Here in the patch, we really can't blame Fayette County Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink if she never talks to the Herald-Standard newspaper again. Why should she, considering the newspaper's continued pattern of anti-Zimmerlink bias demonstrated by:
1. The front-page story published Oct. 28 (11 days before the Nov. 8 election), entitled, "Official grilled on web postings." The first two paragraphs of that story, printed here verbatim, were:
Tanya Cellurale of Connellsville on Thursday accused Fayette County Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink of using county time to make derogatory comments on a local website.
Speaking during public comment, Cellurale said Zimmerlink has posted numerous comments on a local website, some of which slander people who attend public meetings.
Zimmerlink vigorously denied those claims in the story, authored by reporter Amy Revak, who also relayed to the reading public Cellurale's further claim to have laid hands on the IP (Internet Protocol) address of Zimmerlink's county work computer.
Only a fool would believe that Cellurale's comments were not politically motivated. And only a reporter who was either: A. Willing to play along, or B. Totally clueless, would have published Cellurale's unsubstaniated accusation, especially so close to Election Day.
To date, neither Revak nor any other Herald-Standard reporter has done a follow-up story, to find out if Cellurale was even close to telling the truth when she made her pre-election accusations. As we have noted previously, it's a fairly easy thing to do -- and it starts with having the guts to ask Cellurale to provide the IP address she claims to have in her possession. (If it is a county IP address, we would further ask how she obtained such proprietary information, which we can easily envision triggering a lot of stuttering and stammering.)
2. The story published Nov. 1, seven days before the Nov. 8 election, entitled, "County Conservation District raises fees." The first three paragraphs of that story, printed verbatim, were:
The Fayette County Conservation District will raise its fees by as much (as) $700 in 2012 for any land disturbed during development.
The seven-member board - which Fayette County Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink sits on with board Chairman Don Bowser and members Bill Geary, Frank Mutnansky, Larry Chaikcic, Warren Dick and Lloyd Moser -- is responsible for the conservation, protection, restoration and wise use of the county's natural resources.
During a meeting Oct. 24, the board voted to increase the Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Fee Schedule, with varying fees based on the amount of disturbed acres associated with a project.
That story, authored by reporter Rebekah Sungala, later noted that "Zimmerlink was absent from the meeting" and that "Zimmerlink, who represents the county on the board, did not respond to requests for comment."
(On Election Day, Sungala showed up and was photographed at the Bullskin Township 1 precinct, wearing a campaign sticker for Dave Lohr, Zimmerlink's main opponent for the third and final commissioner spot.)
Given the Herald-Standard's sudden interest in the operations of relatively obscure Fayette County Conservation District, we here in the patch were -- and are -- eagerly awaiting the news story on last month's Conservation District board meeting. It was held Nov. 28 and we are assured that Zimmerlink was in attendance.
We were initially disappointed that no story appeared on Nov. 29, the day after the latest meeting. But then we realized that perhaps we needed to wait eight days for something to appear in print, just like the October meeting.
What's important for everyone to know is that neither of these stories appeared without the oversight and approval of the Herald-Standard newsroom editors. It is they who decided the ideas were newsworthy and passed journalistic muster. It is they who read them before anyone else. It is they who decided where the stories would be placed in the newspaper.
These are not completely incidents of rogue reporters who are able to have their way and say, acting alone and without approval from above. Someone higher up the chain of command sanctioned each of these stories -- and someone who had the ability to put a stop to them, or to hold them until further and fairer research could be conducted, decided those steps were not necessary.
Now that Zimmerlink has won re-election by 18 votes, despite the best efforts of many (including the Herald-Standard) to defeat her, it will be real interesting to see how the newspaper treats her in the next four years.
We don't look for much change. Which is why we're glad that Zimmerlink is using her own blog to explain the decisions she makes as a county commissioner. http://blog.votezimmerlink.com/?ci=23323
From that blog, here is her enlightening explanation for why she voted no to a $2.7 million deficit county budget:
One of the most important duties of the commissioners is to develop an annual spending plan, i.e. the county budget
As provided by County Code, the preparation of the Proposed Budget must begin at least 90 days prior to adoption. In our preparation of the 2010 Proposed Budget the Commissioners advertised and held public work sessions beginning in September (90 days). In our preparation of the 2011 Proposed Budget the Commissioners began the process in September (90 days) and held public work sessions beginning in October . Now compare just those two prior years to this 2012 Proposed Budget wherein the Commissioners have not held one work session ………yet the 2 majority Commissioners on Monday, at a special commissioners meeting, voted to approve the Proposed Budget. I voted no.
Just how can Commissioners approve a proposed spending plan and present it to the public for a 20 day review period without having any meetings with their department heads, row officers, courts, etc? What's been going on for the past 90 days?
Could it be there were other things on their minds? Too busy campaigning for the Nov 8th election?
So what happens next? Well, we as Commissioners have 17 working days… but wait not really 17 because Commissioner Vicites' email to us asked that no public meetings be held Dec 6,7,8,or 9th while he is on vacation so that leaves 13 working days….but wait not really 13 because county manager Warren Hughes has a scheduled vacation so that leaves 9 working days.
Both majority Commissioners, Zapotosky and Vicites were quoted by the media saying they will work diligently to pare down the $2.7 deficit in order to balance the budget before December 30th. Really? Diligently in 9 days?
Yes, when Commissioner Vicites returns from vacation the process will begin as both majority Commissioners have instructed staff that the public work sessions will be held Monday, December 12th through Friday December 16th between 11-2pm................................ and if you are wondering courthouse hours are 8:30-4:30.
Showing posts with label Angela Zimmerlink. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Angela Zimmerlink. Show all posts
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
Vicites has no EB conflicts?
Speaking of ethics, is anybody besides us willing to question the continued presence of Fayette County Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites as a member of the Fayette County Election Board?
The three-member election board, which includes Vicites, is currently playing a critical role in the closest race ever for a spot as a county commissioner. The decisions that the board makes -- which absentee and provisional ballots to count, which to throw out --- are likely to determine a winner between Republican incumbent Angela Zimmerlink and Republican challenger Dave Lohr.
Since he wasn't a candidate in the Nov. 8 election, Vicites is legally eligible to reclaim his role on the election board (he had to step down during the primary election because he was then a candidate). But just because he can sit in judgment, does that mean he should?
Anybody who has followed county politics, even at the third-grade level, has got to be aware of these three salient points:
1. Vicites was the running mate of fellow Democrat Vincent Zapotosky in the spring 2011 primary election. On that basis alone, should Vicites be one of the three folks who will ultimately certify the results of the fall 2011 general election, where his former running mate was a candidate?
2. Vicites (along with Zapotosky) is the subject of a current lawsuit filed by Zimmerlink, who alleges that the two Democrats have basically hobbled her ability to do her job. On this basis alone, doesn't Vicites have an ethical, if not legal, conflict of interest? Think about it: If you were suing Vicites, would you want him having any say -- let alone the final say -- in the outcome of your close election? Would you think he would be impartial? (And if the roles were reversed, with Vicites locked in a nip-and-tuck battle with someone else for the third and final commissioner spot, and with Vicites having sued Zimmerlink, and with Zimmerlink sitting on the election board, how content do you think Vicites would be with that arrangement?)
3. Vicites and Zapotosky are the ones who voted to can former election bureau director Laurie Lint, and to replace her with current office director Larry Blosser. Zimmerlink voted against this switcheroo. Nothing against Blosser or the job he is doing, but the split vote clearly makes him Vicites' and Zapotosky's guy. Is Vicites the best person to serve in an oversight capacity where policies and procedures of that office are in play?
These are certainly questions worth asking. But we don't expect the Herald-Standard to even mention them. Not when editor Mark O'Keefe's choice for co-anchor of the newspaper's televised election night coverage was sitting Fayette County Commissioner (and election board member) Vincent Vicites.
There are a host of reasons why we don't expect the Herald-Standard to raise any of these issues. But what we find inexcusable is that during this whole election certification process, they have not to our knowledge made one single phone call to the Pennsylvania Department of State to independently find out the rules or to verify that the ballot-counting decisions by the Fayette County Election Board do indeed pass muster.
They have also not called any other counties to find out what they did, do, or have done with absentee and provisional ballots that fall into any of the categories that many of us are hearing about for the first time (i.e., those that were reportedly delivered to or by the post office but somehow didn't make it to the polls on election day).
How come we never have read of problems like this occuring with any other county election bureau in the area? Is that because those problems have never been reported -- or because they have never had such problems? That's something the Fayette County public, regardless of which candidates win or lose, deserves to know.
The three-member election board, which includes Vicites, is currently playing a critical role in the closest race ever for a spot as a county commissioner. The decisions that the board makes -- which absentee and provisional ballots to count, which to throw out --- are likely to determine a winner between Republican incumbent Angela Zimmerlink and Republican challenger Dave Lohr.
Since he wasn't a candidate in the Nov. 8 election, Vicites is legally eligible to reclaim his role on the election board (he had to step down during the primary election because he was then a candidate). But just because he can sit in judgment, does that mean he should?
Anybody who has followed county politics, even at the third-grade level, has got to be aware of these three salient points:
1. Vicites was the running mate of fellow Democrat Vincent Zapotosky in the spring 2011 primary election. On that basis alone, should Vicites be one of the three folks who will ultimately certify the results of the fall 2011 general election, where his former running mate was a candidate?
2. Vicites (along with Zapotosky) is the subject of a current lawsuit filed by Zimmerlink, who alleges that the two Democrats have basically hobbled her ability to do her job. On this basis alone, doesn't Vicites have an ethical, if not legal, conflict of interest? Think about it: If you were suing Vicites, would you want him having any say -- let alone the final say -- in the outcome of your close election? Would you think he would be impartial? (And if the roles were reversed, with Vicites locked in a nip-and-tuck battle with someone else for the third and final commissioner spot, and with Vicites having sued Zimmerlink, and with Zimmerlink sitting on the election board, how content do you think Vicites would be with that arrangement?)
3. Vicites and Zapotosky are the ones who voted to can former election bureau director Laurie Lint, and to replace her with current office director Larry Blosser. Zimmerlink voted against this switcheroo. Nothing against Blosser or the job he is doing, but the split vote clearly makes him Vicites' and Zapotosky's guy. Is Vicites the best person to serve in an oversight capacity where policies and procedures of that office are in play?
These are certainly questions worth asking. But we don't expect the Herald-Standard to even mention them. Not when editor Mark O'Keefe's choice for co-anchor of the newspaper's televised election night coverage was sitting Fayette County Commissioner (and election board member) Vincent Vicites.
There are a host of reasons why we don't expect the Herald-Standard to raise any of these issues. But what we find inexcusable is that during this whole election certification process, they have not to our knowledge made one single phone call to the Pennsylvania Department of State to independently find out the rules or to verify that the ballot-counting decisions by the Fayette County Election Board do indeed pass muster.
They have also not called any other counties to find out what they did, do, or have done with absentee and provisional ballots that fall into any of the categories that many of us are hearing about for the first time (i.e., those that were reportedly delivered to or by the post office but somehow didn't make it to the polls on election day).
How come we never have read of problems like this occuring with any other county election bureau in the area? Is that because those problems have never been reported -- or because they have never had such problems? That's something the Fayette County public, regardless of which candidates win or lose, deserves to know.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Why no GOP 'united front'?
Here in the patch, where not a single person has voted for a Republican since FDR became president, folks figure that the Fayette County Republican Party has got to be scratching its head as much as we are.
That’s because for years and years and years, Republicans here have said one of the reasons Fayette lags so far behind other counties is because of the dominance of the Democratic Party. In their collective view, Fayette gets nothing from the Democrats because they take the county vote for granted, and Fayette gets nothing from the Republicans because they write the county off as a place where they’ll never win.
The real story in the general election held Nov. 8 is not that the two Democrat candidates for county commissioner, Al Ambrosini and incumbent Vince Zapotosky, finished first and second, respectively. The real story is not even the closeness of the vote for the third and final commissioner spot, where incumbent Republican Angela Zimmerlink unofficially bested Republican Dave Lohr by 11 votes. (But this is Fayette County, so you shouldn’t be surprised if something new and previously unheard of to arise during the official vote count that begins this week.)
No, the real story is how close the two Republicans came to beating Zapotosky. Zapotosky finished with 25 percent of the vote, while Zimmerlink and Lohr each finished with 22 percent. That put each of them roughly 1,300 votes behind Zapotosky, which clearly put both Republican candidates within striking distance of the Number 2 Democrat. (For the record, Ambrosini captured 30 percent of the vote.)
The question that we would love to see a news reporter ask the Republican Party honchos is, “Given the closeness of this race, how do you feel about Lohr running a campaign, not aimed at the two Democrats, but at fellow Republican Zimmerlink?”
Make no mistake: Lohr was taking on Zimmerlink more than Ambrosini and Zapotosky combined. Any doubt can be erased by looking at Lohr’s full-page, color political advertisement in the Herald-Standard of Nov. 2 (yeah, the one where he’s once again shaking hands with Joe Hardy.)
The ad, which was “Paid for by Dave Lohr,” creatively poses as a letter from Hardy, who notes, “In the past, the sitting Republican commissioner has sought to form committees and slow down the process of welcoming this dynamic (gas) industry to our community.” (That’s not true, obviously, and we predict that as time unfolds, more and more Fayette County residents will come to appreciate Zimmerlink’s effort to form an informational Marcellus Shale Task Force.)
Back to the ad: The way it was structured gives Lohr cover to say, “Hey, it wasn’t me who said that -- it was Joe Hardy.” It’s a classic example of using someone else to say something bad about your opponent, so you won’t have to. We’ll leave it to you to decide whether that little trick is the mark of an honest person. Or an independent one.
There’s another basic and longstanding theory of Fayette County politics, which holds that the Republican Party is merely an extension of the Democratic Party. This theory holds that the county’s political structure is monolithic, and that a true two-party system is a myth because they are in collusion.
In the just-concluded primary election for county commissioner, where two Democrats and two Republicans were running for three spots, can you name us one other county where a candidate took aim at the other candidate from his or her own party, instead of taking aim at the two candidates from the other party?
In this election, Republicans may have had a golden opportunity to recapture control of the county, by winning two of the three seats. We don’t expect HeraldStandard.com to pursue a story along those lines, or one that would delve into Lohr’s unorthodox use of a primary election strategy in a general election.
No, the newspaper appears quite content to do a follow-up story on the closeness of the race between Zimmerlink and Lohr, two Republicans, by contacting the chairman of the Democratic Party, Fred L. Lebder.
Lebder is a political legend whose insights are worth seeking on any topic. But the real story here involves Republicans and the county Republican Party. Someone should give them a call.
That’s because for years and years and years, Republicans here have said one of the reasons Fayette lags so far behind other counties is because of the dominance of the Democratic Party. In their collective view, Fayette gets nothing from the Democrats because they take the county vote for granted, and Fayette gets nothing from the Republicans because they write the county off as a place where they’ll never win.
The real story in the general election held Nov. 8 is not that the two Democrat candidates for county commissioner, Al Ambrosini and incumbent Vince Zapotosky, finished first and second, respectively. The real story is not even the closeness of the vote for the third and final commissioner spot, where incumbent Republican Angela Zimmerlink unofficially bested Republican Dave Lohr by 11 votes. (But this is Fayette County, so you shouldn’t be surprised if something new and previously unheard of to arise during the official vote count that begins this week.)
No, the real story is how close the two Republicans came to beating Zapotosky. Zapotosky finished with 25 percent of the vote, while Zimmerlink and Lohr each finished with 22 percent. That put each of them roughly 1,300 votes behind Zapotosky, which clearly put both Republican candidates within striking distance of the Number 2 Democrat. (For the record, Ambrosini captured 30 percent of the vote.)
The question that we would love to see a news reporter ask the Republican Party honchos is, “Given the closeness of this race, how do you feel about Lohr running a campaign, not aimed at the two Democrats, but at fellow Republican Zimmerlink?”
Make no mistake: Lohr was taking on Zimmerlink more than Ambrosini and Zapotosky combined. Any doubt can be erased by looking at Lohr’s full-page, color political advertisement in the Herald-Standard of Nov. 2 (yeah, the one where he’s once again shaking hands with Joe Hardy.)
The ad, which was “Paid for by Dave Lohr,” creatively poses as a letter from Hardy, who notes, “In the past, the sitting Republican commissioner has sought to form committees and slow down the process of welcoming this dynamic (gas) industry to our community.” (That’s not true, obviously, and we predict that as time unfolds, more and more Fayette County residents will come to appreciate Zimmerlink’s effort to form an informational Marcellus Shale Task Force.)
Back to the ad: The way it was structured gives Lohr cover to say, “Hey, it wasn’t me who said that -- it was Joe Hardy.” It’s a classic example of using someone else to say something bad about your opponent, so you won’t have to. We’ll leave it to you to decide whether that little trick is the mark of an honest person. Or an independent one.
There’s another basic and longstanding theory of Fayette County politics, which holds that the Republican Party is merely an extension of the Democratic Party. This theory holds that the county’s political structure is monolithic, and that a true two-party system is a myth because they are in collusion.
In the just-concluded primary election for county commissioner, where two Democrats and two Republicans were running for three spots, can you name us one other county where a candidate took aim at the other candidate from his or her own party, instead of taking aim at the two candidates from the other party?
In this election, Republicans may have had a golden opportunity to recapture control of the county, by winning two of the three seats. We don’t expect HeraldStandard.com to pursue a story along those lines, or one that would delve into Lohr’s unorthodox use of a primary election strategy in a general election.
No, the newspaper appears quite content to do a follow-up story on the closeness of the race between Zimmerlink and Lohr, two Republicans, by contacting the chairman of the Democratic Party, Fred L. Lebder.
Lebder is a political legend whose insights are worth seeking on any topic. But the real story here involves Republicans and the county Republican Party. Someone should give them a call.
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.
Monday, October 31, 2011
The newspaper that asks no questions
For the record, not one person here in the patch believes the Herald-Standard newspaper (which goes by the fancier-sounding HeraldStandard.com nowadays) is going to endorse incumbent Fayette County commissioner Angela Zimmerlink for re-election on Nov. 8.
Zimmerlink's fate was sealed the day last year when she had the audacity to question the appropriateness of using $60,000 worth of county tourism tax money -- which is supposed to go toward promoting tourism in the county -- to launch Fayette TV. That move threw a financial lifeline to the old HSTV operation, which had turned into the newspaper's own white elephant.
Let us be perfectly honest here, if a bit R-rated: On that day, Zimmerlink earned a spot on the newspaper's shit list, from which we believe she will never recover. How she was treated in print on Friday, Oct. 28 bears out this theory.
On that day, the Herald-Standard ran two stories based on what transpired at the prior day's commission meeting. The story that the newspaper -- and this would include its editors -- judged worthy of the bottom of page B-1 (an inside section) was titled, "Commissioners move toward finalizing amphitheater lease agreement." It dealt with the latest maneuvering surrounding the Great Meadows Amphitheater, which is the county's white elephant equivalent of HSTV.
The other story, which the newspaper and its editors decided to run on A-1 (that would be the front page, where the most important stories go), was headlined, "Official grilled on web postings." It dealt with accusations made during public comment, accusations made against Zimmerllink by one Tanya Cellurale, accusations that Zimmerlink correctly characterized as "pre-election banter." Coming a well-timed 11 days before the election, how could this be anything but that?
In this "story," readers learned the following: Tanya Cellurale claimed that Zimmerlink, during work hours, went on to a local chat room-style web site and posted comments that she found derogatory. Cellurale said she knew this because she had figured out Zimmerlink's "I.P. address," which is computer lingo for Internet Protocol address, which is a means to uniquely identify a person's computer. (Zimmerlink rebutted this claim, noting she "did not do anything on county time on county computers.")
But if you think the name "Cellurale" has a familiar ring to it, you're on to our next point, which is what the "story" conveniently failed to mention: Tanya Cellurale is part of the ongoing Cellurale-Kriss land dispute in Dunbar Township, involving the Meason House owned by the Krisses and any number of businesses owned by the Cellurale family. Tanya Cellurale was/is also related to Marilyn Cellurale, who ran against Zimmerink in this year's Republican primary. (Yes, the same Republican Marilyn Cellurale who received a campaign contribution from Joseph Bezjak, the uncle of incumbent Democrat Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky, whose campaign signs are now doting the landscape in tandem with those of Republican candidate Dave Lohr, whose explanation is a quaint "different people like different candidates.")
It would take a whole blog post to further explain the clashes and entanglements of the Cellurales and Krisses, and of the political and legal machinizations that have become part of that saga. Suffice it to say that no one named Cellurale is about to put a Zimmerlink sign in their yard any time soon.
Back to the Oct. 28 "story": If reporter Amy Revak and her editors at the Herald-Standard found Tanya Cellurale's accusations to be newsworthy, and if they did not feel they were being used on the eve of an election, and even if they decided it was OK to be used and opted to play along just for some Zimmerlink-slapping fun, why didn't they do some basic shoeleather reporting to at least make the effort appear credible?
Why didn't Revak ask, or why didn't her editors make her ask, Tanya Cellurale to provide the I.P. address that she claimed was Zimmerlink's? Why didn't the newspaper then ask Zimmerlink or the county Information Technology folks to provide the I.P. address used by her work computer? After all that would be public information, right?
If the numbers did not match, it would prove that Tanya Cellurale had leveled a false accusation.
Even if the numbers matched, that wouldn't necessarily prove that Zimmerlink had used a county computer to make website postings, or that she had done so on county time. That would take a little more newspaper investigation to corroborate, and we're not sure that anyone on the payroll is up to that task.
But if the numbers indeed matched -- and we're betting they would not -- a pressing immediate question would be: How did Tanya Cellurale get her hands on what should be proprietary county information? Did someone at the county level give her the I.P. address of Zimmerlink's work computer, or was Tanya Cellurale able to find out sensitive county computer information as a regular citizen?
We seriously doubt that anyone outside the courthouse could get their hands on something like an I.P. address, or that someone who wasn't politically motivated would even care to. We'll leave it to you to theorize on who could obtain such information from within (or authorize its release), and who could benefit from its use as a political tool.
Zimmerlink's fate was sealed the day last year when she had the audacity to question the appropriateness of using $60,000 worth of county tourism tax money -- which is supposed to go toward promoting tourism in the county -- to launch Fayette TV. That move threw a financial lifeline to the old HSTV operation, which had turned into the newspaper's own white elephant.
Let us be perfectly honest here, if a bit R-rated: On that day, Zimmerlink earned a spot on the newspaper's shit list, from which we believe she will never recover. How she was treated in print on Friday, Oct. 28 bears out this theory.
On that day, the Herald-Standard ran two stories based on what transpired at the prior day's commission meeting. The story that the newspaper -- and this would include its editors -- judged worthy of the bottom of page B-1 (an inside section) was titled, "Commissioners move toward finalizing amphitheater lease agreement." It dealt with the latest maneuvering surrounding the Great Meadows Amphitheater, which is the county's white elephant equivalent of HSTV.
The other story, which the newspaper and its editors decided to run on A-1 (that would be the front page, where the most important stories go), was headlined, "Official grilled on web postings." It dealt with accusations made during public comment, accusations made against Zimmerllink by one Tanya Cellurale, accusations that Zimmerlink correctly characterized as "pre-election banter." Coming a well-timed 11 days before the election, how could this be anything but that?
In this "story," readers learned the following: Tanya Cellurale claimed that Zimmerlink, during work hours, went on to a local chat room-style web site and posted comments that she found derogatory. Cellurale said she knew this because she had figured out Zimmerlink's "I.P. address," which is computer lingo for Internet Protocol address, which is a means to uniquely identify a person's computer. (Zimmerlink rebutted this claim, noting she "did not do anything on county time on county computers.")
But if you think the name "Cellurale" has a familiar ring to it, you're on to our next point, which is what the "story" conveniently failed to mention: Tanya Cellurale is part of the ongoing Cellurale-Kriss land dispute in Dunbar Township, involving the Meason House owned by the Krisses and any number of businesses owned by the Cellurale family. Tanya Cellurale was/is also related to Marilyn Cellurale, who ran against Zimmerink in this year's Republican primary. (Yes, the same Republican Marilyn Cellurale who received a campaign contribution from Joseph Bezjak, the uncle of incumbent Democrat Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky, whose campaign signs are now doting the landscape in tandem with those of Republican candidate Dave Lohr, whose explanation is a quaint "different people like different candidates.")
It would take a whole blog post to further explain the clashes and entanglements of the Cellurales and Krisses, and of the political and legal machinizations that have become part of that saga. Suffice it to say that no one named Cellurale is about to put a Zimmerlink sign in their yard any time soon.
Back to the Oct. 28 "story": If reporter Amy Revak and her editors at the Herald-Standard found Tanya Cellurale's accusations to be newsworthy, and if they did not feel they were being used on the eve of an election, and even if they decided it was OK to be used and opted to play along just for some Zimmerlink-slapping fun, why didn't they do some basic shoeleather reporting to at least make the effort appear credible?
Why didn't Revak ask, or why didn't her editors make her ask, Tanya Cellurale to provide the I.P. address that she claimed was Zimmerlink's? Why didn't the newspaper then ask Zimmerlink or the county Information Technology folks to provide the I.P. address used by her work computer? After all that would be public information, right?
If the numbers did not match, it would prove that Tanya Cellurale had leveled a false accusation.
Even if the numbers matched, that wouldn't necessarily prove that Zimmerlink had used a county computer to make website postings, or that she had done so on county time. That would take a little more newspaper investigation to corroborate, and we're not sure that anyone on the payroll is up to that task.
But if the numbers indeed matched -- and we're betting they would not -- a pressing immediate question would be: How did Tanya Cellurale get her hands on what should be proprietary county information? Did someone at the county level give her the I.P. address of Zimmerlink's work computer, or was Tanya Cellurale able to find out sensitive county computer information as a regular citizen?
We seriously doubt that anyone outside the courthouse could get their hands on something like an I.P. address, or that someone who wasn't politically motivated would even care to. We'll leave it to you to theorize on who could obtain such information from within (or authorize its release), and who could benefit from its use as a political tool.
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.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Favorite sons
No one here in the patch ever went to journalism school, but we watched enough episodes of "Lou Grant" back in the 70s to know that newspapers are supposed to be fair and unbiased in their news coverage. That's why someone at the fire hall, after his fifth Iron City, merrily suggested that the new Fayette County TV operation air those reruns as part of its public programming quest.
"Somebody please tell the Herald-Standard, or the Laurel Highlands Visitors Bureau, or the Fayette County Tourism Alliance, or Vicites and Zapotosky, or the Fayette Chamber of Commerce, or the Redstone Foundation, or the new nonprofit that's being created to take over from the Redstone Foundation, or whoever is running that station, that 'Lou Grant' would be great public service," said Big Mike.
When the bartender wanted to cut Big Mike off because he seemed too confused, his drinking buddies came to the rescue, saying that he was not on some inebriated spiel, and in fact none of them were absolutely sure who was running the TV channel.
The provocation that led to the call for a "Lou Grant" refresher course is the newspaper's obvious news coverage tilt toward favorite sons Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky. Real newspapers go to great pains to appear fair to all candidates in their election coverage.
So how does the Herald-Standard explain its front page on Sunday, May 1, which prominently featured a photo of Vicites and Zapotosky in a story titled, "Battle royale: Commissioner candidates outline platforms"? The story also included separate head shots of all three candidates in the Democratic primary race: Vicites, Zapotosky and newcomer Al Ambrosini.
But why did Vicites and Zapotosky warrant favored treatment by way of a separate photo, with this prominent cutline: "Incumbent Fayette County Commissioner Vncent A. Vicites gestures as he responds to questions during a recent candidates forum before the Herald-Standard editorial board. Seated next to Vicites is Fayette County Commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky. Both are seeking the Democratic nomination for commissioner in the May primary."
So is Ambrosini, but he had to settle for the standard head shot.
Head shots were also all the newspaper gave each of the three Republican commission candidates -- incumbent Angela Zimmerlink, perpetual candidate Dave Lohr and two-time candidate Marilyn Cellurale -- in their separate election story.
Perhaps Mark "Please Don't Question My Ethics" O'Keefe, the Herald-Standard editor, can explain why only two of the six candidates running for Fayette County commissioner warranted a separate front-page photo.
And while he's at it, we would like for O'Keefe to expound on the matter of which lawsuits warrant mention in news stories.
In the aforementioned story on GOP commission candidates, by the third and fourth paragraphs readers are reminded, "Zimmerlink is suing her fellow commissioners, Democrats Vincent A. Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky, alleging the two majority commissioners cut her out of county business, stifled her right to free speech and retaliated against her when she criticized their way of doing business.
"Zimmerlink also was the target of litigation filed by Cellurale, and the county's insurance company settled without going to court."
(We will leave our analysis of the Cellurale-Kriss zoning feud for another day, but be assured that Zimmerlink is the least of our concerns in that long-simmering matter.)
But when we scoured the Herald-Standard story on the Democratic commission candidates, we found no mention of another lawsuit, this one filed by former election bureau director Laurie Lint against -- can you beleive it? -- Vicites and Zapotosky!
Here's the gist of that one, taken from the Herald-Standard's own story of March 12, 2010 and entitled, "Former election director files suit":
The former director of the Fayette County election bureau sued the county and two Democratic commissioners on Thursday, claiming she was fired last year because she is a Republican.
Laurie Lint of Fayette City was fired in October by commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky and Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites. The majority commissioners said at the time that Lint had ongoing problems with her job performance.
However, Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink, the county's Republican representative, disagreed with the firing and supported implementing a plan to improve operations in the office.
In the lawsuit, Lint's attorney, Samuel Cordes, said Zapotosky and Vicites violated her "federally protected right to not have her employment conditioned on a pledge of alligiance to a party or candidate she may not prefer to support."
Only an idiot would believe the Herald-Standard newsroom is not aware of Lint's lawsuit against Vicites and Zapotosky. The question is, "Why would they fail to mention it?"
"Somebody please tell the Herald-Standard, or the Laurel Highlands Visitors Bureau, or the Fayette County Tourism Alliance, or Vicites and Zapotosky, or the Fayette Chamber of Commerce, or the Redstone Foundation, or the new nonprofit that's being created to take over from the Redstone Foundation, or whoever is running that station, that 'Lou Grant' would be great public service," said Big Mike.
When the bartender wanted to cut Big Mike off because he seemed too confused, his drinking buddies came to the rescue, saying that he was not on some inebriated spiel, and in fact none of them were absolutely sure who was running the TV channel.
The provocation that led to the call for a "Lou Grant" refresher course is the newspaper's obvious news coverage tilt toward favorite sons Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky. Real newspapers go to great pains to appear fair to all candidates in their election coverage.
So how does the Herald-Standard explain its front page on Sunday, May 1, which prominently featured a photo of Vicites and Zapotosky in a story titled, "Battle royale: Commissioner candidates outline platforms"? The story also included separate head shots of all three candidates in the Democratic primary race: Vicites, Zapotosky and newcomer Al Ambrosini.
But why did Vicites and Zapotosky warrant favored treatment by way of a separate photo, with this prominent cutline: "Incumbent Fayette County Commissioner Vncent A. Vicites gestures as he responds to questions during a recent candidates forum before the Herald-Standard editorial board. Seated next to Vicites is Fayette County Commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky. Both are seeking the Democratic nomination for commissioner in the May primary."
So is Ambrosini, but he had to settle for the standard head shot.
Head shots were also all the newspaper gave each of the three Republican commission candidates -- incumbent Angela Zimmerlink, perpetual candidate Dave Lohr and two-time candidate Marilyn Cellurale -- in their separate election story.
Perhaps Mark "Please Don't Question My Ethics" O'Keefe, the Herald-Standard editor, can explain why only two of the six candidates running for Fayette County commissioner warranted a separate front-page photo.
And while he's at it, we would like for O'Keefe to expound on the matter of which lawsuits warrant mention in news stories.
In the aforementioned story on GOP commission candidates, by the third and fourth paragraphs readers are reminded, "Zimmerlink is suing her fellow commissioners, Democrats Vincent A. Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky, alleging the two majority commissioners cut her out of county business, stifled her right to free speech and retaliated against her when she criticized their way of doing business.
"Zimmerlink also was the target of litigation filed by Cellurale, and the county's insurance company settled without going to court."
(We will leave our analysis of the Cellurale-Kriss zoning feud for another day, but be assured that Zimmerlink is the least of our concerns in that long-simmering matter.)
But when we scoured the Herald-Standard story on the Democratic commission candidates, we found no mention of another lawsuit, this one filed by former election bureau director Laurie Lint against -- can you beleive it? -- Vicites and Zapotosky!
Here's the gist of that one, taken from the Herald-Standard's own story of March 12, 2010 and entitled, "Former election director files suit":
The former director of the Fayette County election bureau sued the county and two Democratic commissioners on Thursday, claiming she was fired last year because she is a Republican.
Laurie Lint of Fayette City was fired in October by commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky and Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites. The majority commissioners said at the time that Lint had ongoing problems with her job performance.
However, Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink, the county's Republican representative, disagreed with the firing and supported implementing a plan to improve operations in the office.
In the lawsuit, Lint's attorney, Samuel Cordes, said Zapotosky and Vicites violated her "federally protected right to not have her employment conditioned on a pledge of alligiance to a party or candidate she may not prefer to support."
Only an idiot would believe the Herald-Standard newsroom is not aware of Lint's lawsuit against Vicites and Zapotosky. The question is, "Why would they fail to mention it?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)