NORTH CANTON CIVIC ACTIVIST CHUCK OSBORNE HAS A WINNER ON PETITION TO LIMIT HEALTHCARE INSURANCE BENEFITS OF CERTAIN NORTH CANTON OFFICIALS, NO?

Anyone who believes in keeping public officials accountable to the voting public has to admire North Cantonian Chuck Osborne.

The one time North Canton councilman (2001 - 2003) who ran for mayor in 2003 after serving one term on council has been a regular on the public speaks portion of the North Canton City Council agenda ever since his term as councilman expired. 

He ran for Ward 3 councilman in 2005 and for councilman-at-large in 2011 but was defeated on both occasions.

Osborne told the North Canton Patch's Morgan Day in an article pertaining to his campaign for councilman-at-large (published July 27, 2011):

I feel government should be run as a business and that government must work for the citizens. Further, government must be held accountable and the only way to do this is for there to be citizen participation in the democratic process.

After extensive research, I have contributed to this process on many issues. Compiled on a North Canton Blog, titled “Open, Honest Government for North Canton,” are many whitepapers I have presented to North Canton City Council. (emphasis added)

The former North Canton councilman has been ruminating on the matter of part-time North Canton elected officials getting city contributions for the purchase of healthcare insurance benefits stopped for some time.  As can be seen in the sampling of titles of Osborne's so-called "whitepapers" (see below), dated September 26, 2011 was titled: North Canton's Health Insurance Benefits to Part-time Elected Officials Are Overly Generous.

So it was only after council refused to act on his request that he determined he had to go the next step in order to get something done about what he termed "overly generous" health insurance benefits that he began on May 9th to circulate a petition to force a vote on the issue by North Canton's voters this November.

It is truly impressive that Osborne has been able to collect 1,108 signatures in a little less than 30 days.  And it appears from the SCPR's examination of the petitions that Osborne circulated each and every one of the 30 pages of petitions.  He needs approximately 746 valid signatures to force the matter onto the ballot.

The SCPR has examined two pages (76 signatures) of the filed (with the North Canton clerk of council) petition and as able to confirm that better than 90% of the the signatures "appear" to be those of registered voters.  Of course, readers of The Report are reminded that it is the Stark County Board of Elections which determines whether or not a signature is qualifies as a valid signature.

If that trend hold true for all 30 pages of signatures, then the required 746 or so required signatures will be exceeded by a comfortable margin.

The collecting of 1,108 signatures had to be somewhat surprising to several of North Canton's part-time elected officials.  The Report was told that Osborne might have trouble collecting signatures on the basis that these same officials reporting to yours truly that a number of residents recited to them that whenever Chuck Osborne showed up on their doorstep (in his campaigns for office) they did not answer the door.

Somewhat related to the current initiative petition is one circulated by Osborne back in 2003 in that he was told how wrong he was by the editors at The Repository, to wit:

Well, editors, it turns out that Osborne was likely correct on the issue.

The Report was told by council president Jon Snyder recently that the appraisal of Arrowhead stands at $1.9 million and that obviously, in hindsight, North Canton overpaid for Arrowhead.  To this day North Canton government is trying to figure out what to do with Arrowhead.

The strangest thing about The Repository's editorial was:  "If you see Chuck Osborne coming toward you with a clipboard and a pen, run away."

A newspaper that celebrates Sunshine Week each and every year says this about a citizen who not only talks democracy but goes out and does it.  Strange indeed!

Obviously, Osborne did not prevail on Arrowhead, but the SCPR thinks if he gets the 746 or so validated signatures he needs, he may well win with North Canton voters on this one.

A June 7th New York Times piece (San Diego and San Jose Lead the Way in Pension Cuts, Michael Cooper and Mary Williams Walsh) the following appeared:

Residents of San Diego and San Jose voted overwhelmingly to cut the pension benefits they give city workers. And they did so in a way governments traditionally avoid: moving to cut not just the benefits of future hires, but also those of current city workers, whose pensions generally have much stronger legal protections than those of private-sector workers.

While pension benefits are not healthcare insurance benefits, how much different are they in terms of local governments having been in the past "overly generous."

And what is the headline in Osborne's whitepaper?  North Canton's Health Insurance Benefits to Part-time Elected Officials Are Overly Generous!

While Osborne's batting average on changing the minds of North Canton's councilpersons on various ordinances, or in convincing the 5th District Court of Appeals (in 2008) to let his initiative petition on North Canton's use and disposition of Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) monies stand, or in getting North Cantonians to sign onto his drive to undo the Arrowhead deal, the SCPR believes he may have struck "citizen-activist" gold this time around.

But we still have to wait to see if there are enough valid signatures.

However, in the opinion of the SCPR Osborne needs to acquire additional measures of political maturity.

It appears to The Report that Osborne at one time thought that yours truly was so well taken with his obvious dedication to whatever North Canton civic cause he might be engaged in that he was immune to scrutiny.

But he was and is wrong, if such is his perception and will be in the future if he persists.

The Stark County Political Report is not into giving public figures and public officials immunity from examination merely because they have done some good things for the community in the past.

Osborne has not in the judgment of The Report handled SCPR criticism nor other public criticism of his ways and means and, sometimes, the substance of his activism with  aplomb.

Osborne renders a valuable service to North Canton and the Stark County communities with his civic activism as long as his discourse is civil and ordered.

A number of North Canton officials has spoken positively to The Report about Osborne's dedication to task and thoroughness of effort.  But they lessen their overall evaluation of his civic contributions in the face of the all too frequent temper tantrums and the like they say they have experienced when things do not go his way.

Again, the SCPR thinks Osborne's petition stands a good chance of success if it reaches the ballot.

If his proposal does make it to the ballot and passes, how will Osborne manage the success?

It will be interesting to see going into the future whether or not he will see the wisdom, in terms of civic effectiveness, in considering making adjustments to his tone and temperament in his political give and take with others.

(VIDEO: EDDLEMAN, CONCATTO AND BERNABEI) IT'S OFFICIAL! COUNTYWIDE 9-1-1 IS NOW ON "BACKBURNER." WHO MIGHT HAVE DONE THE POLITICAL SABOTAGE?

On Monday just passed at the Stark County Council on Governments (SCOG) regular monthly meeting, Marlboro Township trustee and SCOG member Kenneth Eddleman asked 9-1-1 rehabilitation project manager Joe Concatto whether or not the rebuild of the system was on the "backburner."

Concatto's answer:  "I guess you could put it that way."

Another terrific question asked by Eddlemen was what is the point of extending Concatto as project manager (which was done on Monday at the SCOG meeting for an additions six months) if the matter is on the "backburner."

Over the last six months, SCOG paid Concatto $2,100 to continue on as needed as project manager.

Here's the video of the the exchange between Eddleman and Concatto.



And you can believe the SCPR in saying that Concatto was being kind, very kind to SCOG chairman Thomas Ream in not fingering the chairman as a factor is the 9-1-1 project achieving the dubious distinction of being put on the "backburner."

The Report sees him as being in league with Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II to bring what was once "full speed ahead," on rebuilding, what was pronounced in a commissioned report circa 2007/2008 as being  a "broken 9-1-1," to a near grinding halt.

Any further progress of bringing county wide 9-1-1 reform may be permanently derailed.

For those readers who are not all that familiar with the history of the 9-1-1 saga, here are a couple links.

•  Blog:  February 28, 2012
•  Blog:  April 12, 2011

A  more thorough search of the blogs of the SCPR will yield many, many blogs on the progression of the 9-1-1 in the glory of all its "fits and starts and stops and restarts" due to the politics of the situation.

The project is now at a point that the Stark County commissioners are not sure which direction to go with the $2.1 million that they hold as residue of monies collected as a consequence of a December, 2008 "imposed" sales tax increase voted in by the then-commissioners Bosley, Harmon, and Vignos.

One of the reasons given for the stall in progress on the 9-1-1 rebuild at Monday's meeting by Concatto was that he is waiting for the commissioners to decide as to whether or not to spend money on "state-of-the-art" dispatching software (Computer-Assisted-Dispatch/CAD) or apply it to buying and distributing 800 mhz radios to Stark's police and fire departments.

What he didn't say was that because Healy through Safety Director Ream withdrew the leasing offer of the city of Canton owned Canton Communications Center after leading the likes of SCOG Governance Committee chair Randy Gonzalez to believe that a SCOG run refurbished 9-1-1 would be able to integrate the Canton center at lease cost of $1 per year.

But as the actual time for the transaction to transpire neared, Healy and Ream started inching away and later seemed to be running away from Canton's commitment leaving the countywide 9-1-1 rehab "in the lurch," as it were.

The Canton "monkey wrench" has had what appears to be the desired effect which The Report believes was contemplated by Healy. "On the backburner" may not be an apt description of the project.  It may be for all intents purposes dead.

Even the Stark County commissioners (Bernabei and Creighton both have anti-Healy track records), have been forced to rethink what is to be done with the money the commissioners are holding for 9-1-1.

The Report caught up with Commissioner Thomas Bernabei after the end of the commissioners' regular Wednesday meeting (June 6, 2012).

Here is what he had to say:



While the Healy/Ream "foot dragging" is not the only reason for the stall/stoppage of the 9-1-1 project to the SCPR's way of thinking, IT IS the MAIN reason.

For them, as The Report sees it, the "foot dragging" is mostly about the mayor being in control when, if ever, the 9-1-1 would be completed.   Healy is well known in Stark County government and political circles as being a "my way or the highway" sort of guy.

Sooner or later,  it is predictable that there will be a failure to provide effective call receiving/dispatching coordination with the consequences being an ensuing human tragedy.  And, undoubtedly, we will then hear that if we had this software or that hardware or facility et cetera,  the failure would not have occurred.

The SCPR wants to know if Mayor Healy and his ally Ream will be stepping forward in the wake of such a tragedy to accept some of the responsibility for the failure?

It seems to The Report as if public officials like Healy and Ream think they can play their political games with the public welfare and safety and not be held accountable.

(VIDEO: CONCATTO, REAM & GONZALEZ) - WILL OHIO CUT OFF FUNDING FOR 9-1-1 CELLPHONE CALL RECEIVING? WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS OF STARK CO. CALL CENTER SHUTDOWN ON RECEIVING CELLPHONE GENERATED 9-1-1 CALLS?

It was quite surprising to hear 9-1-1 Project Manager Joe Concatto (see video below) suggest that Stark County should consider not taking 9-1-1 emergency cell phone calls placed to towers located in Stark County if the state of Ohio fails to renew a monthly 28 cent tax which expires on December 31, 2012.

Watch as Stark Council of Governments (SCOG) chairman and Canton Safety Director Thomas Ream expresses his pessimism that the tax will be renewed at this past Monday's SCOG general membership meeting .



Others were not so down-in-the-mouth about the prospects of the tax being renewed.

They include Concatto and SCOG Governance Committee Chair Randy Gonzalez (also Jackson Township fiscal officer) as also seen in the video.

Gonzalez is having state Rep. Kirk Schuring come to the next committee meetingt Thursday, June 14,  at Jackson Twp. Safety Center (meeting time:  1:30 p.m.) to describe the likelihood of getting the tax extended.

Also included in the more optimistic view is Stark County Emergency Management Agency Director Tim Warstler (who did not attend Monday's meeting).

Warstler says he believes that when the smoke clears and when election day November 8th comes and goes, the Legislature will get down to business and pass an extension of the tax like it did four years ago.

The tax has been in existence for eight years and has been used by Stark County to purchase the equipment and software it needs to place Stark's emergency cell phone receiving capacity in "state-of-the-art" status with the ability to upgrade as equipment and software need replacement about every five to seven year.

Warstler says Stark is "good to go" for at least until 2015 and perhaps until 2017 whether or not the tax (fee) is extended. 

While he downplayed Concatto's suggestion, he did not foreclose the possibility that should Ohio funding dry up that Stark County could be forced to instruct the cell phone industry not to forward cell phone generated 9-1-1 emergency calls to the Stark County Call Center.

If such were to happen, Warstler says a likely scenario would include a return to the "old days" wherein cell phone calls were handled by the Ohio State Patrol.

But he emphasized that he felt that the tax would be renewed and that the talk about Stark County possibly getting out of the business of taking cell phone initiated 9-1-1 emergency calls.

What strikes the SCPR about this speculative discussion started by Concatto is how political the continued existence of basic and critical services to the general public is.

In yesterday's blog, the topics were the continued viability the Stark County Narcotics Metro Unit (Metro) and the Stark County Crime Lab (Lab).

Viability?

Yes.

The Ohio General Assembly including local Republican legislators Christina Hagan, Kirk Schuring and Scott Oelslager (sort of) voted to support Republican Governor John Kasich's call for massive reductions in local government funding which support, either in part or wholly, programs like Metro and the Lab.

Now it becomes a political question of whether or not Ohio wants to continue to financially support the infrastructure of cell phone 9-1-1 emergency calls.  As most political observers know, Republican officeholders these days are quick to kill any taxes (fees) they can get their hands on no matter how important the cause may be.

So the next time Stark Countians are tempted to think that what the likes of Hagan, Oelslager, Schuring and Slesnick (Democrat - Canton) do in Columbus does not have much to do with day-in, day-out life here in Stark, think again.

Just in areas of crime management and emergency services cost cutting in the Ohio General Assembly could include:

• not getting drug dealers off Stark County streets,
• huge delays in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, and
• the elimination of county cell phone users ability to make emergency 9-1-1 calls direct to Stark County emergency responders

It is important for Stark Countians keep abreast of Hagan, Oelslager, Schuring and Slesnick and hold them accountable for what they do in the Columbus beltway that affects all of us Ohioans and Stark Countians.

(VIDEOS: REAM, SWANSON, McDONALD, OLIVER, MARTUCCIO & HANKE) ARE THE STARK COUNTY METRO NARCOTICS UNIT & CRIME LAB IN JEOPARDY BECAUSE OF STATE OF OHIO LOCAL GOV"T FUND CUTS? WILL OELSLAGER, HAGAN & SCHURING HEED SCOG PLEA TO GET BEHIND HB 471 & RESTORE SOME LCL GOV'T FUNDING?

UPDATE:  06/06/2012 AT 4:00 PM

Larry Dordea (Hartville chief of police and Republican Alliance city councilman-at-large) has brought to the SCPR's attention that he believes that this blog's statement as to his position (on the basis of prior conversations between The Report and Dordea) on the Stark County Crime Lab does not adequately convey his strong support for the lab.  He agrees with those who point out that if Stark County did not have the crime lab, Stark County law enforcement agencies would be greatly disadvantaged if they had to rely on the state of Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI).

As is always the case with The Report, subjects of the blog get a full and complete opportunity to respond to yours truly's take on them as public figures and/or positions on issues discussed in the Stark County Political Report.

As for the Dordea/McDonald match up, the SCPR believes this race is akin to that between Republican Alex Zumbar and Democrat Ken Koher for Stark County treasurer in November, 2010.

Stark Countians will benefit, no matter who among the two is victorious in November of this year.

ORIGINAL BLOG

Watching and listening to the Stark County Council of Governments (SCOG) monthly meeting yesterday was a sobering experience as it became apparent that "the chickens are coming home to roost" in terms of real world consequences coming to Stark because the Republican dominated Ohio General Assembly voted last year to dramatically cut the state Local Government Fund (LGF) allocations to Ohio's cities, villages and townships for the biennium 2012-2013 fiscal years.

It appears to the SCPR that the cuts could undermine law enforcement efforts in Stark County.

Yesterday, the membership of SCOG voted to eliminate some $160,000 plus in annual payments to the Stark County Metropolitan Narcotics unit. While Sheriff Swanson said that the department would continue operating the unit, it is hard to believe that the loss of the SCOG funding will not diminish the units effectiveness.

Here is a sampling of SCOG's discussion of the issue featuring SCOG Chairman and Canton Safety Director Thomas Ream, Stark County Sheriff Tim Swanson and Stark Narcotics head Sgt. John Oliver.



And here is the videotaped statement of Chief Deputy Sheriff (Jail Division) Mike McDonald who is also a candidate for sheriff in November against Hartville police chief and Republican Alliance city councilman-at-large Larry Dordea:



CLICK HERE to link with the Stark County Sheriff's website which explains the history, mission and composition of the unit.

SCOG members also discussed the future for SCOG's pride and joy project - the Stark County Crime Lab.  There was a whole lot of concern of where they are going to find the funding for it  beyond 2013.

So it seems to The Report that Stark County is going to have its law enforcement and criminal justice system adversely affected by the state cuts  notwithstanding the fact that Stark Countians voted to approve a 0.5% sales tax in November, 2011 in order to solve a financial crisis that county government was experiencing.

The levy was sold to the public on the basis of being used to used to undo severe cuts in the law enforcement and justice system of Stark County made in 2011.

And the Stark County commissioners have been good to their word and have begun restoring affected departments of county government to their 2010 levels.

Republican members of the Stark County delegation (Christina Hagan - the 50th House District, Scott Oelslager * - the 29th Senate District and Kirk Schuring - the 51st House District) voted for the budget bill (HB 153) and for ending the Ohio Estate Tax (beginning January 1, 2013).

Notice that there is an asterisk by Oelslager.  The asterisk is next to his name because he originally voted for HB 153 but then voted against it in the final vote.  One would think that by voting "no" on the final bill, he should be given credit  for being against cuts in local government funding, no?

No!

Why not?

Because he gave as the reason in a Repository report for voting "no" on the bill as being that: 

[h]e opposed the conference committee inserting provisions into the bill related to merit pay and performance standards for teachers.

 Accordingly, he does not deserve credit for looking out for local government funding.

A key action by SCOG yesterday was authorizing Canton Law Director Joseph Martuccio to prepare a resolution asking the "Stark County delegation" to the Ohio General Assembly to support HB 471 which would restore some of the cuts to local government funding.

Here is a video of the discussion of  SCOG board members including Martuccio and Stark County Chief Administrator Mike Hanke.



As pointed out on the McDonald videotape, McDonald sheriff opponent Larry Dordea has told the SCPR that while it is convenient and helpful to have a local crime lab, if it was lost because of the evaporation of funding, that the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) would do just fine.

Other officials beg to differ.  An example was given to The Report that BCI reports can take up to two to three months in the making whereas Stark County Crime Lab reports are generally available within two weeks.  

Moreover, it is said that reliance on the BCI could cause a delay in the administration of justice.

It seems to the SCPR that Representatives Hagan and Schuring as well as state Senator Oelslager have some explaining to do to Stark County voters.

Democrat state Rep. Stephen Slesnick (the 52nd House District) has consistently opposed Governor Kasich's cuts of local government funding.

(VIDEOS: BENNETT, BERNABEI AND FERGUSON) STARK CO. DITCHES IN CRISIS STATE. STARK CO. COMMISSIONERS NEED TO STEP FORWARD TO REACTIVATE THE "STARK CO. DRAINAGE TASK FORCE!"

The Stark County commissioners have been holding a series of community meetings over the last 1-1/2 years.  The meetings are designed to put commissioners in touch with Stark Countians with regard to their most concerns about what Stark County government ought to be doing for them.

Attendance has been sporadic at these sessions, but two of the 20 plus meetings that commissioners have held stand out in that they occurred in Perry Township (30 plus attendees) and North Canton  (about 50 attendees) where both communities suffered devastating floods to area homes in 2011.

Commissioners had to especially be worried about the Perry meeting last June 15th (LINK here for an account of that meeting).  Their primary goal at the time was to convince Stark Countians that they should support a proposed 0.5% sales tax on the upcoming November ballot.

Perryites were very upset about the inadequacies of the Lynch and Clay ditches to handle water from the downpour which resulted in widespread flooding of Perry homes.

And the commissioners (Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson) had no answer.  Even if the levy passed (which it did), there would be very little if any money for them to apply to fixing the Lynch and Clay ditches.

Fast forward to May 31, 2012.  This time the community meeting was in North Canton.  Topic?  You guessed it:  Flooding experienced by North Cantonians as a consequence of a July 19, 2011 storm which Stark County's main ditch (the Zimber ditch) could not handle because of its decrepit condition.

Again, the commissioners (Bernabei and Ferguson) had no answer in the immediate time frame.

Nor did North Canton Mayor David Held.  Nor did Stark County Engineer Keith Bennett.

Held in essence said that the problem is to convince 98% of the people to provide funding (i.e. support a levy) to fix flooding experienced by 2% of North Canton residents (the figures were for talking purposes only; not meant to be exact numbers).

What he failed to say is that everybody who lives in a house, an apartment and/or owns/rents industrial and commercial buildings contributes runoff that finds its way to the ditches of Stark County and thereby participates in the flooding experienced by the relatively few.


Commissioners Bernabei and Ferguson (Creighton was not at the meeting) had a core message to the effect that there is no county money in the foreseeable future "to fix" the county's flooding problem.  Perhaps, some remediation, but that will be it. 

Commissioner Bernabei:



Commissioner Ferguson:



And finally, Stark County Engineer Bennett.

He offered the only glimmer of hope (within the next several years) in offering five flooding control concepts (in the study/permitting processes for the next two years), if the money can be found, which would lessen the degree of flooding (along Zimber) but would not stop it. 

Apparently, the study and permitting will be funded by a combination of funds from the county general fund and contributions by North Canton, Jackson Township and Lake Township.

Here is the video of Engineer Bennett.



According to Stark County Engineering Department Hydraulics Engineer Gary Conner (who has been working on this problem for nearly 40 years), the ditches have not been maintained in a proper manner since the late 1970s.  He says that beginning in the 1980s Stark County commissioners have failed to make the needed investment in storm ditch drainage and that the inattention is a huge factor in why residents are experiencing flooding and sewer backups as never before.

Conner said that it would take $7 million to $10 million a year over ten years for Stark County's to repair Stark's decrepit storm water draining ditches. 

The SCPR believes that in time there could be an answer if Stark County's leadership (which means county, city, village and township officials) will come together in a focused, collaborative way to develop ideas which can be designed, funded, and implemented over a span of about ten years.  But, once fixed, ditch maintenance can never again be allowed to go unattended which means the funding mechanism will have to be permanent.

Bedrock structures already exist which could serve as the base for Stark's leaders to band together in a common quest to eliminate much of the flooding that occurs in Stark County.

First, there is the March, 1997 Zimber Ditch Study. (LINK TO THE STUDY)

According to Stark County Hydraulics Engineer Gary Connor, this study remains the "go to document" for any who want to understand and deal with the flooding problems which the Zimber Ditch visits upon Stark Countians.

Second, there is the now dormant "Stark County Drainage Task Force." 

According to a website which can be accessed by readers of the SCPR (LINK):

On September 18, 2003, the first Drainage Symposium meeting was held at Stark Park’s Sippo Lake Clubhouse.  Invited to the meeting were representatives from all of Stark County's cities, townships, villages, and county-wide agencies and organizations. 

As a result of this first meeting, a primary Task Force, a Steering Committee, and four subcommittees were formed. 

The four subcommittees are Problem Identification, Education, Regulations, and Business Plan.  Each subcommittee has met several times since September 2003 ... .

Unfortunately, under the task force has gone dormant because of funding issues.

The last published minutes were for a December 16, 2005 steering sub-committee.

However, there is no reason why this administrative structure could not be resurrected and staffed with many of the same volunteers who were a part of the original effort.

And the SCPR thinks the Stark County commissioners should look into doing just that.

Third, there is a potential funding mechanism that has been provided for by the Ohio Legislature.  It is called a Storm Water Utility that operates much the same as any utility service (e.g. the Stark County Sewer District).

This LINK to an Ohio Environmental Council website provides and excellent summary of Ohio's ditching laws.

Over a year ago (at the Perry Township meeting), commissioners promised that they would look into the feasibility of creating a  storm water utility as an answer to the vexing problem of not having the funds to fix Stark's flooding problems.

Last Wednesday evening, neither Commissioner Bernabei nor Ferguson had a word to say about their look-see or even mentioned the creation of a storm utility as a possible funding source to get on with solving Stark County's ditching/flooding quandary.

Hmm?

After looking over the 1997 Zimber Ditch Study, hearing the commissioners at community meetings, talking with county officials familiar with the Stark County flooding problems, the SCPR urges the Stark County commissioners to:

• initiate discussions with Stark County Parks director Robert Fonte (who appears to be the de facto  leader of the currently inactive Stark County Drainage Task Force to revive the organization,
• update a plan (working on the base being created by Engineer Bennett) to fully implement the recommendations of the 1997 study insofar as federal regulations will allow, and
• become thoroughly familiar with the county's options under state legislation to create a storm water utility as a way to generate funding for actual construction of the study/permitting projects flowing from the 1997 study and from Engineer Bennett's current work.

(VIDEO: COMMISSIONERS - FUTURE OF DOG POUND ADVISORY BOARD BEING PONDERED). BOARD COULD BE DISMANTLED BY 07/31/2012. THE PRICE OF SPEAKING OUT?

 

It has been apparent for some time to the Stark County Political Report that those who are appointed to county, city, township and board of education advisory boards and/or commissions are by and large expected "not to make waves;" especially in public.

If one does, he or she can expect to be come an ex-board member or commission member when reappointment comes up for consideration by the appointing authority.

Or, worse yet, the entire board or commission may get "worked around" or even abolished if the appointees have caused the appointing authority chronic and persistent embarrassment (merited or not) in the public eye.

It appears to The Report that it could be that the Stark County Dog Pound Advisory Board (SCDPAB) is about to be dismantled sometime before July 31, 2012.

Yours truly has been told that such a fate possibly awaits the SCDPAB and commissioners' did nothing in an opportunity presented by The Report in question form (see video below) to squelch the speculation.

Four of the "unpaid" seven members of the SCDPAB have their terms expire on this coming July 31st.  Although the commissioners did not say on the video when they might decide the fate of the advisory board, it seems obvious that the decision will be made in the next 45 days or so.  It makes no sense whatsoever that they would appoint/reappoint the four expiring terms if they planned within the foreseeable future to disband the board.

The SCPR has been following this particular story for a number of years and has blogged repeatedly about numerous conflicts between the commissioners (from the current board through the last couple of boards) and the SCDPAB.  Here are some links.

BLOG:  May 25, 2012

BLOG:  December 20, 2011

BLOG:  October 8, 2011

BLOG:  August 24, 2011

BLOG:  December 26, 2010

 

If any one of the commissioners frames the issue between the two, it is likely to be in terms of:  "Who is in charge, the commissioners or the advisory board?"

If any one of the advisory board members were to frame the issue, it likely be:  "What are we, wall flowers?"

The SCPR's own take is that the SCDPAB is composed of consummate dog lovers who volunteer hundreds if not thousands of hours each year towards looking after Stark County's dog population and passionately advocate for the dogs' welfare.

If it were not for the advisory board speaking out over the last several years, Stark County dog lovers should shudder to think what conditions at the Pound would be like.

But as we all know, frequently "no good deed goes unpunished," especially when one has demonstrated an audacity to offend a government official.

While the commissioners appear to care, too; they seem to be imbued with a "We insist on being in charge" mentality about them that manifests as an oversensitivity to anyone who would question the quality of the discharge of their oversight function over the Stark County Dog Pound (SCDP - Pound).

If the commissioners decide to disband the SCDPAB, the SCPR thinks that such is a signal that they (especially Bernabei and Creighton; Ferguson is off the board at the end of this year) are losing their fervor for open and participatory local government.

Moreover,  the Stark County public should begin questioning how deep the commissioners' overall commitment to access, accountability, two-way communication, and transparency really runs.

It was a terrific breath of fresh air when Commissioners Bernabei and Creighton came aboard the Stark County board of commissioners after being elected in November, 2012.

The fresh breezes of "attentive to the public air current" wafted throughout the county up and through the election victory of November, 2011 when Stark Countians agreed to provide county government with about $22 million a year in new revenues.

The commissioners themselves were astounded at the margin of victory of the sales tax levy.

There were two reasons that the levy passed with the margin it did.

First, Stark Countians were frightened big time at what might ensue in terms of law enforcement and the public safety were the levy to fail.

Second, the commissioners convinced the voting public that that there was "a new sheriff in town" in the form of the Bernabei/Creighton tandem and that the days of cutting the public out of local government decision making were over.  In short, Stark Countians had found reason to once again trust county government.

To the SCPR, the apparent inability of the commissioners to cope with and accept, for whatever it is worth, dissent emanating from its dog pound advisory board is not the only sign that the vigor of their embrace of the public may be ebbing.

For The Report, how the commissioners handle the SCDPAB situation will be a litmus test of the larger question of whether or not they have the political maturity to lead when not everyone agrees with the substance and/or style of their leadership.

In other words, can they embrace publicly expressed dissent and deal with it constructively and effectively or will they resort to typical public official techniques and strategies designed to stifle and eliminate.

And beyond the political maturity factor is the question of whether or not their original enthusiasm for reform of how county government functions/interacts vis-a-vis the Stark County public is losing its vigor?

IS GOP STATE REP. CHRISTINA HAGAN A DOLTISH, ETHICALLY CHALLENGED POLITICIAN?

The "never elected to anything" Christina Hagan (R - Marlboro Township) should be counting her lucky stars that she is running to be retained as a state representative in a fail-safe, "gerrymandered" district (the "new" 50th) with a 56% Republican favorable index.

Hagan doesn't need The Repository to act as her public relations arm inasmuch as she appears to the SCPR to be a lock in being elected in her November 6th match up with Democrat Alliance Councilwoman Sue Ryan.

But if she gets stupid enough and unethical enough, maybe even voters in the Republican rich 50th will be offended to such a degree so as to keep the "never elected" in place.

It is always amazing when a politician trips herself up in doing or saying something the benefit of which, even if successfully pulled off, escapes most people.

Republican Christine O'Donnell of Delaware in her 2010 U.S. Senate race (both in the primary and the general election) comes to mind as a prime example of the phenomenon.

Appointed by the Ohio Republican Caucus on March 4, 2011 to replace Todd Snitchler (who had become Governor Kasich's man chairing the PUCO) as the "old" 50th state representative, Hagan might unwittingly be testing the tolerance of voters in the new district for a politician being too much of a politician.

Recently, The Canton Repository printed, under its "Boards and Ballots" irregularly published regular feature designed to be a conduit for press releases (in the opinion of the SCPR) from Stark County-connected public officials who wish "free ink" coverage of their drive for election to office, a Hagan release touting how much she was for "transparency" in state government.

She cited a Repository editorial of May 21, 2012 as her motivating factor.  (How's this for a little bit of pandering to the press?)

In the editorial, the Rep editorial writer called for Hagan to support  public notice of applications being made for gas/oil drilling permits.

One would think that Hagan would be loathe to support any legislation that the oil and gas industry might not like inasmuch as media reports indicate she received (even as a rookie legislator) $7,500 in campaign contributions from the industry over the little more than one year she has been in office.  Third only to veteran lawmakers Billy Batchelder (the Ohio Speaker of the House) and Republican state Rep. David Hall (who appeared with her at her town hall meeting in Louisville in May, 2011).

Hagan did offer an amendment to legislation under consideration.

What did Hagan's amendment to SB 315 (Governor Kasich's energy bill) actually do?

It called for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to, on its website, publish public notice of permits after the had been approved and issued.

Accordingly, The Rep editorial could not have been her motivating factor because it clearly calls for publication at the application stage of obtaining a permit.

Notice after the permit has been approved:  That's transparency?  Could Hagan be that dumb so as to really believe what she did was to foster transparency in state government?

The SCPR believes that Representative Hagan had to know she was fudging on the truth in ascribing to herself a transparency motive and was stupid enough to think she would not be caught in the contradiction and, moreover, that she would not be called out on it.

Is the next thing that comes out of Hagan's mouth to be:  "It wasn't my intention to tell an untruth."  "It was merely 'political spin' and all politicians do it."  "My legislative aide misspoke."

Obviously, as we know and she knows and therefore her safe haven:   no one can actually get inside her head to know what really is going on in there.

It could be there is nothing going on.  Yours truly believes that she is the captive of her political caucus and by virtue of having been appointed to  office by the caucus is not free to act independently of the caucus.

Also, The Report believes there is a solid circumstantial case that should tell a reasonable minded person that she was dumb enough, brash enough to think she could pull this little political caper off with none being the wiser.

The demarcation between what the Rep editors asked for and what Hagan delivered is a clear. How could she possibly confuse the two unknowingly?

A follow up Repository (May 30th) editorial is way too generous in giving Hagan credit for "recently add[ing] a small measure of transparency to the governor’s energy bill."

What?  After a permit has been approved, notice of that fact is transparency?

The telling point of the editorial is:

What we asked, however, was that the state be required to let the public know before a permit is approved, not afterward. The May 21 editorial urged Hagan, a Republican from Marlboro Township, to support notifying the public of permit applications. (emphasis added)

Undoubtedly, the oil and gas industry would have no objection to after-the-fact noticing of the public.  But would the industry's attitude be the same about before-the-fact noticing?

Another incident that occurred back in the Fall of 2011 involving claims by Representative Christina Hagan want to join in on sponsoring a bill offered by Democratic Representative Robert Hagan from the Youngstown area.

Exhibit - an e-mail from the SCPR to Robert Hagan and his response:

From: Martin Olson [mailto:tramols@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 12:22 PM
To: District60
Subject: HB 343

Representative Hagan,

This morning on WHBC-AM 1480 (Canton, Ohio) Points to Ponder host Ron Ponder was told by Representative Christina Hagan that she tried to contact you in order to sign on as a sponsor of your HB 343 (drug testing for elected officials).

She says you never returned her telephone calls.

I'd be interested in hearing your response.

Exhibit #2 - Robert Hagan's response:

--- On Wed, 12/7/11, District60 <District60@ohr.state.oh.us> wrote:

From: District60 <District60@ohr.state.oh.us>
Subject: RE: HB 343
To: "'Martin Olson'" <tramols@att.net>
Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2011, 10:46 AM

 Hi Martin,

The process for signing on as a co-sponsor in the Ohio House is pretty straight forward. It is usually done electronically through the e-mail system. The co-sponsor request went out to all Democrats and Republicans in the House on 9/1/2011. Everyone is afforded a reasonable opportunity to reply “yes” or “sign me on” -or simply call my office line and leave a message indicating they would like to co-sponsor the proposed legislation (In this case by 9/30/2011). Rep. C. Hagan never did these things. As I understand it, she did leave two messages with my aide, asking that I call her back. I was unable to call her back before the legislation was introduced. I can only assume she wanted to change the legislation or offer some alteration to the bill.

Rep. C. Hagan is still able to add her name as a co-sponsor if her caucus ever brings this legislation up for consideration.

Bob

Hmm?

So the question becomes whether or not Ms. Hagan was being disingenuous, at the very least, in impliedly suggesting to Ponder that she supported the notion of applying drug testing to state officials as well as to public welfare benefit recipients.

The foregoing described political machinations suggest that Ms. Hagan early on in her career is developing into a calculating politico who pays more attention to political party interests and special interests over the interests of the ordinary citizens of the 50th district.

And, of course, the SCPR has pointed out (in previous blogs) other instances in her brief career that bring into question where her loyalties rest.

It appears to The Report that she all too often attempts to dissemble her constituents as to where her heart really is on any given piece of legislation.

Accordingly, 50th district voters ought to be asking themselves:

Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at Democrat Sue Ryan in this race?