During the May 15 meeting where Fayette County Commissioners Al Ambrosini and Vince Zapotosky hired a new chief clerk and public works director, we are told by some folks who were in attendance that something very interesting was said.
Ambrosini and Zapotosky came under fire from citizens -- primarily Jerrie Mazza, Michael Cavanagh and Evelyn Hovanec -- for the hires of HeraldStandard.com reporter Amy Revak for $32,740 as chief clerk and Connellsville Township supervisor Robert Carson as public works director at $40,331 (or $41,000-something, depending on who spins the salary wheel today).
In the face of blistering criticism over one or both of these hires, our sources say that Ambrosini said something to the effect that he and Zapotosky shouldn't be judged just on these two moves. Rather, we're told, Ambrosini intimated -- or said outright -- that he and Zapotosky have a plan on where they want to take the county.
We are paraphrasing here, of course, but the gist of it is Ambrosini reportedly attempted to diffuse the situation by saying that there are more moves to be made, and that people should reserve judgment until all the pieces of the plan are put in place.
Surprisingly, no news reporters have chosen to follow up on this theme. But it is well worth pursuing. If there is a plan, shouldn't Ambrosini and Zapotosky, now armed with media expert Revak, be able to adequately convey it to the public? Doesn't the public of Fayette County, hungry enough for change to dump former Democratic Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites in favor of Ambrosini, deserve to know where Ambrosini and Zapotosky plan to steer this ship for the next three years?
Maybe they intend to use the extra $4 million from this year's 28-percent county real estate tax hike to do something wonderful and bold. But if that's the case, shouldn't they be telling us how? Shouldn't the public be clamoring to know the plan?
Surely for this plan to work, it must involve more than dumping Joseph E. Ferens Jr. as county chief solicitor, naming Westmoreland County attoney Kenneth Burkley as the "interim" solicitor for three to six months, at $4,000 per month. (And there are skeptics who think it is just a matter of time before Burkley is named to the post permanently.)
For the plan to be effective, it must have a better strategy than advertising for a new county clerk using a job description heavy on business and accounting skills, then hiring someone because of their supposed general knowledge of county government and media relations skills.
Does this plan to transform Fayette County include more than hiring a business manager for the Fayette County Prison -- and will that job, too, end up going to someone based on a skill set tthat morphs into something the average person wouldn't ascertain from the advertised job description?
Is granting a three-year contract, at $122,400 a year, to Greensburg's Felice Associates for human resources services -- and then watching the ever-changing starting salaries for the new chief clerk and public works director look like a carnival game of spin-the-wheel -- part of the plan?
We have heard mention elsewhere, in defense of Ambrosini and Zapotosky, that part of the plan is to direct some of this year's extra tax revenue -- a sum that Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink said was twice what was needed to be raised -- as local match toward water and sewerage projects in the county, so it can grow and prosper.
If this is part of the plan, Ambrosini and Zapotosky sure haven't done a good job telling everyone about it. That shouldn't be a problem now, with Revak at their side. If they are searching for a way to say, "We intend to roll out an ambitious $2 million water-and-sewerage grant or loan program using county funds," she can surely write up a press release that says, "We intend to roll out an ambitious $2 million water-and-sewerage grant or loan program using county funds."
We have even heard rumors of a new Fayette County Prison being built. But that would definitely eat up any county budget surplus, and then some, and would require another increase in county property taxes. Is this or is it not part of the overall plan?
At the next commissioners' meeting, the people of Fayette County and the press should follow up on Ambrosini's comments. They can't judge whether it is a good or bad plan, or whether they should or should not support it, until they know the details on what it is.
Showing posts with label Al Ambrosini. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Ambrosini. Show all posts
Friday, May 25, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Lally not lollygagging
Here in the patch, we don't know the meaning of life, or even why the Pittsburgh Penguins got bounced from the NHL playoffs by the Philadelphia Flyers. But we do know that if you are sick, you should listen to the doctor, and that the sudden clunking sound from your car's transmission is best diagnosed by a good mechanic.
So we took great interest when Fayette County controller Sean Lally threw a big monkey wrench into the plan of Fayette County commissioners Vince Zapotosky and Al Ambrosini to give a $2,600 pay raise to the new county chief clerk-in-waiting before she even works one day on the job.
The job is already on the books with a $32,064 starting salary, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Zapotosky and Ambrosini, who voted April 17 to hire Herald-Standard.com reporter Amy Revak for the job, would like to throw some extra cash her way before she accepts the position.
Revak, you will recall, has absolutely zero experience in accounting or finance, which are key skills for anyone who would be expected to help devise and manage the county's multi-million-dollar budget.
Zapotosky and Ambrosini may be willing to gloss over the big gaps in Revak's resume when it comes to the job they wish to put her in. But Lally, who knows a thing or three about accouting and budgets, clearly isn't afraid to point them out, as he did in Wednesday's Tribune-Review story, "Fayette OKs public works post, unofficially":
http://triblive.com/news/fayette/1163924-74/salary-meeting-revak-board-ambrosini-commissioners-position-zapotosky-zimmerlink-accounting
Lally wanted to keep the starting salary at $32,064 because Revak, who has a bachelor's degree in English, lacks accounting education and experience. He said the $34,600 figure is slightly less than the salary of an employee in his office who has four years' experience and a degree in accounting.
Lally said his employee, who would provide Revak with the figures needed to prepare the budget, would then be "making a whopping $1,300 a year more, with four years' experience and a four-year degree in accounting.
Every resident of Fayette County should read those two paragraphs very closely. Then they should ask themselves two questions:
1. Why would Zaptosky and Ambrosini want to hire someone to manage the county budget if that person lacks accounting education and experience?
2. Why would a chief clerk with no accounting background (who would basically serve as a fiscal figurehead) deserve $2,600 more if an employee already working in the conroller's office is simply going to provide all the figures needed to prepare the budget?
That raise didn't happen at this week's salary board meeting, because Lally wouldn't play ball.
But there is another paragraph in the Trib story that should also be digested by all residents:
(Commissioner Angela) Zimmerlink said that leaves commissioners with two ways to set Revak's salary - via a memo signed by at least two commissioners and then ratified during a commissioners' meeting, she said, or by waiting until the next commissioners' meeting in May to allow all three commissioners to vote on it before it is approved.
Either of those moves would appear, on face value, to remove controller Lally from the equation. These two methods would let Zapotosky and Ambrosini outvote (or out-sign) only Zimmerlink.
Does anyone besides us get the gnawing feeling that all those election-time promises about "running the county like a business" are starting to ring very, very hollow?
So we took great interest when Fayette County controller Sean Lally threw a big monkey wrench into the plan of Fayette County commissioners Vince Zapotosky and Al Ambrosini to give a $2,600 pay raise to the new county chief clerk-in-waiting before she even works one day on the job.
The job is already on the books with a $32,064 starting salary, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Zapotosky and Ambrosini, who voted April 17 to hire Herald-Standard.com reporter Amy Revak for the job, would like to throw some extra cash her way before she accepts the position.
Revak, you will recall, has absolutely zero experience in accounting or finance, which are key skills for anyone who would be expected to help devise and manage the county's multi-million-dollar budget.
Zapotosky and Ambrosini may be willing to gloss over the big gaps in Revak's resume when it comes to the job they wish to put her in. But Lally, who knows a thing or three about accouting and budgets, clearly isn't afraid to point them out, as he did in Wednesday's Tribune-Review story, "Fayette OKs public works post, unofficially":
http://triblive.com/news/fayette/1163924-74/salary-meeting-revak-board-ambrosini-commissioners-position-zapotosky-zimmerlink-accounting
Lally wanted to keep the starting salary at $32,064 because Revak, who has a bachelor's degree in English, lacks accounting education and experience. He said the $34,600 figure is slightly less than the salary of an employee in his office who has four years' experience and a degree in accounting.
Lally said his employee, who would provide Revak with the figures needed to prepare the budget, would then be "making a whopping $1,300 a year more, with four years' experience and a four-year degree in accounting.
Every resident of Fayette County should read those two paragraphs very closely. Then they should ask themselves two questions:
1. Why would Zaptosky and Ambrosini want to hire someone to manage the county budget if that person lacks accounting education and experience?
2. Why would a chief clerk with no accounting background (who would basically serve as a fiscal figurehead) deserve $2,600 more if an employee already working in the conroller's office is simply going to provide all the figures needed to prepare the budget?
That raise didn't happen at this week's salary board meeting, because Lally wouldn't play ball.
But there is another paragraph in the Trib story that should also be digested by all residents:
(Commissioner Angela) Zimmerlink said that leaves commissioners with two ways to set Revak's salary - via a memo signed by at least two commissioners and then ratified during a commissioners' meeting, she said, or by waiting until the next commissioners' meeting in May to allow all three commissioners to vote on it before it is approved.
Either of those moves would appear, on face value, to remove controller Lally from the equation. These two methods would let Zapotosky and Ambrosini outvote (or out-sign) only Zimmerlink.
Does anyone besides us get the gnawing feeling that all those election-time promises about "running the county like a business" are starting to ring very, very hollow?
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
And the best job candidate is ...
Fayette County is looking for a new chief clerk, and the overall objective of the job, as posted on the county's website is: To perform a variety of complex financial and administrative duties to assist the County Commissioners in the management of the County, its programs and expenses.
The listed education/training requirement for this job? Bachelor's degree, preferably in Accounting, Public Administration, Business and/or related field.
The listed work experience? At least 4 years experience in Accounting, Public Administration, Business and/or any equivalent combination of experience, education and training which provides the required knowledge, skills and abilities.
You can view the entire job description here: http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/JobPost/Documents/Chief_Clerk.pdf
So it makes perfect sense that Commissioners Vince Zapotosky and Al Ambrosini are hiring Herald-Standard.com reporter Amy Revak, who:
1. Has zero work experience performing a variety of complex financial and administrative duties.
2. Has a bachelor's degree in English (which doesn't sound to us like a field related to accounting, public administration or business).
3. Has zero work experience in accounting, public administration or business.
Forget about this being an obvious political hire, which it is. The larger issue, and it's a big one, is Revak's nonexistant resume when it comes to fulfilling the obligations of this very important job. As a beat reporter for the Herald-Standard, and before that the Washington Observer-Reporter, she has not one visible shred of administrative or management experience.
The only financial experience she probably has is balancing her check book, which is not exactly the type of skill that qualifies you to help develop the county's multi-million-dollar budget.
Only Zapotosky and Ambrosini know why they favor Revak over a candidate who holds a master's of business administration degree. But that didn't stop Zapotosky from saying this to the Tribune-Review :
Zapotosky said he favors Revak over the candidate with accounting experience because of her knowledge of county government while working as a reporter.
"She brought that to the table, plus her writing skills and media background," Zapotosky said. "Another candidate had accounting skills, but the overall, well-rounded skills from one candidate exceeded those of the other."http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_791777.html
If Revak's "knowledge of county government while working as a reporter" qualifies her to be the county's chief clerk, then any of the gaggle of other reporters who have done a far superior job are qualified to be U.S. Secretary of State. (And that list includes the Tribune-Review's Liz Zemba, who unlike Revak at least deemed it newsworthy that the county district attorney was convening a grand jury.)
As far as Revak's "writing skills," we will wait to see the list of journalism awards she has won. And we will wait a very long time to see that list.
With Revak officially hired on Tuesday (sorry for the typo that originally said Thursday), her stories about letter to the editor writer Ruth Thompson and disaffected Marcellus Shale Task Force member Karen Jensen are coming into clearer focus.
Zapotosky and Ambrosini could still back out of this potential mess, but that is highly unlikely. What is certain is that Revak's days covering county government should be over. It even appears that at next Wednesday's Salary Board meeting, she will be getting a raise. The job has a starting salary of $32,064, but Zapotosky told the Trib that.the figure could be adjusted higher when the salary board meets. .Why would he even be mentioning that if it weren't already in the works?
We are eagerly waiting to see Sunday's issue of Herald-Standard.com, to see how editor Mark O'Keefe weighs in on this hire. He used to cover county government, so he is intimately familiar with the demands of this job. And he is certainly familiar with Revak's work background and abilities.
Revak is now fair game for editorial commentary. Let's see what is said.
The listed education/training requirement for this job? Bachelor's degree, preferably in Accounting, Public Administration, Business and/or related field.
The listed work experience? At least 4 years experience in Accounting, Public Administration, Business and/or any equivalent combination of experience, education and training which provides the required knowledge, skills and abilities.
You can view the entire job description here: http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/JobPost/Documents/Chief_Clerk.pdf
So it makes perfect sense that Commissioners Vince Zapotosky and Al Ambrosini are hiring Herald-Standard.com reporter Amy Revak, who:
1. Has zero work experience performing a variety of complex financial and administrative duties.
2. Has a bachelor's degree in English (which doesn't sound to us like a field related to accounting, public administration or business).
3. Has zero work experience in accounting, public administration or business.
Forget about this being an obvious political hire, which it is. The larger issue, and it's a big one, is Revak's nonexistant resume when it comes to fulfilling the obligations of this very important job. As a beat reporter for the Herald-Standard, and before that the Washington Observer-Reporter, she has not one visible shred of administrative or management experience.
The only financial experience she probably has is balancing her check book, which is not exactly the type of skill that qualifies you to help develop the county's multi-million-dollar budget.
Only Zapotosky and Ambrosini know why they favor Revak over a candidate who holds a master's of business administration degree. But that didn't stop Zapotosky from saying this to the Tribune-Review :
Zapotosky said he favors Revak over the candidate with accounting experience because of her knowledge of county government while working as a reporter.
"She brought that to the table, plus her writing skills and media background," Zapotosky said. "Another candidate had accounting skills, but the overall, well-rounded skills from one candidate exceeded those of the other."http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_791777.html
If Revak's "knowledge of county government while working as a reporter" qualifies her to be the county's chief clerk, then any of the gaggle of other reporters who have done a far superior job are qualified to be U.S. Secretary of State. (And that list includes the Tribune-Review's Liz Zemba, who unlike Revak at least deemed it newsworthy that the county district attorney was convening a grand jury.)
As far as Revak's "writing skills," we will wait to see the list of journalism awards she has won. And we will wait a very long time to see that list.
With Revak officially hired on Tuesday (sorry for the typo that originally said Thursday), her stories about letter to the editor writer Ruth Thompson and disaffected Marcellus Shale Task Force member Karen Jensen are coming into clearer focus.
Zapotosky and Ambrosini could still back out of this potential mess, but that is highly unlikely. What is certain is that Revak's days covering county government should be over. It even appears that at next Wednesday's Salary Board meeting, she will be getting a raise. The job has a starting salary of $32,064, but Zapotosky told the Trib that.the figure could be adjusted higher when the salary board meets. .Why would he even be mentioning that if it weren't already in the works?
We are eagerly waiting to see Sunday's issue of Herald-Standard.com, to see how editor Mark O'Keefe weighs in on this hire. He used to cover county government, so he is intimately familiar with the demands of this job. And he is certainly familiar with Revak's work background and abilities.
Revak is now fair game for editorial commentary. Let's see what is said.
Monday, November 7, 2011
The case for Angela Zimmerlink
In Tuesday’s election for Fayette County commissioner, only one candidate can lay undisputed claim to owing no one anything -- and that candidate is Republican Angela Zimmerlink.
That’s because Zimmerlink’s only campaign contributions have come from herself and her husband Tom. In an age where money matters immensely in politics, Zimmerlink has never accepted any campaign cash from outside her immediate family.
She’s won twice doing it that way -- and here in the patch, we think that her refusal to accept campaign cash is a powerful reason to keep Zimmerlink in office. This policy allows her to make decisions in the best interest of the county, without regard to politics. You can bet she won’t get any phone calls from someone seeking to cash in some chips, in terms of a board appointment, a contract, a hire, or any other sort of favorable treatment.
Let’s be brutally frank here: Does anyone think that campaign contributions -- especially hefty ones -- do not come with invisible strings attached? Do campaign contributors throw thousands of dollars your way because they think you’re a good guy?
However noble, Zimmerlink’s policy places her at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to such things as advertising and paying poll workers, two staples of the Fayette County political dynamic. Still, voters have twice elected her to the commissioners office -- and we hope they have the wisdom to do it again.
According to the Herald-Standard.com story, “$70,000 spent on Fayette’s race for commissioner,” of Nov. 3, 2011, Democrat Vince Zapotosky was the big kahuna when it comes to raking in other peoples’ money. Zapotosky pulled in $24,717 in the reporting period that ended Oct. 28.
Democrat Al Ambrosini got $17,600 in new contributions, and Republican Dave Lohr received $11,750.
Zimmerlink and her husband contributed $1,310 to her campaign. In the reporting period, Zapotosky raised nearly 19 times as much money as Zimmerlink, Ambrosini 13.4 times as much, and Lohr nearly 9 times as much. (That gross imbalance is likely to get worse when the candidates file their post-election reports, which cover campaign contributions raised and spent AFTER Oct. 28.)
In analyzing Lohr’s numbers, what popped out at us was this: Of the $11,750 he raised according to HeraldStandard.com, $5,500 came from two people named Terrance Shallenberger, another $4,800 came Lohr’s way from Sean Miller of Washington Security Group, and yet another $3,400 was put into Lohr’s campaign by Neil Brown of Acme.
(In the “Can you trust what you read?” department, we think someone ought to buy HeraldStandard.com a calculator, or give its reporters a refresher course in basic math, because the Shallenbergers, Miller and Brown contributions alone add up to $13,700, which is $2,000 more than the $11,750 the newspaper reported that Lohr raised. In any case, those three contributors provided the backbone of Lohr‘s campaign financing.)
Inaccurate numbers aside, would this happen to be the same Terrance Shallenberger who is a member of the Fayette County Airport Authority, or whose company is heavily involved in the Marcellus gas industry operating here (think “frackwater treatment plant, Masontown Borough“)? Would this happen to be the same Sean Miller whose company is embroiled in a zoning dispute over a shooting range near Laurel Mall? Would this be the same Neil Brown who is a member of the Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board?
According to Herald-Standard.com, Zapotosky received $1,000 each from John and Justin Garlow of Uniontown (would this be the same John Garlow who owns Ford Business Machines, which has the county copy machine contract?), $1,100 from Fred and Rhonda Zeigler of Uniontown (the same couple who are trying to purchase Great Meadows Amphitheater property from the county?), and $3,500 from Terrance Shallenberger.
Ambrosini also got $2,000 from Terrance Shallenberger and $1,000 from John Garlow, in addition to $1,000 each from Robert W. Sleighter of Uniontown and Terry E. McMillan of Uniontown (who are each affiliated with engineering firms, if memory serves us correctly.)
There is nothing wrong or improper with any of these contributions, which are allowable by law. But if and when the county commissioners ever have to make a decision involving these or any other contributors, or any of the interests they represent, the fact that they contributed money could be interpreted, well, as a contributing factor in those outcomes.
That will never be an issue, real or imagined, with Zimmerlink. And we like that very much.
That’s because Zimmerlink’s only campaign contributions have come from herself and her husband Tom. In an age where money matters immensely in politics, Zimmerlink has never accepted any campaign cash from outside her immediate family.
She’s won twice doing it that way -- and here in the patch, we think that her refusal to accept campaign cash is a powerful reason to keep Zimmerlink in office. This policy allows her to make decisions in the best interest of the county, without regard to politics. You can bet she won’t get any phone calls from someone seeking to cash in some chips, in terms of a board appointment, a contract, a hire, or any other sort of favorable treatment.
Let’s be brutally frank here: Does anyone think that campaign contributions -- especially hefty ones -- do not come with invisible strings attached? Do campaign contributors throw thousands of dollars your way because they think you’re a good guy?
However noble, Zimmerlink’s policy places her at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to such things as advertising and paying poll workers, two staples of the Fayette County political dynamic. Still, voters have twice elected her to the commissioners office -- and we hope they have the wisdom to do it again.
According to the Herald-Standard.com story, “$70,000 spent on Fayette’s race for commissioner,” of Nov. 3, 2011, Democrat Vince Zapotosky was the big kahuna when it comes to raking in other peoples’ money. Zapotosky pulled in $24,717 in the reporting period that ended Oct. 28.
Democrat Al Ambrosini got $17,600 in new contributions, and Republican Dave Lohr received $11,750.
Zimmerlink and her husband contributed $1,310 to her campaign. In the reporting period, Zapotosky raised nearly 19 times as much money as Zimmerlink, Ambrosini 13.4 times as much, and Lohr nearly 9 times as much. (That gross imbalance is likely to get worse when the candidates file their post-election reports, which cover campaign contributions raised and spent AFTER Oct. 28.)
In analyzing Lohr’s numbers, what popped out at us was this: Of the $11,750 he raised according to HeraldStandard.com, $5,500 came from two people named Terrance Shallenberger, another $4,800 came Lohr’s way from Sean Miller of Washington Security Group, and yet another $3,400 was put into Lohr’s campaign by Neil Brown of Acme.
(In the “Can you trust what you read?” department, we think someone ought to buy HeraldStandard.com a calculator, or give its reporters a refresher course in basic math, because the Shallenbergers, Miller and Brown contributions alone add up to $13,700, which is $2,000 more than the $11,750 the newspaper reported that Lohr raised. In any case, those three contributors provided the backbone of Lohr‘s campaign financing.)
Inaccurate numbers aside, would this happen to be the same Terrance Shallenberger who is a member of the Fayette County Airport Authority, or whose company is heavily involved in the Marcellus gas industry operating here (think “frackwater treatment plant, Masontown Borough“)? Would this happen to be the same Sean Miller whose company is embroiled in a zoning dispute over a shooting range near Laurel Mall? Would this be the same Neil Brown who is a member of the Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board?
According to Herald-Standard.com, Zapotosky received $1,000 each from John and Justin Garlow of Uniontown (would this be the same John Garlow who owns Ford Business Machines, which has the county copy machine contract?), $1,100 from Fred and Rhonda Zeigler of Uniontown (the same couple who are trying to purchase Great Meadows Amphitheater property from the county?), and $3,500 from Terrance Shallenberger.
Ambrosini also got $2,000 from Terrance Shallenberger and $1,000 from John Garlow, in addition to $1,000 each from Robert W. Sleighter of Uniontown and Terry E. McMillan of Uniontown (who are each affiliated with engineering firms, if memory serves us correctly.)
There is nothing wrong or improper with any of these contributions, which are allowable by law. But if and when the county commissioners ever have to make a decision involving these or any other contributors, or any of the interests they represent, the fact that they contributed money could be interpreted, well, as a contributing factor in those outcomes.
That will never be an issue, real or imagined, with Zimmerlink. And we like that very much.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Why Zapotosky would prefer Lohr
In the race for Fayette County commissioner, two candidates (Democrat Vince Zapotosky and Republican Angela Zimmerlink) are known quantities, while the other two (Democrat Al Ambrosini and Republican Dave Lohr) are unknown quantities.
Zapotosky and Zimmerlink are incumbents, so those who vote for them on Nov. 8 are pretty sure what they are getting. Zapotosky has been commission chairman the past four years, during which he and his primary election running mate, Democrat Vince Vicites, ran county government as they saw fit.
Zimmerlink has completed two terms in office, and formerly served on the board of the Fayette County Housing Authority, although in the past four years she's been relegated to a minority voice in the commissioners' suite as Zapotosky and Vicites ran the show.
Generally speaking, with Zapotosky and Zimmerlink, you have a pretty good idea what they're going to be like if returned to office. More importantly, each of them has a pretty good idea of what they're getting if returned to office with the other. (Remember that point, because we'll be revisiting it shortly.)
Ambrosini is a newcomer to elected office, but the fact that he was top vote-getter in the Democratic primary speaks volumes about what Democrats felt about the direction Zapotosky and Vicites had taken the county. Given that Zapotosky and Vicites ran as a team, it's a pretty fair assumption that since Vicites got the boot and Ambrosini got the most votes, Democrats wanted a change in direction, and pinned their hopes on Ambrosini to deliver it.
Lohr, who also has never held elected office, got the fewest number of votes of the four primary election survivors, but it was enough to keep him in the game. Lohr's unsuccessfully tried for this office three times before; the closest he came was in 1999, when he formed an independent team with former commissioner Sean Cavanagh. That year, it was the long coattails of Cavanagh that Lohr nearly rode into office.
Here in the patch, we've heard the scuttlebutt about Zapotosky and Lohr running a shadow campaign as silent partners, a theory that bears watching given the preponderance of their campaign signs placed side-by-side throughout the county.
So we placed a few calls to our political friends in other patches, trying to find out the answer to one simple question: Why would Zapotosky want to see Lohr elected?
The answer came back in two parts. The more obvious one is that Zapotosky would like to be rid of Zimmerlink, who is among the most informed and savvy commissioners in recent history. She has been, and will continue to be, a formidable voice on policies that she agrees or disagrees with -- which might not always be the same policies that Zapotosky agrees or disagrees with.
But the second answer is one we felt compelled to share with our readers, because even we hadn't thought of it: If Zapotosky can lay claim to having helped Lohr get elected, or even if Lohr believes Zapotosky had something to do with it, guess who becomes the main power broker and likely chairman of the commission? Zapotosky.
If Zimmerlink is elected instead of Lohr, it keeps Zapotosky, at best, the junior partner in a Democratic alliance with Ambrosini; at worst, Zapotosky becomes the minority commissioner on some issues, such as appointments to boards and authorities. In short, in an Ambrosini-Zapotosky-Zimmerlink administration, Zapotosky could end up as the odd man out.
But if Lohr is elected instead of Zimmerlink, especially if he is elected with the help of Zapotosky and/or his Democratic supporters, or he thinks he was, Lohr becomes Bob Jones to Zapotosky's Fred Lebder, and Ambrosini becomes the possible odd man out even if he is the top vote getter Nov. 8.
Don't ya just love all this inside baseball?
Zapotosky and Zimmerlink are incumbents, so those who vote for them on Nov. 8 are pretty sure what they are getting. Zapotosky has been commission chairman the past four years, during which he and his primary election running mate, Democrat Vince Vicites, ran county government as they saw fit.
Zimmerlink has completed two terms in office, and formerly served on the board of the Fayette County Housing Authority, although in the past four years she's been relegated to a minority voice in the commissioners' suite as Zapotosky and Vicites ran the show.
Generally speaking, with Zapotosky and Zimmerlink, you have a pretty good idea what they're going to be like if returned to office. More importantly, each of them has a pretty good idea of what they're getting if returned to office with the other. (Remember that point, because we'll be revisiting it shortly.)
Ambrosini is a newcomer to elected office, but the fact that he was top vote-getter in the Democratic primary speaks volumes about what Democrats felt about the direction Zapotosky and Vicites had taken the county. Given that Zapotosky and Vicites ran as a team, it's a pretty fair assumption that since Vicites got the boot and Ambrosini got the most votes, Democrats wanted a change in direction, and pinned their hopes on Ambrosini to deliver it.
Lohr, who also has never held elected office, got the fewest number of votes of the four primary election survivors, but it was enough to keep him in the game. Lohr's unsuccessfully tried for this office three times before; the closest he came was in 1999, when he formed an independent team with former commissioner Sean Cavanagh. That year, it was the long coattails of Cavanagh that Lohr nearly rode into office.
Here in the patch, we've heard the scuttlebutt about Zapotosky and Lohr running a shadow campaign as silent partners, a theory that bears watching given the preponderance of their campaign signs placed side-by-side throughout the county.
So we placed a few calls to our political friends in other patches, trying to find out the answer to one simple question: Why would Zapotosky want to see Lohr elected?
The answer came back in two parts. The more obvious one is that Zapotosky would like to be rid of Zimmerlink, who is among the most informed and savvy commissioners in recent history. She has been, and will continue to be, a formidable voice on policies that she agrees or disagrees with -- which might not always be the same policies that Zapotosky agrees or disagrees with.
But the second answer is one we felt compelled to share with our readers, because even we hadn't thought of it: If Zapotosky can lay claim to having helped Lohr get elected, or even if Lohr believes Zapotosky had something to do with it, guess who becomes the main power broker and likely chairman of the commission? Zapotosky.
If Zimmerlink is elected instead of Lohr, it keeps Zapotosky, at best, the junior partner in a Democratic alliance with Ambrosini; at worst, Zapotosky becomes the minority commissioner on some issues, such as appointments to boards and authorities. In short, in an Ambrosini-Zapotosky-Zimmerlink administration, Zapotosky could end up as the odd man out.
But if Lohr is elected instead of Zimmerlink, especially if he is elected with the help of Zapotosky and/or his Democratic supporters, or he thinks he was, Lohr becomes Bob Jones to Zapotosky's Fred Lebder, and Ambrosini becomes the possible odd man out even if he is the top vote getter Nov. 8.
Don't ya just love all this inside baseball?
Friday, May 27, 2011
Size didn't matter
According to the last round of campaign expense reports filed before the May 17 election, the combined war chest of Fayette County commissioners Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky was a staggering $112,453. (This for a job that will pay $49,409 in 2012.)
That is 6.7 times as much cash as their Democratic challenger Al Ambrosin, who reported a $16,640 war chest. Of that total, more than half -- $9,000 -- was a contribution from Ambrosini to his own campaign.
So in addition to a decided advantage in name recognition, the Vinces were comparatively flush with cash. Anyone who even remotely follows politics will tell you that name recognition and campaign funding are usually the two key factors in determining who wins.
But not only did Ambrosini, in his first bid for elected office, win. He also ended up as the top vote-getter, against two better-funded and better-known opponents. They even got a front-page Election Day endorsement from the Herald-Standard, which printed this one-sided assessment from Fred L. Lebder, chairman of the county's Democratic Party:
For the Fayette County commissioners race, Lebder predicted that the two Democratic incumbents, Vincent A. Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky, would garner the nominations. They are running as a team. Lebder said he never has seen a more organized campaign than they are running.
So Vince Sr. and Vince Jr. had the money, the name recognition, the newspaper's endorsement, the advantages of incumbency AND the enthusiastic backing of the titular head of the county's Democratic Party.
Ambrosini had none of the above, yet he won -- and won big. What does his win say about the state of Fayette County politics?
Here in the patch, the consensus is that Ambrosini's win represents a sea change that does not bode well for those used to winning elections by stuffing $50 bucks into the pocket of a precinct captain or handing out a flimsy emory board with your name on it. We think more people are paying attention to the issues, and realizing that by electing the same-old, same old, the results will be the same-old, same-old.
County commissioners have very little to do with things like replacing the Masontown Bridge or building the Mon-Fayette Expressway or obtaining state and federal grant funding. They are merely cheerleaders who stick their hand up and say, "Me, too!" Right off the bat, Ambrosini can do that as well as Vicites or Zapotosky.
Need proof of this theory? We would like Vicites to tell us what project in which he claimed involvement WILL NOT happen now that he's been defeated. Will the autism center NOT come to Highlands Hospital? Will the turnpike commission decide NOT to finish the Mon-Fayette Expressway? Will the new Army Reserve center NOT come to the Fayette Business Park operated by Fay-Penn Economic Development Council?
The real power of a county commissioner lies in pretty mundane things: setting a county budget (and millage rate); overseeing the tax assessment, election and planning/zoning offices; funding the county prison; and making appointments to various boards, commissions and authorities that have a tie to county government.
We think a majority of Fayette County voters -- finally -- were hungry for a change from the status quo, which obviously was not "moving Fayette forward" or "getting things done."
That is 6.7 times as much cash as their Democratic challenger Al Ambrosin, who reported a $16,640 war chest. Of that total, more than half -- $9,000 -- was a contribution from Ambrosini to his own campaign.
So in addition to a decided advantage in name recognition, the Vinces were comparatively flush with cash. Anyone who even remotely follows politics will tell you that name recognition and campaign funding are usually the two key factors in determining who wins.
But not only did Ambrosini, in his first bid for elected office, win. He also ended up as the top vote-getter, against two better-funded and better-known opponents. They even got a front-page Election Day endorsement from the Herald-Standard, which printed this one-sided assessment from Fred L. Lebder, chairman of the county's Democratic Party:
For the Fayette County commissioners race, Lebder predicted that the two Democratic incumbents, Vincent A. Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky, would garner the nominations. They are running as a team. Lebder said he never has seen a more organized campaign than they are running.
So Vince Sr. and Vince Jr. had the money, the name recognition, the newspaper's endorsement, the advantages of incumbency AND the enthusiastic backing of the titular head of the county's Democratic Party.
Ambrosini had none of the above, yet he won -- and won big. What does his win say about the state of Fayette County politics?
Here in the patch, the consensus is that Ambrosini's win represents a sea change that does not bode well for those used to winning elections by stuffing $50 bucks into the pocket of a precinct captain or handing out a flimsy emory board with your name on it. We think more people are paying attention to the issues, and realizing that by electing the same-old, same old, the results will be the same-old, same-old.
County commissioners have very little to do with things like replacing the Masontown Bridge or building the Mon-Fayette Expressway or obtaining state and federal grant funding. They are merely cheerleaders who stick their hand up and say, "Me, too!" Right off the bat, Ambrosini can do that as well as Vicites or Zapotosky.
Need proof of this theory? We would like Vicites to tell us what project in which he claimed involvement WILL NOT happen now that he's been defeated. Will the autism center NOT come to Highlands Hospital? Will the turnpike commission decide NOT to finish the Mon-Fayette Expressway? Will the new Army Reserve center NOT come to the Fayette Business Park operated by Fay-Penn Economic Development Council?
The real power of a county commissioner lies in pretty mundane things: setting a county budget (and millage rate); overseeing the tax assessment, election and planning/zoning offices; funding the county prison; and making appointments to various boards, commissions and authorities that have a tie to county government.
We think a majority of Fayette County voters -- finally -- were hungry for a change from the status quo, which obviously was not "moving Fayette forward" or "getting things done."
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Truth in advertising
A few days after the May 17 election, a defeated and groggy-sounding Vince Vicites called the WMBS talk show and put on his good-guy, I-never-go-negative schtick. Then Vicites, obviously unable or unwilling to grasp that voters had decided to give him the boot, went negative.
"I think they need to divulge to the public who they're working with," said Vicites of other candidates in the field. He then went on to imply some sort of political alliance between Democrat Al Ambrosini and Repubican Angela Zimmerlink, who each finished as the top vote-getters in their respective primaries.
Here in the patch, the only similarity we see between Ambrosini and Zimmerlink is that they each have no love for Vicites. Ambrosini was obviously trying to take a job away from Vicites and/or his running mate Vince Zapotosky. Zimmerlink has been frozen out of county decision-making by Vicites and Zapotosky, which makes any claims bu them or their supporters that all three commissioners "need to work together" dubious at best.
The old saying that, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" would certainly seem appropriate to describe any relationship between Ambrosini and Zimmerlink. And if Ambrosini is willing to say "Hello" to Zimmerlink, that's red-carpet treatment compared to the cold shoulder she's gotten from Vicites and Zapotosky.
The seed that Vicites is trying to plant, though, is that Ambrosini is somehow not a real Democrat, that the man who desposed him is -- gasp! -- willing to work with a Republican! That's funny, but wasn't it Vicites who once took a $20,000 campaign contribution from another Republican, former commissioner Joe Hardy? How does a loyal Democrat do something like that?
Still, as flawed as his premise is concerning Ambrosini and Zimmerlink, we're glad that Vicites issued a call for complete transparency. The next time he calls his buddy Mark Rafail on WMBS, we would like Vicites to offer his explanation on something that caught our eye.
While reading the Herald-Standard story "Fayette County commissioner candidates file expense reports" on May 15, we noticed that Joseph A. Bezjak of New Geneva was listed as making a $100 contribution to the Marilyn E. Cellurale for Commissioner Campaign.
Bezjak is a longtime Democrat who just happens to be the uncle of current Democrat Commissioner Vince Zapotosky. Cellurale was running as a Republican candidate for county commissioner.
Why would a close relative of Zapotosky, who was Vicites' running mate, be contributing to the campaign of a Republican seeking the same office? Wouldn't you think that Bezjak would funnel every last nickel he had to the duo who were "getting things done?"
We suspect that in addition to working to get themselves re-elected, Vicites and Zapotosky had more than a passing interest in the outcome of the Republican primary. We believe that they would have liked nothing more than to knock Zimmerlink out of the running.
The next time Vicites starts talking about who was working with whom, he should start with a full vetting of the relationship between the team that was "getting things done" and Cellurale, beginning with Bezjak's contribution to her campaign.
"I think they need to divulge to the public who they're working with," said Vicites of other candidates in the field. He then went on to imply some sort of political alliance between Democrat Al Ambrosini and Repubican Angela Zimmerlink, who each finished as the top vote-getters in their respective primaries.
Here in the patch, the only similarity we see between Ambrosini and Zimmerlink is that they each have no love for Vicites. Ambrosini was obviously trying to take a job away from Vicites and/or his running mate Vince Zapotosky. Zimmerlink has been frozen out of county decision-making by Vicites and Zapotosky, which makes any claims bu them or their supporters that all three commissioners "need to work together" dubious at best.
The old saying that, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" would certainly seem appropriate to describe any relationship between Ambrosini and Zimmerlink. And if Ambrosini is willing to say "Hello" to Zimmerlink, that's red-carpet treatment compared to the cold shoulder she's gotten from Vicites and Zapotosky.
The seed that Vicites is trying to plant, though, is that Ambrosini is somehow not a real Democrat, that the man who desposed him is -- gasp! -- willing to work with a Republican! That's funny, but wasn't it Vicites who once took a $20,000 campaign contribution from another Republican, former commissioner Joe Hardy? How does a loyal Democrat do something like that?
Still, as flawed as his premise is concerning Ambrosini and Zimmerlink, we're glad that Vicites issued a call for complete transparency. The next time he calls his buddy Mark Rafail on WMBS, we would like Vicites to offer his explanation on something that caught our eye.
While reading the Herald-Standard story "Fayette County commissioner candidates file expense reports" on May 15, we noticed that Joseph A. Bezjak of New Geneva was listed as making a $100 contribution to the Marilyn E. Cellurale for Commissioner Campaign.
Bezjak is a longtime Democrat who just happens to be the uncle of current Democrat Commissioner Vince Zapotosky. Cellurale was running as a Republican candidate for county commissioner.
Why would a close relative of Zapotosky, who was Vicites' running mate, be contributing to the campaign of a Republican seeking the same office? Wouldn't you think that Bezjak would funnel every last nickel he had to the duo who were "getting things done?"
We suspect that in addition to working to get themselves re-elected, Vicites and Zapotosky had more than a passing interest in the outcome of the Republican primary. We believe that they would have liked nothing more than to knock Zimmerlink out of the running.
The next time Vicites starts talking about who was working with whom, he should start with a full vetting of the relationship between the team that was "getting things done" and Cellurale, beginning with Bezjak's contribution to her campaign.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Please wipe this egg off our face
Somebody in the patch should pick up the telephone -- if they can get through on the party line -- and give the Herald-Standard a clue. When it comes to local politics, the newspaper is as out of touch as Snoop Doggy Dogg would be if asked to sing a polka.
In the just-concluded primary election races for Fayette County commissioner, not only did the newspaper fail to endorse top Democratic vote-getter Al Ambrosini and top Republican vote-getter Angela M. Zimmerlink; it pretty much trashed each of them in the process. While completely dismissive of Ambrosini, the newspaper was both dismissive and disrespectful of Zimmerlink, which is totally unwarranted.
The high command at 8-18 E. Church St. in Uniontown still seems baffled that their favorite son, four-term incumbent Democrat Vince Vicites, and Republican endorsee Marilyn Cellurale each finished in last place.
In an attempt to wipe massive amounts of egg off its collective face, the Herald-Standard filled its editorial space ("Unpredictable," May 20) with some spin that sounded like it came straight from the Vicites damage-control machine.
The newspaper bemoaned the fact that in this year's May 17 primary election, "turnout was abysmal at 26.7 percent of registered voters." Taking another swipe at Ambrosini, the Herald-Standard further stated that "even he has to be somewhat mystified that he won despite getting only about 13 percent of votes from registered Democrats and about 7 percent of the county's total population."
The implication, of course, is that Ambrosini somehow benefitted from low voter turnout. But voter turnout has always been low, and we would love to see the newspaper analyze prior elections. We guarantee you that Vicites never won with 90 percent of Democrat votes or with the support of even 50 percent of the county's total population.
If the Herald-Standard finds it shocking that voter turnout in this year's primary election was only 26.7 percent, do they also find it shocking that in the 2007 GENERAL ELECTION that put Vicites in office for a fourth term, voter turnout was only 28 percent? Don't take our word for it; check out "Fayette County may still have electronic voting issues," Tribune-Review, Nov. 22, 2007, at http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/print_539264.html
Voter turnout in this year's primary was just 1.3 percent less than in the real-deal election that put Vicites and fellow Democrat Vince Zapotosky in office for a four-year term. So what's the big deal?
We also have to debunk another spin that proves the Herald-Standard has its head in the sand. In the same post-election editorial, the newspaper focused on the drop in number of Democratic and Republican votes in the races for county commissioner. It noted that in 1999, there were 37,713 Democratic votes, compared to 25,857 in this year's primary. On the Republican side, it said the number of votes slid from 9,513 to 5.850 in the same period.
Please note that this assessment is only about the number of VOTES, not the number of VOTERS. We postulate that part of the slide, and perhaps a big part of it, is the fact that more voters are plunking for their candidate of choice. (We know for a fact that many folks we talked to plunked for Ambrosini).
Insiders have plunked for years, giving their candidate a decided advantage, but now the tactic has mass appeal. Here's how it works: In the Democratic and Republican primary elections for county commissioner, registered voters of each party get to cast TWO ballots, because their parties are each nominating two candiates for the fall election.
But even though you are allowed to vote for two, you don't have to. If you want to, you can only vote for one. If you really wanted to ensure that Ambrosini got elected, it made no sense to cast a vote for him AND for Vicites, or for him AND Zapotosky. Supporters of Vicites and Zapotosky, who were running as a team, obviously knew the value of plunking. How else do you explain that one member of the team (Zapotosky) got several hundred more votes than the other (Vicites)?
Here's an easier way to illustrate the phenomenon: If 20,000 Democratic voters head to the polls and they each vote for two Democrat commission candidates, a total of 40,000 votes gets cast. But if each of them only votes for one Democrat candidate -- i.e., they plunk -- a total of only 20,000 votes gets cast.
You can bet that if Vicites had won with only 7 percent of the county's population voting for him, with voter turnout of "only" 26.7 percent, he would have done handstands on Route 40 nonstop from the courthouse to Fort Necessity.
In the just-concluded primary election races for Fayette County commissioner, not only did the newspaper fail to endorse top Democratic vote-getter Al Ambrosini and top Republican vote-getter Angela M. Zimmerlink; it pretty much trashed each of them in the process. While completely dismissive of Ambrosini, the newspaper was both dismissive and disrespectful of Zimmerlink, which is totally unwarranted.
The high command at 8-18 E. Church St. in Uniontown still seems baffled that their favorite son, four-term incumbent Democrat Vince Vicites, and Republican endorsee Marilyn Cellurale each finished in last place.
In an attempt to wipe massive amounts of egg off its collective face, the Herald-Standard filled its editorial space ("Unpredictable," May 20) with some spin that sounded like it came straight from the Vicites damage-control machine.
The newspaper bemoaned the fact that in this year's May 17 primary election, "turnout was abysmal at 26.7 percent of registered voters." Taking another swipe at Ambrosini, the Herald-Standard further stated that "even he has to be somewhat mystified that he won despite getting only about 13 percent of votes from registered Democrats and about 7 percent of the county's total population."
The implication, of course, is that Ambrosini somehow benefitted from low voter turnout. But voter turnout has always been low, and we would love to see the newspaper analyze prior elections. We guarantee you that Vicites never won with 90 percent of Democrat votes or with the support of even 50 percent of the county's total population.
If the Herald-Standard finds it shocking that voter turnout in this year's primary election was only 26.7 percent, do they also find it shocking that in the 2007 GENERAL ELECTION that put Vicites in office for a fourth term, voter turnout was only 28 percent? Don't take our word for it; check out "Fayette County may still have electronic voting issues," Tribune-Review, Nov. 22, 2007, at http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/print_539264.html
Voter turnout in this year's primary was just 1.3 percent less than in the real-deal election that put Vicites and fellow Democrat Vince Zapotosky in office for a four-year term. So what's the big deal?
We also have to debunk another spin that proves the Herald-Standard has its head in the sand. In the same post-election editorial, the newspaper focused on the drop in number of Democratic and Republican votes in the races for county commissioner. It noted that in 1999, there were 37,713 Democratic votes, compared to 25,857 in this year's primary. On the Republican side, it said the number of votes slid from 9,513 to 5.850 in the same period.
Please note that this assessment is only about the number of VOTES, not the number of VOTERS. We postulate that part of the slide, and perhaps a big part of it, is the fact that more voters are plunking for their candidate of choice. (We know for a fact that many folks we talked to plunked for Ambrosini).
Insiders have plunked for years, giving their candidate a decided advantage, but now the tactic has mass appeal. Here's how it works: In the Democratic and Republican primary elections for county commissioner, registered voters of each party get to cast TWO ballots, because their parties are each nominating two candiates for the fall election.
But even though you are allowed to vote for two, you don't have to. If you want to, you can only vote for one. If you really wanted to ensure that Ambrosini got elected, it made no sense to cast a vote for him AND for Vicites, or for him AND Zapotosky. Supporters of Vicites and Zapotosky, who were running as a team, obviously knew the value of plunking. How else do you explain that one member of the team (Zapotosky) got several hundred more votes than the other (Vicites)?
Here's an easier way to illustrate the phenomenon: If 20,000 Democratic voters head to the polls and they each vote for two Democrat commission candidates, a total of 40,000 votes gets cast. But if each of them only votes for one Democrat candidate -- i.e., they plunk -- a total of only 20,000 votes gets cast.
You can bet that if Vicites had won with only 7 percent of the county's population voting for him, with voter turnout of "only" 26.7 percent, he would have done handstands on Route 40 nonstop from the courthouse to Fort Necessity.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
On May 18, who will ask, "What happened?"
With the May 17 election just one week away, seasoned political observers here in the patch are speculating on which incumbent Democratic Fayette County commissioner is going to outfox the other.
Sure, everyone has seen the campaign signs and heard the radio advertisements, and is aware that, on the surface at least, Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky are running as a team. But everyone, including ardent supporters of each of them, also knows that teams never win.
Former commissioner Fred Lebder ran as a team with Vicites and then with lawyer Richard Bower, but was not able to pull either of them into office along with him. Four years ago, Zapotosky ran as a team with former commissioner Sean Cavanagh, but they weren't able to nail down both Democratic nominations in the primary.
On the GOP side, remember Rich Brown and Bill Middleton? They ran as a team a few elections ago, and did so poorly that they finished behind two Democrats (Vicites and the late Ron Nehls) and Democrat-running-as-independent Cavanagh).
Given the historic trend, we believe it unlikely that both Vicites and Zapotosky will win nominations, particularly since a solid challenger exists in Al Ambrosini. But it really doesn't matter what we think; what matters is what each of them and their key advisers think. And you can bet your last pierogie that if Ambrosini is running stride for stride with them around the final turn, as it appears he is, it will be every man for himself.
What this election may turn on is who does the best job of convincing his supporters to "plunk." For those who moved into the patch just recently -- and that's not many, since Fayette County lost 8.2 percent of its people as Vicites and Zapotosky were "getting things done" -- the concept of "plunking" has been used forever to give one candidate the advantage over another.
It's pretty simple, really. Although registered Democrats can vote for TWO of their party's commission candidates in the primary election (as can registered Republicans), you only vote for ONE. This keeps your vote solidly in the corner of the candidate you really want to win. If you vote for two candidates, you are also giving a vote to a less-favored candidate. And by doing so, you could end up cancelling out the vote for the guy (or gal) that you really want in office.
As crunch time comes upon us, we see this race devolving into an "every man for himself" mentality, with in-the-know supporters of Vicites and Zapotosky, and even Ambrosini, opting to plunk in order to enhance the chance of their guy prevailing.
Since Ambrosini isn't aligned with anyone, plunking by his camp isn't unexpected and won't send any shock waves through the political community. But when the dust settles, if only one of the Vicites/Zapotosky team wins on May 17, a key factor is likely to be which one's supporters did a better job of plunking.
Our bet is on Vicites, because he is by far a better politican and strategist than Zapotosky. Four years ago, Zapotosky's teaming with Cavanagh was a sham, and Cavanagh was too naive to see how he was being used. That won't happen with Vicites.
Sure, everyone has seen the campaign signs and heard the radio advertisements, and is aware that, on the surface at least, Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky are running as a team. But everyone, including ardent supporters of each of them, also knows that teams never win.
Former commissioner Fred Lebder ran as a team with Vicites and then with lawyer Richard Bower, but was not able to pull either of them into office along with him. Four years ago, Zapotosky ran as a team with former commissioner Sean Cavanagh, but they weren't able to nail down both Democratic nominations in the primary.
On the GOP side, remember Rich Brown and Bill Middleton? They ran as a team a few elections ago, and did so poorly that they finished behind two Democrats (Vicites and the late Ron Nehls) and Democrat-running-as-independent Cavanagh).
Given the historic trend, we believe it unlikely that both Vicites and Zapotosky will win nominations, particularly since a solid challenger exists in Al Ambrosini. But it really doesn't matter what we think; what matters is what each of them and their key advisers think. And you can bet your last pierogie that if Ambrosini is running stride for stride with them around the final turn, as it appears he is, it will be every man for himself.
What this election may turn on is who does the best job of convincing his supporters to "plunk." For those who moved into the patch just recently -- and that's not many, since Fayette County lost 8.2 percent of its people as Vicites and Zapotosky were "getting things done" -- the concept of "plunking" has been used forever to give one candidate the advantage over another.
It's pretty simple, really. Although registered Democrats can vote for TWO of their party's commission candidates in the primary election (as can registered Republicans), you only vote for ONE. This keeps your vote solidly in the corner of the candidate you really want to win. If you vote for two candidates, you are also giving a vote to a less-favored candidate. And by doing so, you could end up cancelling out the vote for the guy (or gal) that you really want in office.
As crunch time comes upon us, we see this race devolving into an "every man for himself" mentality, with in-the-know supporters of Vicites and Zapotosky, and even Ambrosini, opting to plunk in order to enhance the chance of their guy prevailing.
Since Ambrosini isn't aligned with anyone, plunking by his camp isn't unexpected and won't send any shock waves through the political community. But when the dust settles, if only one of the Vicites/Zapotosky team wins on May 17, a key factor is likely to be which one's supporters did a better job of plunking.
Our bet is on Vicites, because he is by far a better politican and strategist than Zapotosky. Four years ago, Zapotosky's teaming with Cavanagh was a sham, and Cavanagh was too naive to see how he was being used. That won't happen with Vicites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)