Some questions

Now that Al Ambrosini is the only Fayette County commissioner empowered to give county solicitor Ken Burkley instruction, per a 2-1 vote this week, we got to thinking of some logical questions.

1. How come former solicitor Joe Ferens could juggle many different work assignments at one time, while simultaneously taking direction from and answering to all three commissioners, but Burkley apparently cannot do either?

Burkley, it is argued by Ambrosini, needs his plate cleared of all but one item, that of restructuring the county's solicitorship system to install a lawsuit-prevention posture. And this task is so important that he can't be bothered with anything else.

Yet for many, many years, Ferens oversaw all manner of thorny county legal issues, often at the same time. We don't recall anyone ever saying, "Joe needs to focus on just one thing," or, "Only I shall be the one to tell Joe what to do."

2. Why is commissioner Vince Zapotosky, who provided the second vote to make Ambrosini the point man in dealing with Burkley, so willing to give up his power as a county commissioner?

Zapotosky must be supremely confident in the Ambrosini-Burkley arrangement. Perhaps he is trying to keep the peace with his Democrat colleague, or just doesn't care to be involved. Maybe he is just too weak or worn out, politically or personally, to say no.

But it can be a dicey situation to turn over the keys to running one of the county's key offices to someone else. If you were a county commissioner, elected by the people to run county government, how would you feel if the guy sitting next to you asked you to take a back seat?

3. If endowing a single commissioner with the power to give instruction to a county office is such a good idea, why isn't it being replicated for all other county offices?

Commissioner A could be assigned offices D, E and F; Commissioner B could be assigned offices G, H and I; and Commissioner C could be assigned offices J, K and L.

We don't think there would be two votes for such a setup, which would mean Ambrosini and Zapotosky would be asked to give up a chunk of their power.

4. Finally, commissioner Angela Zimmerlink, who objected to giving Ambrosini the lone authority to tell Burkley what to do, has an ongoing lawsuit against Zapotosky and former commissioner Vince Vicites, alleging that they basically kept her from doing her job by freezing her out of county business and decision-making.

Wouldn't this week's vote, which basically strips Zimmerlink of the ability to have an equal say in dealing with the county solicitor, only serve to reinforce (if not prove) her point?

Is it not possible that this particular vote might end up as part of a lawsuit (new or ongoing) against the county -- the very thing that Burkley is tasked with preventing?