in the inner chambers of North Canton government.

Osborne says that City Administrator E.E. Wise, Jr is impossible to work with.  And in the switching of the employee from the administration to Council was a consequence of the employee taking no guff from Wise.  Apparently, the air got so saturated with acrimony, it was decided that the best solution for all was to move the employee.

The Report focuses on Osborne's account to make a larger point.

It appears to the SCPR that North Canton Council members, folks like Osborne (and Osborne says he knows of others) are having a difficult time getting along with Wise and that they find it discomforting to engage Wise.

Wise, a Democrat, was a former Stark County prosecutor who has run for a couple of local offices.  The last was for the judgeship of the Stark County Probate Court which he lost to Republican Dixie Park.

His selection by Held, when he took over as mayor, as North Canton's city administrator was hailed in the local media as a breakthrough on partisan politics.  Most local political observers including the SCPR, view North Canton as being a Republican enclave.

In recent times, the SCPR has been hearing a number of rumblings about Council's growing negative perception of Wise's performance.  However, Mayor David Held is not hearing any of it.  He tells the SCPR that Wise has his fullest confidence and that he is paying no attention whatsoever to Council discontent.

 So what is Council to do?

The SCPR believes North Cantonians witnessed the first public shot last Council meeting when the request for the $15,000 was made and rejected out-of-hand.

Unless Council changes it mind, The Report hears that there may be an ordinance on the table at tonight's Council meeting requiring Mayor Held to get specific Council approval for any administration expenditure over $2,500.

Another expected move is for Council to allocate X number of dollars to the Held administration in the 2011 budget (which is expected to have a $231,000 shortfall) with a salutation:  "here is your 2011 allocation boys and girls - spend it any way you like, but there will be no more."

So is there a standoff between Council and the administration in North Canton?

Yes and no.

Council is bending over backwards not to have a fight with the administration.  And Mayor Held, if he is anything, is a peacemaker.

The sticking point?  The SCPR believes it is the continuation of E.E. Wise, Jr as city administrator.

The Report has reason to believe that despite his public stance of "being squarely behind" Administrator Wise, Mayor Held is working the Stark County political circuit to help Wise find a alternative position.

The Report is told that Held had made inquiry with his friends in the Stark County Democratic Party about the availability of an appointment of Wise as a successor to Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler, if Zeigler decides to step down in the light of troubles facing the Stark County treasury over the loss of taxpayer money.

First, the SCPR does not think Zeigler will resign as treasurer.

Second, a Republican (Held) trying to influence the Democrat:  really?

Third, if Zeigler does quit, The Report thinks the position is set aside for Stark County commissioner Steve Meeks should he lose to Republican Janet Creighton in November; which The Report thinks he will.

So what is to happen, if Held cannot find an alternative for Wise?

A continuation of muted acrimony between North Canton City Council and the North Canton administration, that's what.

And that cannot be good for the future of North Canton.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE SUPERINTENDENTS IN STARK EDUCATION? AND STARK'S OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS OELSLAGER, SCHURING, SLESNICK AND SNITCHLER JUST STAND BY AND LET IT HAPPEN?

Disclaimer:  Yours truly's spouse is an elected member of the Stark County Educational Service Center Board of Education.  The view expressed in this blog are the sole opinion(s) of the SCPR.

The Stark County Political Report has been harping on the retire/rehire process in Ohio for some time now.

The Report is pleased to see the magnificent work product of Melissa Griffy Seeton and Dennis J. Willard et al in today's Akron Beacon Journal and Repository.(Many educators dip the system and Superintendents tap pensions while working new jobs) (Willard).

On June 9th, the SCPR did a blog   on William Stetler, the superintendent at Northwest, who did a retire/rehire at Lake before, because of his "inside the education beltway connections" went on to get public jobs with the Ohio Department of Education and now with Northwest.

Bill Stetler, in the view of the SCPR, is one of the most politically savvy and astute educators in Stark County if not in the entirety of Ohio.

What is little understood by the public and, of course, the Stark County public is that Stetler is part of what the SCPR believes is a "good ole boys" superintendent and upper tier school administrators network which is personally loyal to Stark County Educational Service Center (SESC) Superintendent Larry Morgan.

Yours truly has known since the early 1980s that Morgan and his immediate predecessors Curt Hinds and Hem Sims have worked to create what The Report believes to be a "cult of the superintendents" network in Stark.  It appears that Stark's 17 school districts' school boards have obtained their lists - for the most part - for superintendents (when a new one is to be selected) from the Stark County Educational Service Center (formerly the Stark County Board of Education) superintendent, whomever he happened to be.

Of course, the newly selected local school district superintendent would owe the recommending county superintendent a huge debt of gratitude.

As we are learning from Willard, getting one's name on the favored list is just the beginning to getting onto the road to riches at the expense of the tax paying public.

With the help of the legislative "mis" if not "malfeasance" in the policy making realm Ohio's public retirement funds (retire/rehire rules and regulations), within the halls of power in Columbus, superintendents across Ohio have built up sort of a political patronage-esque scheme to create a education political base from which to dictate county education policy and practice to the extent allowed by Ohio law.

The SCPR believes that Stark ESC Superintendent Larry Morgan is the personification of a Stark County educational establishment.  Coupled with the likes of the Stark Educational Partnership (a private non-profit organization headed by Adrienne O'Neill), it is clear to The Report that Morgan controls all of p-12 education policy for the entire county.

This is a system of education that has a remediation rate of 35% or higher for graduates of Stark's finest high schools (Lake and Jackson) who go on to college.   The rate is dramatically higher for Stark's urban school districts. 

As far as the SCPR is concerned, the retire/rehire template has become so marked among top school administrators that it is time to ask the question:  What is the higher priority of education in Stark County - the welfare of Stark's top administrators or improving the quality of education in the county education infrastructure?

Apparently, Morgan et al have not calculated the undermining effect that the unfolding story (going back a number of years) on the retire/rehire largesse and its publicly perceived "insider" aspect (sweeheart arrangements between local boards of education and "retiring" superintendents) is having on local school districts' ability to pass new levies.

The Report believes that investigations like Willard's will ramp up public understanding of what is being done  to them (perfectly legal) as taxpayers and will amp up anti-local tax increase opposition.

Stark County school districts are facing a 30% or better reduction in Ohio funding of local education.  Undoubtedly, local boards of education will have to go to their voting publics for new revenues.

Will one the questions on the minds of voters as the enter the voting booth be:  How many top administrators in my school system are beneficiaries of the retire/rehire?

The Report thinks that the Stark County delegation (i,e. Oelslager, Schuring, Slesnick and Snitchler) to the Ohio General Assembly (particularly Oelslager and Schuring) have stood by and allowed the onset and mushrooming of the retire/rehire scheme of things.

Schuring has been a member of the Ohio Retirement Study Council.  To what effect for the voting public.  Very little, the SCPR thinks.

In the final analysis, when one hears the moaning and groaning by public school officials (top tier administrators and school boards) about their funding difficulties, it is hard to be sympathetic.

Haven't they, in large part, caused a lot of the growing anti-new-tax levy public attitude at their own hand?

Sympathies and condolences should be sent to the students and the families of Stark County and Ohio who appear to well on their way to being sacrificed to the interests of top tier administrators.

As the Willard report says:  

A February study by the Brookings/Greater Ohio Policy Study Center found that Ohio ranks ninth among states in tax dollars spent on administration, but ranks 47th for putting money into classrooms.

So what is Stark and Ohio education mainly about?  Superintendents and their administrative empires or the our kids?

Is there any doubt?

SERIES: HOW ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE STARK COUNTY DELEGATION TO THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY DOING? TODAY: SLESNICK #3

As readers will note, very little of what is introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives gets passed by the House much less passed by the Senate and signed into law by Governor Strickland. Along the way, legislators such as Stephen Slesnick (Democrat - Canton) attach their names as sponsors and co-sponsors of bills which have no chance of passage and many of which are a waste of legislative resources. The SCPR believes that Representative Slesnick is a classical example of an legislator who is not a leader but is a follower.  He appears to have a nose for getting his name attached to bills that get passed by the Ohio House at a minimum and a significant number end up getting enacted into law. But to what end for the benefit for of Ohioans? Here is a report of the bills for this reporting segment (#3) that the SCPR believes may be going nowhere or are close to being inane, if they do eventually pass: HB 62 Primary Sponsor(s):  Pryor Subject:  State licensors-consider military experience/waive fees for veterans HB 63 Primary Sponsor(s):  Letson & Fende Subject:  General Assembly members-perform civil marriage ceremonies HB 75 Primary Sponsor(s):  Chandler & Moran Subject:  Tax refund-contribute to Ohio Historical Society HB 91 Primary Sponsor(s):  Yuko Subject:  Union Workers Memorial Bridge-I-480 in Cuyahoga County

REVISION & UPDATE: STARK COUNTY'S TOP FOUR RACES - 2010

 

For Stark County only, the Stark County Political Report believes that the four listed in the graphic above will prove to be the most interesting and, perhaps, the most significant.

This blog is a revision of one published on February 18th.  Why a revision?  For a couple of reasons.

First, Richard Reinbold has made himself uncompetitve in the 29th Ohio Senate race by eschewing PAC money.  The saying is that "money is the mother's milk of politics."  Reinbold's action is admirable, but going up against the well-established Scott Oelslager is not a race one takes on without mucho, mucho campaign funds.

The SCPR is told that the Ohio Senate Democratic Caucus has no money to put into the Reinbold effort.  And, The Report has learned, Reinbold was not the first choice anyway.  Both county Auditor Kim Perez and Plain Township Trustee Louis Giavasis were preferred over Reinbold to make the run at Oelslager.

 

As if the Senate Democrats are in a position to prefer anyone.  The Caucus is a pathetic excuse for an organized political entity.  Senate minority leader Capri Cafaro has proved to be an ineffective leader.

Apparently, Reinbold is looking to surprise us all and defeat Oelslager by being the unconventional candidate and thereby appeal to an electorate that seems to be tiring of "politics as usual."

The SCPR wishes him well, but The Report does not think this gambit will work to generate interest among Stark County voters.  Moreover, Reinbold by force of his personality does not generate excitement.  Couple having no money with a dull personality and you have a contest that loses its place in the SCPR top four Stark County races for 2010.

Second, The Report's listing of the Meeks/Creighton face-off as the number one attention getter in Stark County politics this year needs a little more explanation.

While the SCPR believes the Snitchler/Bosley match up will be the closest race this fall (likely to remain too close for the SCPR to call right up to election day), its intensity of interest will be for folks like yours truly, the pols in Columbus and, of course, the voters of the 50th Ohio House district.  Not as much in other parts of Stark County which also has the 51st district (Haines [Democrat] v. Schuring [Republican]) and the 52nd (Slesnick [Democrat] v. Secrest [Republican]).

The Meeks/Creighton square-off because the commissioner election will be on the ballot in every Stark County precinct.  

For the foregoing reasons, the SCPR thinks Meeks/Creighton is the top race.

MEEKS/CREIGHTON

Former Canton mayor Janet Creighton entering this field for the full-term commissioner seat being vacated by Commissioner Todd Bosley made this contest #1 on the SCPR's list.  Another factor in bringing this contest to the #1 ranking is that all of Stark County will be voting whereas on the Snitchler/Bosley match-up; only about 1/3rd of Stark County will be voting.

Steve Meeks was appointed by the Stark County Democratic Central Committee to the seat formerly held by Tom Harmon.  But Meeks wants no part of coming up for re-election in two years.  The next two years may be the most difficult that Stark County (in the government sense) has ever faced.  

Why?

Because there is no money and there is not going to be any new money for the foreseeable future. Maybe, and only maybe, there might be a renewal of the existing sales tax.  

How will this impact running for commissioner in 2012 for an incumbent?

This way.

The commissioners will have to make draconian cuts in county services to Stark Countians.  And the cuts are not going to set well.  The public really does expect the commissioners to take care of the entire county with a few fishes and loaves.  When the manna from Heaven stops raining, then the grumbling will start and in the end sitting commissioners will be the butt of citizen anger.

So 2012 is not a time to be running for re-election.  That's why Meeks ducked out of the two years left on his term for the four years that Commissioner Bosley would have stood for if he had not decided to run for state representative (the 50th).

Meeks might have made an unwise choice.  Had he stayed in the two-year term race, he would have won hands down as former Canton law director, city councilman, chief of staff and service director (Healy administration) will.  However, Bernabei likely just plans to be a commissioner for two years to do what he can to help straighten Stark County finances out and then move on with his life.

Another thing that Meeks had planned on was who his opponent would be on the full term.

Undoubtedly, his jaw dropped when he saw that former Canton mayor and countywide officeholder Janet Creighton had taken out a petition.

And so it should.

It is pretty clear to the SCPR that Meeks cannot defeat Creighton and that he will be giving up his commissioner's seat come December 31, 2010. 

A Creighton victory will be good for Stark County.  Democrats have had a stranglehold over countywide offices for a number of years now.  Such has turned out to be a bad trip for the county.

BOSLEY/SNITCHLER

Number 2 on the SCPR list.  

Why?

Because this seat is a Republican gerrymandered one designed to keep a "safe district" Republican in the Ohio House.  The gerrymandering sheltered the lazy, politically inept John Hagan for a full 8 years in the House.  Hagan proved his political ineptness when - notwithstanding his long run as a Stark County politician -  he lost to political novice Pete Ferguson over a 2008 commissioners position in a politically competitive environment.

However, with the entry of Todd Bosley into the 50th Ohio House district seat, there is a chance that the Republican "fix" will become unfixed.

Had he not been the leading architect for the imposing of a 0.50 of a percent countywide sales/use tax increase in December, 2008, Bosley likely would be a shoe-in to win the 50th.

Because he did the "politically" wrong thing to do, he is reduced in the SCPR's opinion to having a chance to win the 50th.

Bosley will be hammering away at Snitchler as being a "do-nothing," "right-wing ideologue" state representative. Moreover, Snitchler's political romance with the right wing of Stark County Republicans (the teabaggers) could end up costing him the election.  He spoke at the original teabagger event on April 15, 2009 and is scheduled to speak once again at a teabagger event in Navarre on June 27th.

Snitchler, on the other hand, will - one way or another - play to the imposed tax as indicating that Bosley will be a "tax and spend" Democrat if he were to be sent to Columbus.  The Report has been told that "Vote No Increased Taxes" member Tom Marcelli (Bethlehem Township - the home of Navarre) will be working on the Snitchler campaign.  

This could be a good development for Snitchler.  He could appear to be taking the "above it all" road while letting the likes of Marcelli and his "Vote No" friends hammer Bosley on the imposed tax.  If the Vote Nos can turn a substantial portion of the 60 plus percent of "no" voting Stark Countians on the retention of the tax into Snitchler voters,  such could be a difference-maker positive for Snitchler.

One other important note about the outcome of Bosley/Snitchler.

Could a loss by either be the end of a a Stark County political career?

BOCCIERI/RENACCI

This race will be won or lost in Stark County, Although the 16th congressional district includes Wayne County and parts of Medina and Ashland, Stark will dominate.

Jim Renacci has made a huge blunder in his campaign.  He has drifted to the right of the Republican Party.  In order to win in the 16th, one needs to be at least "right, center."  

The reason that three (Stark, Medina and Wayne) of the four county Republican chairmen endorsed Renacci in the Republican primary was that he was perceived to be the most moderate and therefore the most capable of winning in November.  Otherwise, the person to get behind would have been Matt Miller of Ashland County who gave Ralph Regula and Kirk Schuring (2008) all they wanted in terms of competition for the Republican nomination.

The SCPR expected Renacci to be way more moderate in his views than Miller, Smith and Schiffer.  But he wasn't.  Everything that The Report saw coming out of the Renacci camp was:  "How can I appeal to the Miller and Schiffer" crowd.  

Jim Rennaci should be going nowhere near the Navarre teabagger event scheduled for June 27th.  But he is.  And his doing so will help solidify in the mind of Stark Countians that Renacci is a Republican right type candidate.

Very few, if any, right wing voters are going to vote for incumbent Congressman John Boccieri (Democrat - Alliance).  However, Boccieri is a conservative Democrat who will play well in the district.  Especially well in the Stark County part of the district.

So for Reanacci to court the teabaggers is like preaching to the choir.  And the choir will vote for him.  There are just not enough of them in the 16th to elect him.

There is plenty for Renacci to go after Boccieri on:  Flip-flopping just to name one (cap and trade as well as healthcare).  However, he will be so hung up on the right wing lunacy that he, in critiquing Boccieri, will sound likes Michele Bachman of Minnesota.  The right wing message will not play in most of Stark County.

Also, in this election for Stark Countians, Renacci is the outsider.  Boccieri is a Stark Countian for two years now.  Rennacci is not even a native Ohioan.  Rather a Pennsylvainian.  So he will not be able to whip up the winds of discontent on Boccieri being a capetbagger.  No much of a loss for Renacci, as we all saw how much of a non-issue that was with voters for Schuring in 2008.

By the way, if Kirk Schuring were running this time around, he would do much better in Stark County and, perhaps, be able to eke out a narrow victory.

Even so (Renacci drifting to the political right), Boccieri/Renacci will be a competitive race.  Boccieri will not win by the roughly 10% (as predicted early on by the SCPR) he won by against Stark Countian Kirk Schuring.  More like about three or four percentage points this time around.

This is not a Democratic year for congressional races.  That Boccieri wins in an off year for Democrats means that he could be on his way to being a long-term congressman from Ohio's 16th congressional district.

 PEREZ/HAROLD

The main question here is:  Will Alan Harold stay in this race?

Two years ago he was slated to run against the now-beleaguered Gary Zeigler (Stark County treasurer).  But he didn't.  The "story on the street" is that Harold's employer asked him to step aside after high-level state Democrats complained about Harold's candidacy to Huntington.

The SCPR asked Harold about this story.  His response:  "No comment."

Harold's whole handing of the Zeigler thing leads The Report to believe that Harold has no stomach for "down and dirty" politics.

And if he gets queasy about roughhouse politics, taking on Stark County auditor Kim Perez is not the place to be in a run for political office.

Although somewhat of a maverick in Stark County Democratic politics with his own political base (much like Commissioner Todd Bosley), he is a political power broker and likely will teach Harold a political lesson that Harold will not forget for years.

Harold will learn that taking on Perez is not like showing up at a Congressman John Boccieri campaign event (at the Sunoco station on Tuscarawas) with a sign in hand and yelling at the top of one's lungs.

Perhaps, in the light of the BP Gulf of Mexico massive oil leak, Harold would like to do an encore performance of his "drill, baby, drill" chant at the Sunoco station?

And it is not like running for a place on the Stark County Educational Service Center (formerly known as the Stark County Board of Education).

Apparently, the board candidacy was a "dry run" for taking on Perez.  Well, if Harold duplicates that effort in his vying with Perez, he will be looking wistfully at his numbers achieved in the board race (he narrowly lost).

Another campaign like that one will leave him a distant, distant second in a two-man race!

ARE DAVID HELD'S DAYS NUMBERED AS MAYOR OF NORTH CANTON?

UPDATE:  06/17/2010 AT 10:00 AM

Mayor David Held contacted the SCPR to tell his version of the story of Council rejecting his administration's request for a $15,000 allocation to hire temporary help to be used to relieve the administrative burden engulfing city hall.

Currently, the administration is bringing, on an alternative basis, an employee from the city engineer's office and the Civic Center to handle the excess work on a part-of=the-day basis.

Held says that he has one person to service his operations, the functions of City Administrator Earle E. Wise, Jr and the economic development department.administrative tasks.  The Mayor was not at Monday's Council meeting and says that the request was made by Wise.

Meanwhile, Mayor Held pointed out that Council is adding to the work of the Mayor's court (i.e. hearing nuisance cases, et cetera).

Will Held be going back to Council again on the Wise request?  No, he says.  He is determined to live within the constraints places on the administration by Council.

Moreover, Held highlighted repeatedly in our conversation that Council has three employees.  He did not use the word "unfair" in our talk, but that was the clear inference that The Report took away from the confab.

When The Report suggested that Councilman Jeff Davies may be behind his administration's troubles with Council, all Held did was chuckle.  He said he is not about to get into a fight with Davies or anyone else on Council that his attitude is to work hard to improve North Canton's provision of city services while reducing costs.

He says that he has reduced the number of employees during his term in office from 116 to 95.

So it appears to the SCPR that there will be no open warfare in North Canton government. 

But that doesn't mean there won't be an undertow of discord.

And as we all know from life experience, undertow's can mature into a crisis in a hurry.



ORIGINAL POST

Yours truly was just in hometown Gettysburg, Pennsylvania this past weekend for a high school reunion.  Oldest daughter is in Washington, DC for the summer with her family and we hooked up in Gettysburg so that the family could get an "expert-led" led tour of the historic civil war battlefield.

Our starting point was the Gettysburg National Military Park Visitors Center.  Since the Electric Map is no longer in existence, the Visitors Center is the only alternative with which to get an overall view (via a well-made film) of the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1 - 3, 1863). Yours truly did not witness the battle).

In the presentation, the narrator mentions the Confederate firing on the Union water bound fortress of Fort Sumpter on April 12, 1861 as being the "opening shot" of the Civil War.

Monday night's North Canton City Council meeting may well have been the "opening shot" of a political civil war between Mayor David Held and a majority of North Canton City Council members.

Held asked for $15,000 to do some stop-gap hiring for the city's administration.  A motion was made, but it did not get seconded and, of course, wasn't voted on.

The SCPR has known since the summer of 2008 that at least one member of Council (Jeff Davies) and perhaps others were not enamored with Mayor Held.  Apparently, most, if not all of Council, is now about joining Davies to rein Held and his administration in.

Davies' complaint back in 2008 was that he performs as a "weak mayor" and that he was fast losing respect of Council.  Yours truly has brought this up directly to Held who more or less pooh-poohed the entire notion of Council unhappiness.  Rather, he thought, it was just Davies talk.

Is Held in for a shock, if he doesn't already know it?

The SCPR understands that the word is to be put out to Held that he must make substantial cuts in the administration's use of city revenues.  And if he doesn't?

Then Council will make the cuts for him.

How so?

It will appropriate X number of dollars to administration in a kind of "Here it is boys and girls, spend it as you wish; but this is all you are getting."

And The Report understands that the Council strategy is pretty much supported by all members of Council.

So do you think Mayor Held is likely to get the message?

Mayor Held is the eternal peacemaker.  So expect him to use his peacemaking skills to change some Council members' minds.  If he can do that, then maybe there will be another day for Held to fire back.

Otherwise, the war is over and David Held could be on his way out as mayor of North Canton.

There is talk that Councilman Davies will run against Mayor Held next year.  Wouldn't surprise the SCPR.  Held embarrassed Davies earlier this year in making an issue out of a certain North Canton employee allegations that Davies was acting inappropriately.

North Canton's law director decided that the allegations were not substantive enough to pursue action against Davies.

Another player in all of this is community activist Chuck Osborne (a former councilman).  Osborne is particularly put out with City Administrator Earle Wise, Jr.  The question is this.  Is he so negative on Wise that he will take up sides with Davies et al?

The final question:  How long will this war go on in North Canton between the Administration and Council?

Because we know that the first shot has been fired!!!

TREASURER GARY ZEIGLER REPORTEDLY HAS MADE 14 CHANGES IN HIS OFFICE SINCE "THE AUDIT." ISN'T IT LIKELY THAT STARK COUNTY VOTERS WILL WANT TO MAKE A 15TH CHANGE COME NOVEMBER OF 2012?

Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler is probably just hoping against hope to ride out the political storm in process over his firing of his chief deputy Vince Frustaci in April, 2009 amid allegations by Zeigler that Frustaci had stolen from the Stark treasury.

Many Stark Countians are really, really mad that taxpayer money is missing from the treasury.  This comes at a time that Stark County is facing its largest financial crisis in history (except, maybe, during The Great Depression). 

Zeigler says he did what he was charged by law to do in order to avert any theft and once it occurred, he did what he was charged by law to do in reporting the alleged theft.

Zeigler can say what he says, but the bottom line is that Stark County voters will have the final say in terms of how they think he managed the Stark treasury when it comes to his expected bid for re-election come November, 2010.

The SCPR is going out on a limb over two years out from the election and making a prediction.  Even though more than two years remain in Zeigler's current term (remember he ran unopposed thanks to the cowardly Republican Alan Harold - now running for auditor), Stark County voters will not have forgotten the treasury's troubles in November, 2012 and they will hold Zeigler accountable.

Stark Countians are being insulted again by the combo of the State of Ohio Auditor's office and Zeigler's office.  Several weeks back, it became known that the Auditor and the Stark treasury had reached an accord in what is called "a letter of arrangement" as to Stark County's responsibility to pick up the tab for the cost of a forensic audit in light of the alleged theft.

But nobody in Stark County knew about it because the Auditor suggested to Zeigler, who on advice of his treasury office legal counsel, accepted the suggestion that Zeigler not keep a copy of the letter so as not to make it a public record.  For its part, the Auditor's office claim immunity from the letter's discovery because it was part of an ongoing investigation.

Today we learn in a Repository piece by Kelli Young (Stark treasurer receives state report on special audit) that the Ohio Auditor and Zeigler are claiming confidentiality in revealing the contents of the report which specifically states how much money is missing from the Stark treasury.

The SCPR has this question to ask of Auditor Mary Taylor and Treasurer Zeigler:  Do we live in a Democracy or not? 

Are the American and Stark County people entitled to know about the content of their government operations or not?

Taylor is up for election this year as the running mate of John Kasich as the Republican lieutenant governor candidate.  Hmm?  Election of a person who withholds information of government operations from the voting public? 

Voters should pause for thought before voting for a Kasich/Taylor ticket.  Not fair to Kasich?  You bet.  But he can always remove her from the ticket.  The way she runs the auditor's office is not as a small "d"emocrat.

Zeigler can point to Taylor's auditor operation all he wants to as a reason for his withholding information that the public ought to have.  But as he demonstrated in the "letter of arrangement" situation, he had the right (according to the state Auditor) to release the information.  Under public pressure, he eventually did so.  Are we in for a deja vu, all over again Yogi Berra-esque maneuver?

Young in another piece entitled Stark treasurer makes changes in wake of investigation (June 14), describes 14 changes made in the procedures of the Stark treasury.

Hmm?

The question that these changes leaves the SCPR with is this:  Is there a 15th change coming?

The answer:  Likely, yes.  But it will be a while before that change is coming.  And, the 15th change will not be one that Treasurer Zeigler effects.

It will be done by the voters of Stark County!

IS SNITCHLER OR BOSLEY BEHIND IN FUNDRAISING? ALSO, IS SNITCHLER DEVISING A PLAN TO USE "VOTE NO FOR INCREASED TAXES" MEMBER TOM MARCELLI AS A SURROGATE TO POLITICALLY ATTACK BOSLEY ON THE "IMPOSED" SALES TAX?

Todd Snitchler's opponent Todd Bosley says he hopes to raise $100,000.  The question is this.  Can Republican incumbent Snitchler exceed Bosley's goal?

This is a critical question for Snitchler.  Because if he wants to remain as the representative for the 50th House District (Lake, Marlboro, Nimishillen Osnaburg, Sandy, Sugarcreek, Tuscarwas, Lawrence and Perry [partial] Townships, including the villages and cities in each township), he will have to.

The 50th is a Republican indexed district and Snitchler being the incumbent clearly has the advantage.  But if he runs short of money come September and October, then the advantage is lost.

The SCPR hears that the Ohio House Republican Caucus has about $2 million to spend on House races whereas the Dems have about $6 million .

What the disparity means is that the Democrats will be able to put much more money from Columbus.

The Democrats won control of the Ohio House in 2008 after being on the outside looking in for many years.  The question now is whether or not they can maintain control.  With the larger campaign bankroll, the Dems will pour tons of money into the 50th.  The Report hears that the Snitchler/Bosley contest is the Democrats #1 priority in terms of being a targeted race.

The SCPR believes that this race could decide who controls the Ohio House come November 3, 2010.

Snitchler is ahead of Bosley in funds on hand as of June 4, 2010 by a margin $34,877.03 to $32,496.60.  However, Bosley out raised Snitchler for the period of late February through June 4th by a hefty $39,725 to $8,225.00.

It appears from the June 11th numbers that Bosley is on a roll whereas Snitchler is tailing off dramatically.

All but $1,100 or 86% of Snitchler's money came for political action committees (PACs) which included utilities, financial interest, insurance, cable television and the like.  None of Snitchler's contributions were $100.

The SCPR believes that the face off between Snitchler and Bosley will be a cliffhanger.  Bosley narrowly defeated Republican Commissioner Richard Regula in 2006 in a stunning upset.

Were Bosley to defeat Snitchler, it would be a huge win for the Democrats.  And there are factors which could turn mattes Bosley's way:  the money, his campaign energy (which Regula miscalculated) and the fact that his family has been in the septic business within what is now known as the 50th (formerly the 56th) for about 50 years.

However, The Report believes Bosley is vulnerable to losing votes (perhaps the election, if it is close) on account of his having voted to impose a 0.50 of one percent sales/use tax in December, 2008 in his capacity as county commissioner.

The SCPR is told that the Snitchler camp is preparing to use Tom Marcelli (Bethlehem Township which is in the 50th) of the "Vote No Increased Taxes Committee" (in opposition to the imposed tax) to lead the political attack against Bosley on the tax issue. Apparently, Snitchler wants to avoid direct involvement on this issue.

Earlier this year (March 4, 2010) Marcelli was in attendance at a Snitchler "campaign?" event at the Lake Branch of the Stark County District Library at which Snitchler sponsored a presentation on the mechanics and desired outcome of performance audits of government operations.

Another "person of interest" who supports Snitchler is Michael Cunnington of the Strategic Public Partners Group (formerly, executive director of the Stark County Republican Party).

Cunnington made the local news recently as the organizer of an initiative to get 10% of Canton voters to sign a petition to place a charter initiative on November's ballot.  Cunnington bills himself as a "policy wonk."  Hmm?

Recently, a SCPR check of his political contributions and receipts from campaigns (an expense to the campaign) shows the following:

Right now the SCPR rates this political fight as a toss up.  It could go either way.  The outcome likely will depend on who has the most money, who knocks on more doors and who becomes the better known candidate.  Positions on various issues could also play into the result. 

This Snitchler/Bosley match up will be a classic political confrontation between a man (Snitchler) who apparently thinks that a free and open marketplace and privatization of government functions is a panacea of what ails government and a man (Bosley) who believes that government (e.g. 9-1-1) in many areas of life is the only effective means to protect citizens from private sector abuses.