Why should Zimmerlink talk?

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.

A picture really is worth a thousand words, sometimes

Any journalist worth his or her salt knows there are certain things you cannot do, certain lines you cannot cross, because doing so would taint your reputation for objectivity as well as that of the news organization you represent.

A reporter who works the polls for his or her favored political candidate, in plain view of the voting public, is crossing that line in a big way. He or she is committing a cardinal sin that would probably get you fired without hesitation by most news organizations that value their reputation.

So we can't wait for the Herald-Standard to offer up its explanation of the photographs of one of its reporters, Beka Sungala, that are making the rounds among the county's political chattering class. The snapshots of Sungala, reportedly taken at the Bullskin Township precinct 1 on Election Day, show her wearing a "Lohr" sticker on her jacket and apparently handing out water bottles at that polling place. (That would be for Dave Lohr, Republican candidate for Fayette County commissioner.)

In one of them, Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks is standing just a few feet away from Sungala. After Herald-Standard editor Mark O'Keefe re-reads his December 2010 column, "Ethics issues taken seriously," perhaps he can ask Heneks what Sungala was doing at Bullskin 1 on Election Day. We would think that the county's district attorney would be pretty credible witness, if O'Keefe has any remaining doubts.

O'Keefe surely knows about that damaging photo by now. Some enterprising person posted it on HeraldStandard.com's website on Friday, with the caption "Bullskin Family Fun Day." For reasons unknown to us, that photo disappeared by Sunday. Could that be because it represented a huge embarrassment to O'Keefe and the newspaper he leads? Why else would this particular photo mysteriously disappear while others did not?

While we're betting that O'Keefe is plenty aware of the incriminating photo by now, we doubt that he's also aware of this: On Nov. 1 -- one week before the Nov. 8 election -- a story appeared in his newspaper with the headline, "County Conservation District raises fees."

The second paragraph of that story reads: 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.

The story goes on to say that the conservation district board voted 5-1 to increase the Erosion & Sediment Fee Schedule. The story quoted conservation district manager Doug Petro and board chairman Bowser on why the hike was needed.

One other person was contacted for the story. Curiously, it was not the dissenting voter, board member Moser, who might have added some balance to the story by offering up his reasons for voting no.

No, the other board member contacted was Zimmerlink, whom the story noted was "absent from the meeting" and "did not respond to requests for comment." None of the other board members -- Geary, Mutnansky, Chaikcic or Dick -- was contacted for comment.

This very important story, the one that informed the public of Zimmerlink's apparent deriliction of duty, was written by ... drum roll, please -- Beka Sungala! And the story was based on a meeting that was held -- ahem, ahem -- on Oct. 24!

That's an eight-day lapse between when the vote to hike the Erosion & Sediment Fee Schedule took place and when the Herald-Standard published a story. Couple that with the fact that the Herald-Standard does not regularly cover the Fayette County Conservation District, and we think you'll see what we see: An attempted hatchet job on Zimmerlink that should have O'Keefe asking, "Who came up with that idea?" (As soon as he gets the answer to, "Why is my newspaper publishing stories eight days after the fact?")

As a reporter, Sungala also covered at least one candidate forum for the newspaper that we are aware of. All three other candidates in the field, and their supporters, have grounds to question the objectivity of her reporting, given her rooting interest for Lohr. Had she shown up wearing her Lohr sticker, any or all of the other three candidates would have had ample reason to ask, "What's going on here?"

That is the same question that editor O'Keefe ane publisher Val Laub should be asking themselves right about now. After all they are the paper where ethics issues are taken seriously; at least that is what O'Keefe proclaimed to the reading world just 11 months ago.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here is our version of the Mona Lisa, sent to us by a friend of a friend of a friend:

 

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.

The good old days

In praising the completion of the southern end of the Mon Fayette Expressway, the Herald-Standard brought up a name we here in the patch haven't heard for years: Mike Ellis.

In its July 17 editorial, the paper said: Mike Ellis, former executive editor of the Herald-Standard, in particular, was tireless during his tenure in promoting the benefits of completing the expressway.

In doling out credit and praise, though, the paper also took some time to generically pat itself on the back, noting: We've also been a big backer of the project since its inception and like to think that our support has played a role in its success.

Other people singled out for credit, in addition to Ellis, were state Sens. Richard A. Kasunic and Barry Stout, late U.S. Rep. Frank Mascara and soon-to-be-ex-Commissioner Vince Vicites. (Never mind that it is virtually impossible to find a local elected official in the past 30 years who DID NOT support the expressway with all that he or she had.)

Back to Ellis. We here in the patch had some friends in the grassroots Fayette Expressway Completion Organization (FAECO), including its late chairman Jim Marzullo, both of which played key roles in keeping the highway project alive. (But neither of which got a mention in the editorial.)

We vividly recall those FAECO connections telling us that among the battles Ellis faced as editor was tremendous resistence from within the local political and community establishments. Some of these "leaders" did not think it wise to rock the boat after the project was mothballed during the administration of former Gov. Bob Casey.

Making a stink, and especially a big stink, might mean the road would never be completed, they said. They wanted Ellis to lay low and keep quiet, and stay away from generating what could be perceived as -- gasp! -- negative news.

The most instructive part of this story is that Ellis did not succumb to these pressures. He and our friends Marzullo and FAECO refused to accept the status quo -- and they refused to accept no for an answer.

Because of that stance, today the link to Route 68 in West Virginia is completed, and the Uniontown-Brownsville link will be open shortly. For the first time in history, a limited access, modern highway will run through Fayette County.

But that was in the good old days, when the newspaper was less interested in forming partnerships with the people it is supposed to cover, and more interested in calling it as it was and letting the chips fall where they may.

We will let you decide whether the paper was better under Ellis than it is under his successor. But we know who we would take in any stare-down with the establishment.

Constituent feedback?

Now that state Rep. Tim Mahoney has put forth the big and bold idea of administratively consolidating Fayette County's public school districts, in an attempt to save money, boost academic performance and have greater all-around accountability, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the man he replaced in office is flapping his figurative gums.

Contrary to the wishes of just about everyone here in the patch -- and probably outside it, too -- Larry Roberts just won't go away. Maybe he dislikes Mahoney for defeating him in his comeback attempt, maybe he fears that his own 14-year legacy of do-littleness pales in comparison, or maybe he's jealous that Mahoney is showing leadership the likes of which he could never muster. (You're not going to make any big enemies promoting cable TV for Ohiopyle Borough, one of Roberts' signature accomplishments.)

But we suspect that the duplicitious Roberts thinks Mahoney could be on to something here, and wants to position himself as: A., The guy who can say, "I told you it wouldn't work" if the idea fails; and B. The guy who can say, "I would have done that, too" if the idea pans out.

We base that assessment on Robert's June 19 letter to the editor, "Caution recommended over consolidation study," published in the Herald-Standard. In it, Roberts reminded us of the following:

When I was a Representative in the General Assembly, I surveyed my district several times a year with mail-in questionnaires. I also held regular town meetings across the district each year. All this was designed to learn what my constituents wanted and needed. It also provided a way for my constituents to let me know how me and my staff were doing.

Several of his surveys included questions about school consolidation, said Roberts, and it was the topic of some of his town meetings. Personally, Roberts said, he felt consolidation was a "good idea," but when it was "overwhelmingly rejected" by survey respondents and town meeting participants, he didn't pursue the topic.

Had I received feedback suggesting my constituents favored school consolidation, I would have provided the information to the county commissioners, wrote Roberts in his letter. (We don't know why he would have given this to the county commissioners, who are politically impotent in such things since the state Department of Education and local school boards would be the big players on this.)

Not surprisingly, Roberts has already prejudged the study being spearheaded by Mahoney, saying he is "opposed to a study designed to convince us that we should consolidate school districts." (Never mind that Mahoney only wants the study to focus on the feasibility of consolidating the ADMINISTRATIVE functions of the county school districts.)

But we're very glad that Roberts is reminding us of how keen he was on getting constituent feedback, through mailed surveys (at taxpayer expense) and town hall mettings, and how he used it as a guiding principle during his tenure as a state representative.

Thus, we look foward to his next letter to the editor, where he can explain how that modus operandi helped guide him through some other tough decisions.

We are certain, for example, that before voting in favor of the 2005 midnight pay raise, Roberts surveyed his constituents, who overwhelmingly told him, "Take the money, Larry -- you deserve it. Just don't spend it all in one place."

When his then-wife got a job with the Laurel Highlands School Board, igniting a controversy that included allegations of Roberts throwing around his weight as a state legislator in order to get her hired, we're sure another constituent survey was conducted. The question probably was, "What criteria do you think school districts should use in hiring teachers?" and the choices likely were: A. Best qualified;, B. Relative of a school board member; or C. Relative of mine.

When Mahoney was first running against Roberts, we can imagine the town hall meeting where a constituent jumped up and said, "We don't want a two-man race, Larry. We insist that a 20-year-old carpet installer with a well-known last name be in the race, too, even if he is a high school dropout. Offer to pay him $100 bucks if you have to. The people have spoken!"

And it was probably at another town hall meeting where Roberts got the idea to appeal the tax assessment on his expensive new home, a move that started a chain reaction that led to Fayette County's first property reassessmentn in 40 years. We can picture the constituent feedback at that scene: "Forget about tax relief for us, Larry; take care of yourself first!" ... "I have been wondering about that 1958 rate book myself, but never got around to asking about it. Thanks for reminding me, Larry!" ... "I don't mind paying more, Larry, as long as I know that you're paying less!"

We don't know whether Mahoney's idea is a good one or not, but we are willing to wait for the study results and add them to the mix before we ultimately decide.

But we don't need to wait even a second to know that when Roberts starts talking, the BS machine is kicking into high gear.

A tale of two school districts

All those Fayette County school districts that engaged in the requisite hand-wringing and proclaimations of, "We did all we could do," apparently didn't get a chance to read the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on July 15.

Take a look at this little informational gem, residents of those Fayette County school districts that got socked with tax hikes: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11196/1160606-100.stm

Sto-Rox school employees accept wage freeze
By Ryan Brown, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Sto-Rox school employees -- including all teaching, custodial and office staff -- have accepted a one-year wage freeze in a series of contract agreements announced today.

Teachers' two-year contract deal includes a freeze for the 2011-2012 school year and a 3 percent raise the following year. Support and administrative staff agreed to wage freezes in separate agreements.

"I'm very proud and pleased with our entire staff," Acting Superintendent James Manley said. "Everybody right now . . . is taking a freeze."

The agreements follow a June 24 budget approval that managed to avoid furloughs by cutting open positions and spending in supplies, transportation and technology. Some long-term substitute positions also will be cut, Mr. Manley said.

Sto-Rox took a $1.3-million funding reduction in the recently passed state budget.

"They're making a sacrifice," Mr. Manley said. "I hope our state leaders recognize that."

Now let's compare that to the July 14 story in the Herald-Standard, "Brownsville school board passes budget with tax increase":

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/brownsville-school-board-passes-budget-with-tax-increase/article_749d2615-c2f0-5417-b3b1-17400101baee.html

Brownsville Area School Board passed a final budget Wednesday that calls for a 3.5-mill increase for Fayette County residents and a 19.74-mill increase for residents in Washington County.

That means a resident with property in Fayette County assessed at $50,000 will pay about $175 more in taxes than last year or about $828 next year.

Directors voted 5-2 on the more than $24 million budget that included the elimination of the district’s music program, requiring the furlough of music teachers.

Directors Andy Dorsey, Ron Dellarose, Andy Assad, Rocky Brashear and John Harvey voted in favor, while directors Nena Kaminsky and Stella Broadwater opposed. Directors Sandra Chan and Francine Pavone were absent from the meeting.

Broadwater said taxpayers could not afford the nearly 30 percent increase in taxes and that the district was $500,000 behind in delinquent taxes last year.

“How much in taxes do you really think you are going to get anyway?” she asked the board.

Brashear said while he does not want to raise taxes in the district, the district has cut everything possible.

“What else can we cut? I don’t want to raise taxes either, but we are elected to do our job however painful that is,” he said. “We cut everything we could cut.”

Dorsey said the millage increase was court ordered by the state to help bail the district out of $5 million in debt from a bond issue taken two years ago.

He said none of the tax increase is figured into next year’s budget.
To help balance the budget, the district cut the music program which includes chorus and band.

Two music teachers will be furloughed as a result.

Maybe we missed the part about all employees in the Brownsville Area School District, from top to bottom, taking a one-year pay freeze like their Sto-Rox brethren. So we read the story three times, thinking we might have skimmed over it. No dice.

In actuality, the Brownsville school board raised property taxes 26.77 percent, taking the millage rate from 13.07 to 16.57. We suspect, strongly, that if the state or federal government raised anyone's tax on anything nearing 27 percent in the midst of the current economic crisis, the Herald-Standard, as the supposed newspaper of record, would at least weigh in on that hike editorially.

We especially like how Brownsville board member Dorsey apparently tried to pawn off responsibility for this huge tax hike on the state. (But we don't discount the possibility that bad reporting may have muddled his point.) But who took out the $5 million in bond debt two years ago? It sure wasn't the state. No, the responsibility for taking out that debt -- and for paying it back -- lies squarely with the Brownsville school board.

We urge the local newspaper to take its head out of the feel-good sand long enough to scour the Internet to see what's going on in some other school districts, like Sto-Rox.

Then maybe they would be better prepared to ask some good, probing questions whenever someone says, "We did all that we could."

Time to investigate, for real

We are waiting with baited breath to see how the Herald-Standard handles a real story worthy of investigation: yesterday's news that a state report has flagged two local school districts -- Uniontown and Connellsville -- for possible cheating on standardized tests called the PSSA.

Based on the story announcing this news, "PDE investigating report that flags districts for possible cheating on PSSA," the early prognosis for any tough probing is not encouraging. How can it be when that particular story doesn't even mention which Connellsville schools were flagged in the report?

All the Herald-Standard chose to divulge was that "Third-grade PSSA results from Ben Franklin School (in the Uniontown Area School District) were flagged on the report," and that "several elementary schools in the Connellsville Area School District" were also flagged.

See for yourself: http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/pde-investigating-report-that-flags-districts-for-possible-cheating-on/article_97202068-cb04-5935-91b5-720d04150ca4.html

We had to check out the same story on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's website to find out that the Connellsville schools implicated in this report were: Bullskin Township Elementary School, Clifford N. Pritts Elementary School, South Side Elementary School, Connellsville Area Career and Technical School.

You would think that if you are going to name the one school building in Uniontown that has this potential problem, you would also name the four buildings in Connellsville that are alleged to have it too. Perhaps Herald-Standard editor Mark OKeefe has a good explanation for why that did not happen.

The Post-Gazette also provided its readers an important perspective by noting that the report flagged eight school districts and one charter school in southwestern Pennsylvania for possible cheating. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11194/1160004-454-0.stm

The Associated Press provided even better perspective: at least three dozen schools, or about 36 of Pennsylvania's 500 school districts, were flagged in the report, prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Education.

No one is accusing anyone of wrongdoing at this point. But the perspective of a source quoted in the Post-Gazette story is worth giving to the public, especially since it was missing from the Herald-Standard story.

Andy Porter, dean of the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, reviewed the report, and said this to the Post-Gazette: "If there's one flag, that's something to be investigated because to get a flag, you have to have a result that is just completely beyond anything expected to happen by chance ... I don't think we're talking about student cheating here at all. We're talking about adult cheating."

This certainly sounds to us like something the Herald-Standard should investigate. As a topic, it is at least on par with the fake letter to the editor the newspaper published from Ruth Thompson, the controvery over using tax dollars to launch and fund Fayette TV, criticism by one disgruntled member of the Marcellus Shale Task Force and the Connellsville Area School Board's threat to yank its legal advertising from the newspaper.

All of those topics were judged to warrant saturation coverage by the newspaper, generating front page stories and editorial commentary. But those were easy targets. This one's a little tougher, and even though it does not involve the newspaper's finances or reputation, it is certainly no less important.

Unanswered questions

We here in the patch are used to seeing some weak "news" stories in the Herald-Standard, but today's effort regarding the new teachers' contract in the Uniontown Area School District takes the cake.

"UASD negotiators reach contract agreement" has left us wondering if the newspaper now has a prohibition against asking any probing questions, if it has expanded its list of partnerships, or if it simply relishes dumb-downed stories.

Check it out for yourself and see if you agree with this assessment. http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/uasd-negotiators-reach-contract-agreement/article_ee0ec9ca-4e95-5015-a8c3-2b559d6919c8.html

This story shows a remarkable lack of detail. We learn that the school board voted 8-1 to approve a new three-year teachers' contract after 19 months of negotation. We also find out that the new deal "will afford some movement for lower step educators and a change in the health care plan."

But what, exactly, is "some movement"? And who are these "lower step educators"?

A newspaper's job is to make sense of jargon, deciphering it and boiling it down to words the reader understands. That clearly wasn't done with a passage like this:

The terms of the three-year contract state that teachers up to step 15 will receive a halfstep movement retroactive for the 2010-11 academic year. For 2011-12 and 2012-13, teachers up to step 15 will receive an increase of three percent of the payroll. Teachers over the 15-year mark will receive no increase for 2010-11 and 2011-12, but will receive $500 in year three of the contract.

What is step 15? What is a halfstep movement? What is an increase of three percent of the payroll? The only part of the above paragraph that's easily understood is that teachers with more than 15 years of service won't get an increase -- we are left to assume that means no pay increase -- in the first two years, but will get $500 in year three.

We also read that school board member Lloyd Williams is warning that the district will have to cough up another $1 million next year to comply with this contract. Any reporter or editor worth his or her salt should be able to translate that million-dollar figure into the projected millage-rate increase for 2012-13. But, alas, that takes some brains and a little work.

We also find out that: The new contract also offers teachers a lesser insurance plan that will require them to have higher co-pays and deductibles. According to Director Thomas George, teachers will not be required to contribute to the premium and the district will save about $190,000 this year on the total premium.

Before the taxpaying public can decide whether they like this deal or not, should it not be informed of what are these "higher co-pays and deductibles"? If the copay rises from $10 to $11, that is a far different animal than it if rises from $10 to $100. A deductible that rises from $500 to $1,000 is one thing; one that rises from $500 to $2,500 is something else.

We would also ask why the teachers won't have to contribute to the monthly premium, which is the norm for most private employers, and how much that move might have saved beyond the $190,000 cited by director George.

A school district story that leaves so many unanswered questions doesn't deserve any grade better than a D.

Would you like some gravy with that?

Here in the patch, we've enjoyed some pretty good home cooking through the years, but it seems nothing like the kid-gloves treatment the Herald-Standard continues to bestow on favorite sons Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky.

Case in point: Monday's story, "Countywide candidates file campaign finance reports," which had some reporting gaps big enough to drive a runaway truck on Summit Mountain through.

Everyone in politics knows that the two biggest and most interesting campaign expense reports are the one filed two weeks before the election, and the one filed 30 days after Election Day. The "second Friday pre," as it is commonly known, gives a detailed glimpse of how much money each candidate has raised, from whom, and how it has been spent.

But because it is filed on the second Friday BEFORE the election, it doesn't provide a complete picture. Any contributions received in the home stretch, as well as any expenditures (including advertising and cash paid to poll workers), won't show up until the "30-day post" election report is filed with the Fayette County Election Bureau.

These filings are not optional; they are required by law. And if you miss a filing deadline, you have to pay a small daily fine until that is done.

In Monday's story, readers found out that Al Ambrosini, who finished first in the Democratic primary for county commissioner, "loaned himself $20,000" and "paid poll workers amounts ranging from $25 to $75 each" and "spent a total of $25,681 in the reporting period, which included May 3 through June 6. The expenses included advertising costs for WLSW radio for $2,000; Mail Specialty Inc. of Greensburg for mail services in the amount of $3,050; and Herald-Standard.com ads for $1,927."

That's a pretty detailed snapshot on Ambrosini, who was not endorsed by the Herald-Standard.

The newspaper also reported that "Republican incumbent Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink of Allison, who was the top vote-getter for her party, listed expenditures of $2,134. Zimmerlink does not accept campaign contributions. She spent money on a radio advertisement and a $2,054 mailer." Another fairly detailed analysis, though of a much lesser amount, on a candidate who did not get an endorsement.

Readers found out that "Dave Lohr of South Connellsville, who won the second Republican party nomination, spent $1,557 during the reporting period and ended with unpaid debts and obligations of $1,090, which he owes to himself," and that he got a $250 contribution from Mark Rowan, a Connellsville attorney
.
The newspaper also told us that "Marilyn Cellurale of Lemont Furnace, who finished third on the Republican ticket and did not win a nomination for county commissioner, spent $2,999 during the reporting period, and received $9,500 in contributions," and that her contributions included $7,500 from Terry“Tuffy” Shallenberger of Connellsville, chairman of the Fayette County Airport Authority.

But when it comes to the campaign's two biggest spenders, Monday's story left out some details and more than a few unanswered questions.

Vicites, readers found out, "spent $24,905 during the reporting period. He also listed unpaid debts and obligations of $14,728, which he owes to himself." But when it comes to ANY details, such as how much he paid poll workers (see Ambrosini) or spent on advertising (see Ambrosini and Zimmerink, above), nothing was mentioned.

Even worse, from a reporting angle -- or at least from a "fair and balanced" reporting angle -- is this paragraph from that story: Vicites, who is finishing his fourth term in office, listed contributions of $12,224, but a detailed listing was not available.

If a detailed listing was not available, shouldn't the newspaper tell its readers why? As we noted earlier, this filing is required by law and it was due Friday. Was the listing of which sources contributed more than $12,000 to Vicites in the weeks leading up to the election not included in his expense report? Did the election bureau refuse to give it out? Did the reporter lose those particular pages on the way to the office and say, "Oh, what the heck!"?

If the Herald-Standard can inform us that of Cellurale's $9,500 in contributions, $7,500 from Terry “Tuffy” Shallenberger of Connellsville, chairman of the Fayette County Airport Authority, shouldn't they be obligated to tell us where Vicites got $12,000? Or at least tell us why they couldn't find that out? We are pretty sure they have his phone number.

If the newspaper can tell us that Ambrosini paid his poll workers between $25 and $75 each, why can't they give us some idea of what Vicites paid his? And if Vicites paid no poll workers at all -- which is highly unlikely -- why couldn't the newspaper simply report that fact?

Of Zapotosky, the newspaper reported that he "did not file a report with his committee as of Friday afternoon and had only filed a report in which he paid his campaign $300." So did he miss the filing deadline? Will he have to pay the daily fine for doing so? If and when his campaign committee files its 30-day post-election report, will the Herald-Standard tell us how much he raked in, from whom, and how he spent it?

Back on May 15, in the story "Fayette County commissioner candidates file expense reports," the newspaper reported this: “The Committee to Elect Vincent Zapotosky” brought more than $25,000 forward from his last report and received $25,300 in contributions. He had $50,535 available and spent $31,181, leaving a balance of $19,353. He also has unpaid debts and obligations of $4,800." You can read it for yourself here: http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/fayette-county-commissioner-candidates-file-expense-reports/article_01427f18-3baa-5b15-8a44-ce6e9c242d63.html

So Zapotosky's campaign committee carried forward more than $19,000, and we have no public accounting of how -- or if -- it was spent. Or of how much in contributions "The Committee to Elect Vincent Zapotsky" raked in in the two weeks leading up to the election.

But, thank God, the Herald-Standard had the moxie to let us know that Dave Lohr got a $250 contribution from attorney Mark Rowan, that Zimmerlink spent a whopping $2,130 and that the going rate for an Ambrosini poll worker was between $25 and $75.

We will let you judge whether this was fair and equal treatment of all six candidates.

We are in charge of a school district?

Somebody please buy seven dunce caps so they can be given to Connellsville Area School District board members Kevin Lape, Gary Wandel, Dr. P.J. Carte, Dr. Paul Means, Denise Martin, Tom Dolde and Jim Fabian.

They deserve them, not because they want cancel legal adertising in the Herald-Standard as retribution for editorials they don't like, as reported in Sunday's front-page story, "Attorney says board's action may be illegal."

No, this crew deserves to wear the crown of stupidity for failing to be smart about it. First up, director Lape, author of the motion to penalize the newspaper:

Lape cited the negative content of recent editorials published by HeraldStandard.com, including school board endorsements and support of a study tied to a proposal to consolidate Fayette County School Districts as his foundation for the action.

“The Herald-Standard should stick to selling newspapers, not be involved in what a school district should or shouldn’t be doing,” he said.

Way to go, Mr. Lape. You andthe others who didn't get the newspaper's endorsement in the May primary election now make it painfully clear that you're going to make them pay by, well, not paying them.

Then we have this public relations gem, also printed in Sunday's story:
Fabian, meanwhile, expressed pleasure at the opportunity to cast a favorable vote to Lape’s motion to halt advertising in HeraldStandard.com as he exited the meeting.

“I’ve been waiting for a month to do that,” he said.

It is hard for us to believe that seven people who are in charge of running a school board, and thus educating thousands of children, are themselves so stupid. It is no wonder that their school district faces a $7 million deficit and that socking property owners with tax increases is the only way they can balance the books.

Instead of picking a fight with the Herald-Standard, all they had to do was use logic. The law requires that school districts place their legal advertisements -- for things like when they are holding a meeting, or when they are soliciting bids for a project -- in a newspaper of general circulation within the political subdivision of the school district.

That is fancy wording for, "You have to advertise your meetings and such in a newspaper that circulates in your area."

The easy out for these disaffected Connellsville Area School District board members? You say, "Hey, we've been doing some nosing around, and one of us discovered that there is a newspaper of general circulation with here in our own back yard. It is called the Connellsville Daily Courier. And since we are the Connellsville Area School District, we think makes better sense to advertise in the Connellsville Daily Courier, instead of the Uniontown-based Herald-Standard."

And if these school board members were REALLY smart, they would have had the district's well-paid business manager provide some numbers to back up the decision. (We are pretty certain that the Herald-Standard's advertising rates are going to be higher than the Daily Courier's.)

All that Lape & Co. had to do was provide those numbers, and say, "Look, it's costing us $5,000 a year to advertise in the Herald-Standard, and we can fulfill that requirement for $3,000 a year by switching to the Daily Courier. Times are tough -- after all, we have a $7 million deficit to close, and we lost a ton of state subsidy this year -- so we have to save money wherever we can."

And if they were REALLY, REALLY smart, they would have thrown down the gauntlet in front of the Herald-Standard by saying, "Now if the Herald-Standard wants to match or beat the Daily Courier's rate, we will gladly consider keeping our advertising with them. Otherwise, the Herald-Standard is advocating that we pay MORE for a service than we actually have to. We don't consider that a prudent use of tax dollars. Do they?"

As for these board members being upset with the newspaper's support of state Rep. Tim Mahoney's effort to conduct a study to see if adminitrative consolidation of county school district would have money, that is a mere smokescreen issue. (And the behavior of The Connellsville Seven only serves to prove that Mahoney's vision cannot come to fruition soon enough. One side benefit would be that only one set of legal advertising would be needed, instead of six sets.)

Lastly, we remain a little unclear as to whether Lape's motion was just a proposal to do away with legal advertising in the Herald-Standard, or whether it is a done deal. The reporting in Sunday's story is a bit unclear on that count.

Fair and balanced?

Here in the patch, we are starting a drive to collect old telephone books to donate to the Herald-Standard. That way, its reporters would have no excuse for not calling and including all sides in a news story.

The impetus for our altruism? Monday's story titled, "Mining operations near historic church resume without county authorization." It detailed how a company operating a strip mine near the Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church and cemetery in Dunbar Township has revived that work, even though the Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board still has not granted it the required special exception permit to conduct such activity.

In order of appearance, here are the sources quoted in Monday's story regarding the resumption of strip mining: Nathanael Parker, the attorney for the strip mining company.

That's it. A grand total of one source, who predictably poo-pooed the situation. "They can't leave a strip cut like that. DEP (the Department of Environmental Protection) sould have cited us. We have a situation here," said Parker.

Thus, the public is left with the impression that this poor little strip mining company had no choice but to resume its illegal activity, lest a big state agency come down hard. But is that true?

A simple phone call to the DEP could have verified or debunked Parker's explanation. Does the DEP have the ability to trump local zoning laws? If so, did it order that this be done in this instance? Or is Parker just dishing out some BS?

A second phone call should have been made to the Fayette County Zoning Office, which is charged with enforcing the county's zoning laws. The question to ask them would be, "Can or should this company be investiated or fined by your office for operating without the required special exception permit?"

A third phone call, for any news operation seeking to be fair and balanced, should have gone out to someone affiliated with the Laurel Hill Prwesbyterian Church. As the other side in this controversy, one would think that their perspective would be vital.

In a prior story on May 8, the Herald-Standard quoted these pro-church sources: the Rev. Peter Malik, church member Karen Babyak of Perryopolis, church member Tom Fosbrink and church member Alberta Herber. It took us all of three second to find this story on the Internet. http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/church-members-voice-concerns-to-dep-about-blasting/article_3da46709-2ff2-5384-a7b0-72d2abc72834.html?photo=1

It took another three seconds to find the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's story on the same public hearing. That story identifies and quotes the church's attorney, Thomas Earhart.

If you are going to call the company's attorney for comment on a story, shouldn't you also call the church's attorney for his side? That seems pretty fundamental to us.

But even if we didn't feel that way, at least one person of significance says he does. Herald-Standard editor Mark O'Keefe informed the reading world, in a Dec. 5, 2010 column, that, "Our aim is to give all sides a fair airing of their views."

We will let you judge whether that happened with Monday's story.

Don't call us, we'll call you

You would think that a newspaper story bearing the headline, "Fayette radio host says shale criticism led to firing" might be something of interest to folks in Fayette County, Pa. And you might guess that any newspaper claiming to best serve that readership would be the likely source of that story's publication.

Guess again.

The aforementioned story, on last month's pre-election firing of long-time WMBS radio talk show host Bob Foltz, appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on May 30. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11150/1150213-55-0.stm

That it did not appear in the Herald-Standard has left more than one person here in the patch scratching his head. After all, we did read this boast from editor Mark O'Keefe, in his Dec.5, 2010 column "Ethics issues taken seriously": It's paramount that our newsroom maintains its independence and covers stories objectively. It's what we're trained to do. Our aim is to give all sides a fair airing of their views.

Independence? Objectivity? A fair aiting of all views?

Then why, pray tell, have O'Keefe and the newsroom he ostensibly leads played deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to any coverage of what happend to Foltz? Certainly they cannot pretend it was unnewsworthy, when a big metropolitan paper 50 miles away sees its news value. If this head-in-the-sand approach keeps up, perhaps the Herald-Standard should change its motto to, "Ignorance is bliss."

Over at the church bingo Friday night, one of our neighbors, who has a cousin who knows Foltz pretty well, found out that the affable ex-talk show host sent a letter detailing his side of the firing to ALL area newspapers, including the Herald-Standard. The cousin says that while the Post-Gazette used the letter as a starting point and quickly put a reporter on the story, all Foltz got from the Herald-Standard was a phone call from O'Keefe, saying the Herald-Standard couldn't run his letter.

Fayette Countians should be asking themselves one simple question: If the Post-Gazette can do ""what we're trained to do," and "give all sides a fair airing of their views" -- to borrow O'Keefe's own phraseologies -- what is keeping his newspaper from doing the same thing?

In the Post-Gazette story, Foltz is quoted thusly: "It amazes me that the station took this stance. It was a combination of politics and (comments on) the drilling" that forced him out.

The Post-Gazette, doing the job as it should be done, also printed this rebuttal by WMBS station manager Brian Mroziak: "The natural gas stuff had absolutely nothing to do with Bob being let go."

We doubt that entirely, but what's more interesting to us is that Mroziak apparently didn't rebut Foltz' belief that politics was also a factor. When we turn on the radio and in Foltz' old spot hear Mike Krajovic, the head of Fay-Penn Economic Development Council who gets a $180,000 a year compensation package, blather on about high gasoline prices and the national energy picture, the handwriting on the WMBS wall becomes a tad more visible. Especially when the "host" of that particular show is Fay-Penn employee Bob Junk.

What is keeping the Herald-Standard from doing a news story, other than an unwillingness or inability to tackle any real controversy?

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."

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.

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?"

Doublespeak

When Fayette County Commissioners Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky voted last year to raise the salaries of all county row officers, including the commissioners, by 3 percent a year for the next six years, the Herald-Standard newspaper lauded and supported the move.

Here are some excerpts from their editorial, titled “Fair Wage -- Pay Raise for County Officials Backed” and published on Aug. 6, 2010:

“Things are not great here in Fayette, but we're not in such a bad shape that a fairly standard 3 percent increase should be seen as inappropriate.”

“The economy is in bad shape and some people are struggling across the county, but we don't think a 3 percent raise is exorbitant. We're not talking about a 20 percent jump in pay here.”

“It's important that our public officials are paid fairly. They deserve to be compensated with a respectable wage. There's no way of getting around the fact that you get what you pay for, and if we want to make sure that decent, intelligent people run for public office, then we have to pay them accordingly.”

The newspaper thus firmly put its stamp of approval on what actually does amount to a 19.4 percent pay raise for county elected officials over the next six years. No matter how bad the economy gets, the Fayette County commissioners and row officers are going to get regular 3 percent raises for more than half of a decade.

Given the newspaper’s official stance as concerns Fayette County officials, everyone in the patch -- even 99-year-old Stutta Bubba in House 222 -- is confused over the newspaper’s Thursday editorial.

“Vat’s vis dis stuff?” proclaimed Stutta Bubba. “I am old lady from old countary, and I learn English as second language, dis is true. But does Herald-Standard tink I am stupid?”

From underneath her babushka, Stutta Bubba pulled out a neatly folded copy of Thursday’s editorial, entitled, “Legislative staffers to get raises.” It was critical of the Pennsylvania House Republicans and Senate Democrats for deciding to lift a pay freeze for their legislative employees.

The fact that House Republican staffers haven’t had a pay raise in three years doesn’t matter to the Herald-Standard, which now says, “To this, many Pennsylvanians would say, ‘Welcome to the club.’ They haven’t been getting any pay raises either, and that’s not likely to change in the foreseeable future.”

Maybe if the House Republican leaders had decided to guarantee 3 percent raises for their employees for the next six years, like Vicites and Zapotosky did, the Herald-Standard would see things differently. (It might help, too, if House Republican leaders decided to throw a little money into the Redstone Foundation pot to operate Fayette TV, but that’s another blog post.)

Although the House Democrats and Senate Republicans have made no decision on granting their employees a pay raise for the first time in three years, that didn’t stop the Herald-Standard from doing what it does best these days: speculating. Absent any facts, the newspaper speculated that they probably will, following the pattern of “theft from Pennsylvania taxpayers” set in motion by the House Republicans and Senate Democrats.

Accusing somebody of theft is a pretty serious thing, isn’t it? The newspaper might want to take a refresher course in the laws of libel, but then again, that class has been failed in that building before.

On Thursday, the Herald-Standard held this chest-thumping position: “The fact is, pay raises are problematic these days in a Pennsylvania economy that is more used to seeing pay freezes, pay cuts or -- worse -- pink slips.”

But just eight months ago, their position, at least as concerns something done by Vicites and Zapotosky, was comparatively demure: “Things are not great here in Fayette, but we're not in such a bad shape that a fairly standard 3 percent increase should be seen as inappropriate.”

Which side of their mouth will be speaking tomorrow?