Well, it's been 14 days since the story broke that the state attorney general had charged a former magisterial district judge in Fayette County with perjury and obstructing the administration of justice for allegedly fixing a drunk driving case.
The circumstances surrounding the incident that led to those charges, filed against long-time DJ Dwight Shaner, involve a cast of characters that include current county District Attorney Jack Heneks and current Common Pleas Judge (and at the time assistant district attorney) Linda Cordero.
Surely, we thought by now that the intrepid editorial board of the Uniontown Herald-Standard would have weighed in on the situation. But as we've scoured the pages of the local paper, the only court-related official commentary we've seen is a Sept. 19 "Jeer" that began thusly: "What the heck was juror Ronnie Bryner of Mill Run thinking when he left the Fayette County Courthouse last August without being excused or released?" Bryner, poor fellow, has been cited for contempt for his actions. The editorial admonition of Bryner ended with, "Let's hope that (Judge John F.) Wagner's stern warning serves as a wakeup call for Bryner and anyone else who might have similar thoughts."
Call us crazy -- and we know some of you will, because childish name-calling is your specialty -- but we think that a situation of alleged case-fixing involving three elected officials who work at three critical levels of the county's judicial system is of far greater importance than the actions of a juror who goes AWOL.
You can read more of the Shaner-Heneks-Cordaro story details here http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6778713-74/district-shaner-case#axzz3EGxKWviC or here http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Former_judge_charged_with_perjury_for_allegedly_fixing_DUI_case.html or here http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/shaner-arraigned-on-perjury-obstruction/article_52a9f3ed-faba-57a1-9d00-682b6c6d0726.html
The Clift Notes version of the saga goes like this: State trooper shows up in Shaner's court for 2011 preliminary hearing on man's crash-related DUI charge. Defendant in case is nephew of assistant district attorney Cordaro, who shows up representing the DA's office. Cordaro recuses herself at last minute; Shaner takes unusual move of asking trooper for witnesses. Shaner refuses trooper's request for a continuance, Shaner dismisses the case, trooper is PO'ed. Heneks refuses trooper's request to refile the charges, concerned citizen gets wind of what happened and files complaint with AG Kathleen Kane, AG's office begins investigation and directs trooper to refile charges, nephew ends up pleading guilty, Cordaro ends up being elected to Fayette County judgeship in 2013 and now sits in that position.
There's so much here worth commenting on, especially if you consider yourself the "newspaper of record" for Fayette County. The question that begs answering is, "Why hasn't that happened yet?" This stuff all comes straight from a grand jury presentment from a proceeding convened by the state Attorney General, not some hand-scribbled text on scratch paper that arrived at the newspaper office in an anonymous letter with postage due.
Here are the questions we'd like to see the newspaper address editorially. (And if they're too busy slamming guys who skip out on jury duty, all they have to do is circle the answer that best aligns with their thoughts.)
Was it appropriate for Cordaro to even show up in Shaner's courtroom that day, since the defendant was her nephew? YES ... NO ... MAYBE ... MAN DON'T MAKE US ADDRESS THAT.
Was it appropriate for Shaner to dismiss the charges, or to then tell the state policeman as detailed in the grand jury report, "Hey, trooper, I hope you understand. I'm catching a little heat from Linda (Cordaro) because that is her nephew"? YES ... NO ... MAYBE ... MAN YOU'RE REALLY PUTTING US ON THE SPOT HERE.
Was it appropriate for Heneks to initially refuse to refile the charges, using the excuse that he needed witnesses who could put the nephew behind the wheel, when after AG intervention the nephew ended up pleading guilty instead of going to trial? YES ... NO ... MAYBE ... HEY NOBODY SHOULD GET AWAY WITH SKIPPING JURY DUTY.
Is it appropriate for Cordaro to remain a sitting Fayette County judge, in light of her role as a key figure in this legal drama? YES ... NO ... MAYBE ... THE VOTERS SPOKE IN NOVEMBER SO WHAT THE HECK CAN WE DO.
This case strikes at the heart of the operation of the Fayette County legal system, which should operate without favoritism. Saying something -- good, bad or indifferent -- is better than saying nothing at all. It's called doing your job.
Justice is supposed to be blind, not the editorial board of any self-respecting newspaper.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Selective 'full disclosure'
Back in August 2012, when a private investigator hired by the Fayette County Housing Authority showed up a county commission meeting to further the agenda of muddying up Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink over the contents of a packet reportedly found by a waitress in a restaurant, Commissioner Vince Zapotosky was a fan of "full disclosure" after some audience members questioned the propriety of the move.
"You just got done talking about (Nazi propoganda chief) Joseph Goebbels," Zapotosky said. "You can’t have it both ways. Either full disclosure, or not. No Joseph Goebbels. No Herman Goering. Full disclosure."
That's his quote, per the Tribune-Review: http://triblive.com/news/fayette/2451023-74/county-commissioners-zimmerlink-department-authority-zapotosky-heads-information-investigation-posit?printerfriendly=true
As we predicted back then, the little anti-Zimmerlink publicity stunt was destined to go nowhere, and it hasn't. But that didn't stop Zapotosky from assuming a starring role in this Theater of the Absurd, as the public official committed to "full disclosure" of even the most thinly veiled political chicanery.
Fast-forward to July 2014, however, and our loyal readers will see Zapotosky playing a new character, this one with a marked lack of interest in "full disclosure" when it comes down to him. "Full disclosure" of Zapotosky's activities made him steaming mad, to the point of attacking the reporter who disclosed those activities and blaming her for launching an "inquisition" by asking questions of his administrative assistant.
To recap, Zapotosky procured architecural drawings for the planned new Fayette County prison and, on the cusp of the project being put out to bid after a two-year process that he wholeheartedly supported, arranged to have them secretly turned over to a man who, in turn, was supplying them to a Morgantown area contractor that intended to bid on the project.
That's a lot of "full disclosure" that wasn't taking place until reporter Patty Yauger of the Uniontown Herald-Standard brought the entire mess to the public's attention on Aug. 15. The public should read the prior paragraph very carefully and ask, "Is this above-board behavior for an elected official?" Even if it's not illegal, it is ethical?
Zapotosky, displaying the type of political skills that allowed him to work as a staffer for former U.S. Reps. Austin Murphy and his successor Frank Mascara despite huge rivalry between the two congressmen, has tried to poo-poo his actions.
Why, he just needed to "verify" that the drawings were "done right," don't ya know? As if the firms he voted to hire and pay a significant amount of money to do that work -- Crabtree Rohrbaugh and Associates of Mechanicsburg, and Sleighter Engineering Inc. of Uniontown -- must have known less than a man no one had hardly heard of and a Morgantown contractor that "built half of Morgantown." Unless the rebuilt half of Morgantown contains a modern prison, that firm's expertise in this area would be highly suspect, would it not?
Toss in the fact that the man to whom he slipped the architectural plans -- as documented by Yauger in a story -- was a campaign contributor to Zapotosky, and this plot thickens.
Zapotosky's actions have been turned over to the state Ethics Commission and to Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks by fellow Democratic Commissioner Al Ambrosini. While we understand that the Ethics Commission is tasked with operating in secrecy so as not to tar-and-feather someone based only on allegation, all eyes should be on Heneks to see how he handles this basically in-house situation. There is a precedent, set by Heneks himself.
Heneks had no trouble confirming two years ago that his office was investigating the alleged packet left behind by one of Zimmerlink's lunch pals, a packet alleged to have contained at least one proprietary Fayette County Housing Authority document. To our knowledge, Heneks has never publicly exonerated Zimmerlink or her lunch companions, even two years after the fact. It's something he should have done by now.
Will Heneks equally confirm that his office is investigating Zapotosky's alleged transgressions? The district attorney is on record in a news story as being disappointed that the new prison was effectively shelved when Zapotosky changed his position in the wake of his distribution of the architectural drawings being made public by Yauger. But we don't recall anyone trying to pin Heneks down on Zapotosky's behavior.
For better or worse, this should be way more of an open and shut case than the one involving Zimmerlink. A videotape exists of the man entering the courthouse and exiting the commissioner's office with the materials. Zapotosky's administrative assistant, Kathy Winkler, has confirmed in the press that she turned packages over to a man, known to her, at Zapotosky's direction.
Heneks should have had plenty of time to review the state's conflict of interest statute and other laws by now. If he's taking this seriously, his investigators should already have interviewed Winkler and other witnesses.
It's all too easy for us to imagine how this same scenario would be playing out had, for example, it been Zimmerlink instead of Zapotosky who had engaged in these actions. We're betting the reaction would have been quite different, on many fronts. You might have even seen an orchestrated mob with pitchforks and torches gathering outside the courthouse.
As for Winkler, we certainly hope that she took leave time to appear alongside Zapotosky on the WMBS radio talk show the Friday that Yauger's story broke. Being in a position funded by the county taxpayer, helping her boss with political spin while on the taxpayers' dime isn't likely to be in her official job description. It may even be illegal.
Maybe Heneks or the press could check that out, too, in the interest of further "full disclosure." Surely the employee time cards for that pay period have already been processed and will reflect how Winkler spent her time that day -- and any attempt to alter them at this point would be improper and smack of a cover-up.
In the interim, though, you've got to give Zapotosky some credit for playing his hand well. The anti-new-prison faction that's been a fixture at commission meetings doesn't seem inclined to criticize him -- even for slipping plans out the door -- any time soon. They're of the opinion that he bent to their will by reversing field on his staunch support of building a new prison, and therefore affirmed the worthiness of their cause. In short, he makes them feel good about themselves, which has put them in a very forgiving mood.
And the pro-Zimmerlink faction appears to have crossed him off their criticism radar, too, knowing full well that if she's to succeed on a prison alternative or any other item, she's going to need Zapotosky as a second vote.
Zapotosky's recent moves have put Zimmerlink in the catbird seat, which was unthinkable for most of his seven-year tenure as a commissioner.
"You just got done talking about (Nazi propoganda chief) Joseph Goebbels," Zapotosky said. "You can’t have it both ways. Either full disclosure, or not. No Joseph Goebbels. No Herman Goering. Full disclosure."
That's his quote, per the Tribune-Review: http://triblive.com/news/fayette/2451023-74/county-commissioners-zimmerlink-department-authority-zapotosky-heads-information-investigation-posit?printerfriendly=true
As we predicted back then, the little anti-Zimmerlink publicity stunt was destined to go nowhere, and it hasn't. But that didn't stop Zapotosky from assuming a starring role in this Theater of the Absurd, as the public official committed to "full disclosure" of even the most thinly veiled political chicanery.
Fast-forward to July 2014, however, and our loyal readers will see Zapotosky playing a new character, this one with a marked lack of interest in "full disclosure" when it comes down to him. "Full disclosure" of Zapotosky's activities made him steaming mad, to the point of attacking the reporter who disclosed those activities and blaming her for launching an "inquisition" by asking questions of his administrative assistant.
To recap, Zapotosky procured architecural drawings for the planned new Fayette County prison and, on the cusp of the project being put out to bid after a two-year process that he wholeheartedly supported, arranged to have them secretly turned over to a man who, in turn, was supplying them to a Morgantown area contractor that intended to bid on the project.
That's a lot of "full disclosure" that wasn't taking place until reporter Patty Yauger of the Uniontown Herald-Standard brought the entire mess to the public's attention on Aug. 15. The public should read the prior paragraph very carefully and ask, "Is this above-board behavior for an elected official?" Even if it's not illegal, it is ethical?
Zapotosky, displaying the type of political skills that allowed him to work as a staffer for former U.S. Reps. Austin Murphy and his successor Frank Mascara despite huge rivalry between the two congressmen, has tried to poo-poo his actions.
Why, he just needed to "verify" that the drawings were "done right," don't ya know? As if the firms he voted to hire and pay a significant amount of money to do that work -- Crabtree Rohrbaugh and Associates of Mechanicsburg, and Sleighter Engineering Inc. of Uniontown -- must have known less than a man no one had hardly heard of and a Morgantown contractor that "built half of Morgantown." Unless the rebuilt half of Morgantown contains a modern prison, that firm's expertise in this area would be highly suspect, would it not?
Toss in the fact that the man to whom he slipped the architectural plans -- as documented by Yauger in a story -- was a campaign contributor to Zapotosky, and this plot thickens.
Zapotosky's actions have been turned over to the state Ethics Commission and to Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks by fellow Democratic Commissioner Al Ambrosini. While we understand that the Ethics Commission is tasked with operating in secrecy so as not to tar-and-feather someone based only on allegation, all eyes should be on Heneks to see how he handles this basically in-house situation. There is a precedent, set by Heneks himself.
Heneks had no trouble confirming two years ago that his office was investigating the alleged packet left behind by one of Zimmerlink's lunch pals, a packet alleged to have contained at least one proprietary Fayette County Housing Authority document. To our knowledge, Heneks has never publicly exonerated Zimmerlink or her lunch companions, even two years after the fact. It's something he should have done by now.
Will Heneks equally confirm that his office is investigating Zapotosky's alleged transgressions? The district attorney is on record in a news story as being disappointed that the new prison was effectively shelved when Zapotosky changed his position in the wake of his distribution of the architectural drawings being made public by Yauger. But we don't recall anyone trying to pin Heneks down on Zapotosky's behavior.
For better or worse, this should be way more of an open and shut case than the one involving Zimmerlink. A videotape exists of the man entering the courthouse and exiting the commissioner's office with the materials. Zapotosky's administrative assistant, Kathy Winkler, has confirmed in the press that she turned packages over to a man, known to her, at Zapotosky's direction.
Heneks should have had plenty of time to review the state's conflict of interest statute and other laws by now. If he's taking this seriously, his investigators should already have interviewed Winkler and other witnesses.
It's all too easy for us to imagine how this same scenario would be playing out had, for example, it been Zimmerlink instead of Zapotosky who had engaged in these actions. We're betting the reaction would have been quite different, on many fronts. You might have even seen an orchestrated mob with pitchforks and torches gathering outside the courthouse.
As for Winkler, we certainly hope that she took leave time to appear alongside Zapotosky on the WMBS radio talk show the Friday that Yauger's story broke. Being in a position funded by the county taxpayer, helping her boss with political spin while on the taxpayers' dime isn't likely to be in her official job description. It may even be illegal.
Maybe Heneks or the press could check that out, too, in the interest of further "full disclosure." Surely the employee time cards for that pay period have already been processed and will reflect how Winkler spent her time that day -- and any attempt to alter them at this point would be improper and smack of a cover-up.
In the interim, though, you've got to give Zapotosky some credit for playing his hand well. The anti-new-prison faction that's been a fixture at commission meetings doesn't seem inclined to criticize him -- even for slipping plans out the door -- any time soon. They're of the opinion that he bent to their will by reversing field on his staunch support of building a new prison, and therefore affirmed the worthiness of their cause. In short, he makes them feel good about themselves, which has put them in a very forgiving mood.
And the pro-Zimmerlink faction appears to have crossed him off their criticism radar, too, knowing full well that if she's to succeed on a prison alternative or any other item, she's going to need Zapotosky as a second vote.
Zapotosky's recent moves have put Zimmerlink in the catbird seat, which was unthinkable for most of his seven-year tenure as a commissioner.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Heroes
In the wake of last week's 2-1 vote to suspend plans for a new Fayette County prison, some vocal opponents of the plan are engaging in a lot of self-congratulatory back slapping, giving themselves credit for succeeding in turn around Commissioner Vince Zapotosky's vote.
Zapotosky himself is playing into the narrative with the fervor of Sunday televangelist. About the only thing he hasn't done is stand up and shout, "Glory! Hallelujah! I have finally seen the light! Can I get an A-ah-MEN!" His attempt to portray himself as a responsive elected official, one who listened to the people and bent to their wishes, is designed to play to the crowd and make them feel victorious, while minimizing his own political liabilities.
Likewise, Zapotosky's statement that he hasn't given up on the project, implying that he might want to renovate the exisiting prison and perhaps find some property nearby for a scaled-down construction effort, is designed to wallpaper over the fact that he voted to spend $2 million on another plan on which he was fully aboard, then suddenly changed his mind.
That's not good leadership. That's playing the public for a fool.
If you are for a new prison, Commissioner Al Ambrosini deserves to be your hero. He's led the charge, been steadfast in his conviction on what should be done, and worked hard to see his favored course of action become reality.
And if you are against a new prison, Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink deserves to be your hero. She's also been out front in opposition, unwavering in her firm conviction that a better alternative exists, and worked hard to make sure her point of view was not forgotten in the debate.
But Zapotosky? He's not worthy of being anyone's hero. He's once again demonstrated his trademark: A willingness to whatever is in the perceived best interest of the re-election of Vince Zapotosky. If it looks like building a new prison outside of Uniontown is best for his future political viability, he's all for it, as he was for two years.
But if it looks like his chances of staying in office are better if he kills the project -- and pisses away $2 million of your money in the process -- Zapotosky quickly and without hesitation changes his mind. Is this anyone's idea of strong leadership? In poverty-stricken Fayette County, where all funds are precious, can you really buy logic from a seven-year commissioner that boils down to, "You're lucky that I threw away only $2 million now instead of spending $30 million later"?
Say what you will about the administration of former Commissioners Vince Vicites, Sean Cavanagh and the late Ron Nehls, but they tackled big issues with firm resolve, and saw them through despite political differences and shifting alliances. They took out a multi-million-dollar bond issue to finance a controversial (and long overdue) property reassessment, and to provide seed money to develop the former county home property along Route 40. Take a look at how that vision has unfolded and ask if the county is better off because of their decision, which was highly controversial at the time.
They even built into the equation a mechanism to prevent Fayette County from falling into the same property assessment inequity trap that led to all kinds of problems: The computerized ability to update every few years, at a fraction of the cost, to keep up with changing real estate market conditions. As the Herald-Standard correctly pointed out in its Aug. 24 editorial, Zapotosky and Zimmerlink shelved that update in 2009, wasting an estimated half-million-dollars of work. We have no doubt a large part of that decision was political. Vicites went along with it, too -- but in our view, he wasn't about to put his head on the voter chopping block after the other two backed out.
No one likes a reassessment, but here's one basic and immutable fact: When you don't do one, the people with higher-valued properties are the ones to profit; while folks with lower-valued ones get screwed. Thus, the Heritage Hills crowd benefits, while the people in places like Smock and Grindstone and Ronco pay a disproportionately higher share. To be fair, Ambrosini's done nothing to revive the matter since taking office.
Our point is that implementing a reassessment is perhaps the most difficult yet courageous decision a county commissioner can make, because even when the need is abundantly clear, it's certain to draw howls of protest. The easy and politically expedient thing is to succumb to that pressure and do nothing, which has happened all too often in Fayette County.
Regarding the prison, Zapotosky is now the man on the spot and we should all be eager to see what he does. If he truly thinks an alternative is better and is willing to lead, he should make a motion at the next commission meeting to set in motion plans to renovate the exisiting Fayette County prison, and to start the process of any related land acquisition in downtown Uniontown. It's as easy for him to put a plan on the table as it was to take one off. And there's no need to further study an issue that's already been studied to death. Everyone already knows the options, and certainly someone who's been in office as long as Zapotosky has should have a clear idea of what to do.
Renovation of the current lockup has been looked at repeatedly in the past, and it's long been favored by Zimmerlink, who, with a second vote, can make her prefered method of solving the problem a reality. Do you think Zapotosky will do that?
We're betting he won't, because that would be another tough decision, especially with a primary election just eight months away. In the months leading up to the election, we believe Zapotosky will pay just enough lip service to solving the problem to make it look like progress is being made, without having to put up any tangible vote to actually make something happen.
Speaking of which, there's one way Zapotosky could debunk this assessment of his motives as political. He can declare publicly that he won't be seeking re-election to a third term. That should be pretty easy for him to do, since when he first ran for commissioner, he pledged openly at a candidate forum to only serve two terms in office if elected. It was a big part of his stump speech.
Surely, as his second four-year term comes to a close, Zapotosky is a man of his word and won't be running for office again in the spring. Unless, of course, he's changed his mind on that one, too.
Zapotosky himself is playing into the narrative with the fervor of Sunday televangelist. About the only thing he hasn't done is stand up and shout, "Glory! Hallelujah! I have finally seen the light! Can I get an A-ah-MEN!" His attempt to portray himself as a responsive elected official, one who listened to the people and bent to their wishes, is designed to play to the crowd and make them feel victorious, while minimizing his own political liabilities.
Likewise, Zapotosky's statement that he hasn't given up on the project, implying that he might want to renovate the exisiting prison and perhaps find some property nearby for a scaled-down construction effort, is designed to wallpaper over the fact that he voted to spend $2 million on another plan on which he was fully aboard, then suddenly changed his mind.
That's not good leadership. That's playing the public for a fool.
If you are for a new prison, Commissioner Al Ambrosini deserves to be your hero. He's led the charge, been steadfast in his conviction on what should be done, and worked hard to see his favored course of action become reality.
And if you are against a new prison, Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink deserves to be your hero. She's also been out front in opposition, unwavering in her firm conviction that a better alternative exists, and worked hard to make sure her point of view was not forgotten in the debate.
But Zapotosky? He's not worthy of being anyone's hero. He's once again demonstrated his trademark: A willingness to whatever is in the perceived best interest of the re-election of Vince Zapotosky. If it looks like building a new prison outside of Uniontown is best for his future political viability, he's all for it, as he was for two years.
But if it looks like his chances of staying in office are better if he kills the project -- and pisses away $2 million of your money in the process -- Zapotosky quickly and without hesitation changes his mind. Is this anyone's idea of strong leadership? In poverty-stricken Fayette County, where all funds are precious, can you really buy logic from a seven-year commissioner that boils down to, "You're lucky that I threw away only $2 million now instead of spending $30 million later"?
Say what you will about the administration of former Commissioners Vince Vicites, Sean Cavanagh and the late Ron Nehls, but they tackled big issues with firm resolve, and saw them through despite political differences and shifting alliances. They took out a multi-million-dollar bond issue to finance a controversial (and long overdue) property reassessment, and to provide seed money to develop the former county home property along Route 40. Take a look at how that vision has unfolded and ask if the county is better off because of their decision, which was highly controversial at the time.
They even built into the equation a mechanism to prevent Fayette County from falling into the same property assessment inequity trap that led to all kinds of problems: The computerized ability to update every few years, at a fraction of the cost, to keep up with changing real estate market conditions. As the Herald-Standard correctly pointed out in its Aug. 24 editorial, Zapotosky and Zimmerlink shelved that update in 2009, wasting an estimated half-million-dollars of work. We have no doubt a large part of that decision was political. Vicites went along with it, too -- but in our view, he wasn't about to put his head on the voter chopping block after the other two backed out.
No one likes a reassessment, but here's one basic and immutable fact: When you don't do one, the people with higher-valued properties are the ones to profit; while folks with lower-valued ones get screwed. Thus, the Heritage Hills crowd benefits, while the people in places like Smock and Grindstone and Ronco pay a disproportionately higher share. To be fair, Ambrosini's done nothing to revive the matter since taking office.
Our point is that implementing a reassessment is perhaps the most difficult yet courageous decision a county commissioner can make, because even when the need is abundantly clear, it's certain to draw howls of protest. The easy and politically expedient thing is to succumb to that pressure and do nothing, which has happened all too often in Fayette County.
Regarding the prison, Zapotosky is now the man on the spot and we should all be eager to see what he does. If he truly thinks an alternative is better and is willing to lead, he should make a motion at the next commission meeting to set in motion plans to renovate the exisiting Fayette County prison, and to start the process of any related land acquisition in downtown Uniontown. It's as easy for him to put a plan on the table as it was to take one off. And there's no need to further study an issue that's already been studied to death. Everyone already knows the options, and certainly someone who's been in office as long as Zapotosky has should have a clear idea of what to do.
Renovation of the current lockup has been looked at repeatedly in the past, and it's long been favored by Zimmerlink, who, with a second vote, can make her prefered method of solving the problem a reality. Do you think Zapotosky will do that?
We're betting he won't, because that would be another tough decision, especially with a primary election just eight months away. In the months leading up to the election, we believe Zapotosky will pay just enough lip service to solving the problem to make it look like progress is being made, without having to put up any tangible vote to actually make something happen.
Speaking of which, there's one way Zapotosky could debunk this assessment of his motives as political. He can declare publicly that he won't be seeking re-election to a third term. That should be pretty easy for him to do, since when he first ran for commissioner, he pledged openly at a candidate forum to only serve two terms in office if elected. It was a big part of his stump speech.
Surely, as his second four-year term comes to a close, Zapotosky is a man of his word and won't be running for office again in the spring. Unless, of course, he's changed his mind on that one, too.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
The Squanderer
When you squander $2 million of county taxpayer money making a sudden U-turn in your long-held position, like Fayette County Commissioner Vince Zapotosky, it's best to find someone else to blame.
Which is precisely what Zapotosky did at Tuesday's meeting, where he tried to make the Herald-Standard newspaper and reporter Patty Yauger the subject of attention, rather than his own ineptitude and wishy-washyness.
Zapotosky called Yauger the "personal reporter" of fellow Democratic Commissioner Al Ambrosini -- which only serves as affirmation that the stories Yauger has broken about Zapotosky's actions regarding the proposed new $30 million Fayette County prison have rattled Zapotosky.
You'd probably be rattled, too, if the public found out that you were responsible for obtaining and turning over architecturall designs for the new prison to a man from Morgantown, West Virginia, who in turn gave them to a contractor in that city -- a contractor that intended to bid on the project.
Yauger's work documented all of the above. Does anyone doubt that Zapotosky's action smacks of favoritism, bad judgement, or both? Who is he to unilaterally decide which construction firm should get the opportunity to "review" the plans drawn up by a firm he already voted to hire for that task?
His actions are important stuff for the public to know. Should Yauger be blamed for doing her job?
But instead of directing his ire where it belongs -- at the guy looking back at him in the mirror -- Zapotosky has tried to deflect attention away from himself. He has blamed Yauger for interviewing his personal courthouse assistant, Kathy Winkler, regarding the distribution of those plans, as though that's some high crime in the world of journalism.
Imagine that -- a reporter who asks questions! If Winkler didn't want to answer any, all she had to say was, "No comment." And, if she were so inclined, she could have added, "You'll need to ask Vince about that." We doubt that Yauger would have put Winkler in a headlock until she changed her mind.
Zapotosky also has taken aim at Ambrosini, blaming his long-time partner in running county government for sanctioning an "interrogation" of Winkler by Yauger. On WMBS radio's "Let's Talk" show Friday, Zapotosky trotted out Winkler as an on-air sidekick and tried to make the focus how upset she was at being asked questions during a nearly three-hour interview with Yauger.
To Zapotosky, at least, it was the Big Bad Wolf Ambrosini and Godzilla Yauger intimidating Little Miss Muffet Winkler to the point of tears.
Guess what, Vince? It goes with the territory. And surely you, of all people, know that.
You don't have to like Ambrosini for turning in your actions to the state Ethics Commission. But it looks like you will have to answer for them in some fashion. Maybe that's what has you squirming and backpedaling.
You don't have to like Yauger for pursuing this particular story, but that's not really an issue. And it's certainly, and thankfully, not your call. You can disparage Yauger as another commissioner's "personal reporter" all you want, but if you want to open that can of worms, we seriously doubt you'll end up voting to hire Yauger for a key position in the commissioner's office, like you did her Herald-Standard predecessor in covering county government.
In either case, we wouldn't want to be the elected official who slipped documents to a guy who passed them on to a contractor that, in turn, intended to bid on a $30 million project. If, as Zapotsky says, he just wanted an independent review of the plans and suggestions on how to save money, why didn't he make such a motion at a commission meeting and give ALL interested contractors the same opportunity?
When Zapotosky says, "Am I a day late and a dollar short? You betcha," it's important to remember that he's really two years and $2 million short. There's nothing he plans to do now in terms of exploring alternatives that he couldn't have done months or years ago regarding this project. He supported the idea of building a new prison, the site selection and acquisition, the hiring of a design firm and the expenditure of a significant amount of funds to get the project started. That wasn't Monopoly money he voted to hand out.
What's mystifying, though, is why so many people in the audience at Tuesday's meeting, people who rejoiced in the 2-1 vote to suspend the prison project, made snide remarks about Yauger and her reportage on this issue. Those catcalls are unwarranted.
You can't have it both ways. If it weren't for Yauger's reporting, Zapotosky wouldn't have been put on the hot spot that probably led to him changing his mind after two years as an ardent supporter of this costly prison project. His actions threw a big monkey wrench into the process. Opponents of the new prison may be glad that Zapotosky changed position and provided the second vote necessary to stop the project, but they shouldn't be blaming Yauger for turning in the best piece of investigative journalism the Herald-Standard has done in years.
Without Yauger's aggressive effort, no one would have known about these plans being slipped out of the courthouse and shipped to West Virginia. Certainly,Zapotosky wasn't telling the public that's what he was up to.
If Yauger heard about this and didn't follow up, many of those same critics would be pounding her for looking the other way. The focus should be on Zapotosky's actions -- his sudden change of heart and the propriety of handing out architectural plans for a yet-to-be-bid project -- not on the reporter and how she did her job.
Which is precisely what Zapotosky did at Tuesday's meeting, where he tried to make the Herald-Standard newspaper and reporter Patty Yauger the subject of attention, rather than his own ineptitude and wishy-washyness.
Zapotosky called Yauger the "personal reporter" of fellow Democratic Commissioner Al Ambrosini -- which only serves as affirmation that the stories Yauger has broken about Zapotosky's actions regarding the proposed new $30 million Fayette County prison have rattled Zapotosky.
You'd probably be rattled, too, if the public found out that you were responsible for obtaining and turning over architecturall designs for the new prison to a man from Morgantown, West Virginia, who in turn gave them to a contractor in that city -- a contractor that intended to bid on the project.
Yauger's work documented all of the above. Does anyone doubt that Zapotosky's action smacks of favoritism, bad judgement, or both? Who is he to unilaterally decide which construction firm should get the opportunity to "review" the plans drawn up by a firm he already voted to hire for that task?
His actions are important stuff for the public to know. Should Yauger be blamed for doing her job?
But instead of directing his ire where it belongs -- at the guy looking back at him in the mirror -- Zapotosky has tried to deflect attention away from himself. He has blamed Yauger for interviewing his personal courthouse assistant, Kathy Winkler, regarding the distribution of those plans, as though that's some high crime in the world of journalism.
Imagine that -- a reporter who asks questions! If Winkler didn't want to answer any, all she had to say was, "No comment." And, if she were so inclined, she could have added, "You'll need to ask Vince about that." We doubt that Yauger would have put Winkler in a headlock until she changed her mind.
Zapotosky also has taken aim at Ambrosini, blaming his long-time partner in running county government for sanctioning an "interrogation" of Winkler by Yauger. On WMBS radio's "Let's Talk" show Friday, Zapotosky trotted out Winkler as an on-air sidekick and tried to make the focus how upset she was at being asked questions during a nearly three-hour interview with Yauger.
To Zapotosky, at least, it was the Big Bad Wolf Ambrosini and Godzilla Yauger intimidating Little Miss Muffet Winkler to the point of tears.
Guess what, Vince? It goes with the territory. And surely you, of all people, know that.
You don't have to like Ambrosini for turning in your actions to the state Ethics Commission. But it looks like you will have to answer for them in some fashion. Maybe that's what has you squirming and backpedaling.
You don't have to like Yauger for pursuing this particular story, but that's not really an issue. And it's certainly, and thankfully, not your call. You can disparage Yauger as another commissioner's "personal reporter" all you want, but if you want to open that can of worms, we seriously doubt you'll end up voting to hire Yauger for a key position in the commissioner's office, like you did her Herald-Standard predecessor in covering county government.
In either case, we wouldn't want to be the elected official who slipped documents to a guy who passed them on to a contractor that, in turn, intended to bid on a $30 million project. If, as Zapotsky says, he just wanted an independent review of the plans and suggestions on how to save money, why didn't he make such a motion at a commission meeting and give ALL interested contractors the same opportunity?
When Zapotosky says, "Am I a day late and a dollar short? You betcha," it's important to remember that he's really two years and $2 million short. There's nothing he plans to do now in terms of exploring alternatives that he couldn't have done months or years ago regarding this project. He supported the idea of building a new prison, the site selection and acquisition, the hiring of a design firm and the expenditure of a significant amount of funds to get the project started. That wasn't Monopoly money he voted to hand out.
What's mystifying, though, is why so many people in the audience at Tuesday's meeting, people who rejoiced in the 2-1 vote to suspend the prison project, made snide remarks about Yauger and her reportage on this issue. Those catcalls are unwarranted.
You can't have it both ways. If it weren't for Yauger's reporting, Zapotosky wouldn't have been put on the hot spot that probably led to him changing his mind after two years as an ardent supporter of this costly prison project. His actions threw a big monkey wrench into the process. Opponents of the new prison may be glad that Zapotosky changed position and provided the second vote necessary to stop the project, but they shouldn't be blaming Yauger for turning in the best piece of investigative journalism the Herald-Standard has done in years.
Without Yauger's aggressive effort, no one would have known about these plans being slipped out of the courthouse and shipped to West Virginia. Certainly,Zapotosky wasn't telling the public that's what he was up to.
If Yauger heard about this and didn't follow up, many of those same critics would be pounding her for looking the other way. The focus should be on Zapotosky's actions -- his sudden change of heart and the propriety of handing out architectural plans for a yet-to-be-bid project -- not on the reporter and how she did her job.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Getting smoked ...
Note to the Herald-Standard:
Liz Zemba and the Greensburg Tribune-Review are kicking your ass on this story.
http://triblive.com/news/fayette/4981998-74/clark-district-attorney#axzz2jOXU4yQ3
Liz Zemba and the Greensburg Tribune-Review are kicking your ass on this story.
http://triblive.com/news/fayette/4981998-74/clark-district-attorney#axzz2jOXU4yQ3
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Kudos, sort of ...
We'll be kind and give the Herald-Standard and reporter Patty Yauger some credit for the Sept. 4 front-page story, "Fayette advances prison plans." At least they notified the public of what was likely already published in the classified advertising section regarding the full-court press being put on by supporters of building a new Fayette County Prison.
The first paragraph of Yauger's story is the highlight: Fayette County commissioners have yet to take offical action as to whether a new prison will be built or a temporary women's detention annex be leased, but a recent advertisement for architectural and engineering services indicates a timeline for both projects.
The story's all downhill from there.
Twenty paragraphs later, the reader is told this: The bid opening for engineering and architectural services for both projects is to take place at 3 p.m. Oct. 3 in the commissioners' meeting room. A contract is to be awarded following the opening of bids.
"A contract is to be awarded following the opening of bids" is listed at the end of the story? Somebody -- perhaps new executive editor Mike Palm -- needs to give Yauger a primer on writing in the inverted pyramid style, where the most important information is position at the top of the story.
Seems to us that if someone plans to award a contract immediately after opening the bids, on a project that could cost $30 million, they're not -- to use a favorite phrase of former Commissioner Vince Vicites -- performing their "due diligence."
The engineering and architectural work is being soliciated by a method known as "request for qualifications," so they aren't really bids at all. Yauger should know that. By using what's known as an "RFQ," the commissioners (or more than likely, a majority of the board) can award the contract to any firm they want. Price won't matter one bit.
The problem is, RFQs require study. Or at least they should. They are basically a glorified resume, telling a prospective employer what kinds of similar work the firm has done, the size and experience of its staff, etc. It is then up to the prospective employer -- in this case, Fayette County -- to sift through those qualifications and come up with a winner.
Opening the envelopes and picking a winner right away smells very much like that winner has already been determined, does it not? It's sort of like crowning Miss America before you have the swimsuit and talent competitions.
Here's the biggest criticism we have of this story: Yauger didn't pick up the phone, as far as we are aware, to call a single person for comment.
Wouldn't you think that advertising for architectural and engineering services, with the planned award of a contract on Oct. 3, is a pretty strong indication that at least two of the three county commissioners are pretty commited to building a new prison, even though they've taken no official action?
Fact is, all three commissioners should have been called for comment on this one. It's a big project, one that carries a significant amount of public debt, and if you read the story you'll see an awful lot of scope-of-work details from the RFQ.
It sure sounds like someone has decided they are taking official action on building a new prison. And when it comes down to brass tacks, it isn't the prison working group or the National Institute of Corrections who are making that decision on Oct 3, although they are being heavily used to soften the beach.
It's the county commissioners. Or at least it's two of three of them.
The first paragraph of Yauger's story is the highlight: Fayette County commissioners have yet to take offical action as to whether a new prison will be built or a temporary women's detention annex be leased, but a recent advertisement for architectural and engineering services indicates a timeline for both projects.
The story's all downhill from there.
Twenty paragraphs later, the reader is told this: The bid opening for engineering and architectural services for both projects is to take place at 3 p.m. Oct. 3 in the commissioners' meeting room. A contract is to be awarded following the opening of bids.
"A contract is to be awarded following the opening of bids" is listed at the end of the story? Somebody -- perhaps new executive editor Mike Palm -- needs to give Yauger a primer on writing in the inverted pyramid style, where the most important information is position at the top of the story.
Seems to us that if someone plans to award a contract immediately after opening the bids, on a project that could cost $30 million, they're not -- to use a favorite phrase of former Commissioner Vince Vicites -- performing their "due diligence."
The engineering and architectural work is being soliciated by a method known as "request for qualifications," so they aren't really bids at all. Yauger should know that. By using what's known as an "RFQ," the commissioners (or more than likely, a majority of the board) can award the contract to any firm they want. Price won't matter one bit.
The problem is, RFQs require study. Or at least they should. They are basically a glorified resume, telling a prospective employer what kinds of similar work the firm has done, the size and experience of its staff, etc. It is then up to the prospective employer -- in this case, Fayette County -- to sift through those qualifications and come up with a winner.
Opening the envelopes and picking a winner right away smells very much like that winner has already been determined, does it not? It's sort of like crowning Miss America before you have the swimsuit and talent competitions.
Here's the biggest criticism we have of this story: Yauger didn't pick up the phone, as far as we are aware, to call a single person for comment.
Wouldn't you think that advertising for architectural and engineering services, with the planned award of a contract on Oct. 3, is a pretty strong indication that at least two of the three county commissioners are pretty commited to building a new prison, even though they've taken no official action?
Fact is, all three commissioners should have been called for comment on this one. It's a big project, one that carries a significant amount of public debt, and if you read the story you'll see an awful lot of scope-of-work details from the RFQ.
It sure sounds like someone has decided they are taking official action on building a new prison. And when it comes down to brass tacks, it isn't the prison working group or the National Institute of Corrections who are making that decision on Oct 3, although they are being heavily used to soften the beach.
It's the county commissioners. Or at least it's two of three of them.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Today's story is brought to you by ...
Here in the patch, we're waiting with baited breath for Herald-Standard executive editor Mark O'Keefe to explain in an upcoming column why a prominent local law firm was credited in a full-page advertisement with being the sponsor of his newspaper's five-part series on the Fayette County Prison.
(You can see it for yourself, on page B-8 of the Friday, August 9 edition.)
It will be staring back at you, in black and white: "Herald-Standard Investigates: Behind the Prison Walls ... Sponsored by Davis and Davis, attorneys at law."
This is the first time that we know of -- and perhaps the first time in recorded history -- that the Herald-Standard has had, or felt the need to have, a sponsor for a news story it should be doing anyway.
O'Keefe, as long-time readers will recall, has publicly staked out his position on ethics as pertains to journalism. We refer, once again of course, to his forceful Dec. 5, 2010 column entitled, "Ethics issues taken seriously."
His words of that time included: "It's paramount that our newsroom maintains its independence and covers stories objectively."
O'Keefe might be able to defend that his charges still cover stories objectively, but we can imagine a lot of stammering and stuttering as he attempts to explain -- verbally or in writing -- how acceptance of a "sponsor" for a series of news stories falls in line with maintaining newsroom independence.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics, journalists are to "Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two."
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Surely, O'Keefe must recognize the problems inherent in accepting -- and then openly promoting -- a sponsor for a news story. It opens up the newspaper to a whole host of questions, including whether its coverage is for sale.
What's next? Will we see famed local auctioneer Wylie Rittenhouse standing in front of 8-18 East Church Street, yelling, "I got 50 bucks for the city council story, do I hear 55?"
We bet even O'Keefe cannot be happy about this. But it falls to him to do the explaining.
(You can see it for yourself, on page B-8 of the Friday, August 9 edition.)
It will be staring back at you, in black and white: "Herald-Standard Investigates: Behind the Prison Walls ... Sponsored by Davis and Davis, attorneys at law."
This is the first time that we know of -- and perhaps the first time in recorded history -- that the Herald-Standard has had, or felt the need to have, a sponsor for a news story it should be doing anyway.
O'Keefe, as long-time readers will recall, has publicly staked out his position on ethics as pertains to journalism. We refer, once again of course, to his forceful Dec. 5, 2010 column entitled, "Ethics issues taken seriously."
His words of that time included: "It's paramount that our newsroom maintains its independence and covers stories objectively."
O'Keefe might be able to defend that his charges still cover stories objectively, but we can imagine a lot of stammering and stuttering as he attempts to explain -- verbally or in writing -- how acceptance of a "sponsor" for a series of news stories falls in line with maintaining newsroom independence.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics, journalists are to "Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two."
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Surely, O'Keefe must recognize the problems inherent in accepting -- and then openly promoting -- a sponsor for a news story. It opens up the newspaper to a whole host of questions, including whether its coverage is for sale.
What's next? Will we see famed local auctioneer Wylie Rittenhouse standing in front of 8-18 East Church Street, yelling, "I got 50 bucks for the city council story, do I hear 55?"
We bet even O'Keefe cannot be happy about this. But it falls to him to do the explaining.
Friday, July 19, 2013
And the sites are ...
Here in the patch, we got word a few weeks ago that the prime site for any new Fayette County Prison was going to be the Joe Hardy Connellsville Airport.
Based on two recent stories in the Tribune-Review, we are now prepared to say that our source has pretty good insight.
First came a story noting that the airport authority has a $100,000 operating deficit, which could swell by another $50,000 in the next six months.
http://triblive.com/news/fayette/4369640-74/airport-authority-deficit#axzz2ZUQSxIR8
"We have to figure out ways to increase our income and reduce our expenses," was the assessment from airport board chairman Fred Davis. "We have been working diligently to turn our financial situation around."
Then came today's story, in which Fayette County Commission Chairman (and Davis pal) Al Ambrosini revealed the three sites named finalists by the "prison working group" put on the task by Ambrosini and fellow Democratic commissioner Vincent Zapotosky.
http://triblive.com/news/fayette/4382094-74/ambrosini-prison-county#axzz2ZUQSxIR8
Those sites are: A 100-acre parcel in Georges Township near Route 43, owned by Scott and Allen Whyel of Farmington and available for $850,000; a 30-acre parcel at the Joseph A. Hardy Connellsville Airport in Dunbar Township, available for lease at $35,000 a year; and a 77-acre site on the county's fairgrounds in Dunbar Township.
We're pretty sure we can save Abrosini and Zapotosky at least part of the $24,000 they agreed to spend to study the prison issue.
First off, who in their right mind would include the Fayette County Fairgounds on any such list? Ever been to that location in, say, the last week of July or the first week of August, when the county's biggest event is being held? Traffic is a nightmare, and the state police are required to help a steady stream of drivers get onto and off of Route 119. In the event of any type of emergency at the prison, the potential travel delay would be unacceptable.
And we won't even go into how fairgoing parents might feel about sending their children to the fair when dangerous prisoners are potentially being transported along the road leading past the fair's immense parking lot (which, by the way, would make an excellent place to hide or get lost in the crowd in an escape attempt).
Here's how we predict this playing out: It comes down to buying the $850,000 Whyel property versus the $35,000 airport rental. And the logic will be that it makes better sense to pay the $35,000 rental to the cash-strapped (and mismanaged) airport authority, because at that rate it will take 24 years to get to $850,000.
And someone will throw in, for good measure, the argument that this financially helps the airport, while representing further growth along the Route 119 corridor.
We still have this question, though: If a 30-acre parcel at the airport is in the running, why would the "prison working group" need to include a 100-acre parcel (the Whyel property) on its list of finalists?
Why would you buy 70 more acres than you need, for any project? The asking price for the Whyel property is $8,500 an acre, so buying 30 acres would cost only $255,000.
Based on two recent stories in the Tribune-Review, we are now prepared to say that our source has pretty good insight.
First came a story noting that the airport authority has a $100,000 operating deficit, which could swell by another $50,000 in the next six months.
http://triblive.com/news/fayette/4369640-74/airport-authority-deficit#axzz2ZUQSxIR8
"We have to figure out ways to increase our income and reduce our expenses," was the assessment from airport board chairman Fred Davis. "We have been working diligently to turn our financial situation around."
Then came today's story, in which Fayette County Commission Chairman (and Davis pal) Al Ambrosini revealed the three sites named finalists by the "prison working group" put on the task by Ambrosini and fellow Democratic commissioner Vincent Zapotosky.
http://triblive.com/news/fayette/4382094-74/ambrosini-prison-county#axzz2ZUQSxIR8
Those sites are: A 100-acre parcel in Georges Township near Route 43, owned by Scott and Allen Whyel of Farmington and available for $850,000; a 30-acre parcel at the Joseph A. Hardy Connellsville Airport in Dunbar Township, available for lease at $35,000 a year; and a 77-acre site on the county's fairgrounds in Dunbar Township.
We're pretty sure we can save Abrosini and Zapotosky at least part of the $24,000 they agreed to spend to study the prison issue.
First off, who in their right mind would include the Fayette County Fairgounds on any such list? Ever been to that location in, say, the last week of July or the first week of August, when the county's biggest event is being held? Traffic is a nightmare, and the state police are required to help a steady stream of drivers get onto and off of Route 119. In the event of any type of emergency at the prison, the potential travel delay would be unacceptable.
And we won't even go into how fairgoing parents might feel about sending their children to the fair when dangerous prisoners are potentially being transported along the road leading past the fair's immense parking lot (which, by the way, would make an excellent place to hide or get lost in the crowd in an escape attempt).
Here's how we predict this playing out: It comes down to buying the $850,000 Whyel property versus the $35,000 airport rental. And the logic will be that it makes better sense to pay the $35,000 rental to the cash-strapped (and mismanaged) airport authority, because at that rate it will take 24 years to get to $850,000.
And someone will throw in, for good measure, the argument that this financially helps the airport, while representing further growth along the Route 119 corridor.
We still have this question, though: If a 30-acre parcel at the airport is in the running, why would the "prison working group" need to include a 100-acre parcel (the Whyel property) on its list of finalists?
Why would you buy 70 more acres than you need, for any project? The asking price for the Whyel property is $8,500 an acre, so buying 30 acres would cost only $255,000.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Interesting reading
Some strong local angles in this story ...
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/4276369-74/mellow-pnc-former#axzz2XZ94Z5xn
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/4276369-74/mellow-pnc-former#axzz2XZ94Z5xn
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Will it ever end?
We had a few insights after reading "Investigation still ongoing," the May 31, 2013 commentary in the Herald-Standard authored by Harry Fike, the Fayette County Housing Authority chairman.
Fike commemorated the one-year anniversary of the purported May 30, 2012 discovery of a packet of information at a Uniontown area restaurant by informing the public that, "Each day we get a little closer to solving this mystery."
Really? At this rate, Haley's Comet will fly past Earth two or three times by the time the "mystery" is solved.
One thing the investigation has apparently uncovered thus far is a problem with mathematics. Originally, the reported word was that three waitresses at the restaurant where housing authority board member Beverly Beal, former housing authority finance director Sonya Over and Fayette County Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink had lunch saw the trio with the aforementioned packet.
Now, a year later, we have Fike noting, "Plus, two or three waitresses said our county commissioner, Mrs. Zimmerlink, was there viewing them along with a member of the housing authority board, Mrs. Beal, and a former housing authority employee."
Maybe if we wait another year, we'll be told that the case is close to being solved because "one or two" unnamed waitresses definitely saw what transpired.
Fike says the case involves "confidential records" that were "found lying on a restaurant table" and it "is not closed by any means."
We've written about this before, back in August, when the case was only three months old.
http://fayettepatchhunky.blogspot.com/2012/08/full-disclosure-of-what_22.html
Another nine months have elapsed, and all Fike has to put on the table is "every day we get a little closer" ?
That's not saying much for the skills of the private investigator hired to get to the bottom of this, who's been paid several thousand dollars. After 12 months, perhaps Fike and the housing authority should turn to someone who can get better results.
That logic assumes, however, that the utlimate goal is closing the books on this one. And, politics being what it is, you've got to leave room to at least acknowledge that maybe a final resolution, one way or the other, isn't the ultimate goal.
Maybe the goal is to keep the innuendo-based issue alive, heading into the next county commissioner election, so that attempts can be made to disparage Zimmerlink without any proof of wrongdoing or misbehavior on her part.
Much like the Whitewater investigation was used to disparage and tie up President Bill Clinton, perhaps Packetgate has far more value as a political than a criminal tool.
There's one way to make certain that doesn't happen. All it takes is for the Pennsylvania state police and or Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks to charge someone with a crime -- or to say the case is closed because of lack of evidence.
If neither of those things happen -- and soon -- the theory of playing politics gains stature and the circle susceptible to that criticism grows.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Help wanted
If we're supposed to "buy local," shouldn't this job opening be in the Herald-Standard classifieds?
Newspaper Executive Editor Uniontown PA
Posted: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:37 am
http://www.waaytv.com/contact/employment/newspaper-executive-editor-uniontown-pa/article_3766dc6a-b71b-11e2-98a1-001a4bcf6878.html
Fast-paced, family-owned multi-platform publishing company (SUN circ 22,500) in Southwestern PA seeks forward-thinking Executive Editor, committed to providing smart, indispensable, accessible and timely content across a variety of platforms.
This hands-on position is responsible for the day-to-day direction of reporters, web producers and independent content providers, within management’s established vision and financial parameters.
Effective communication with all levels of decision-makers and industry peers is an ongoing and vital function of the position.
The successful candidate must be committed to sustaining and improving existing print products while leading the way in digital innovations and overseeing the creation of innovative online tools and features.
A journalism degree or equivalent work experience is required. A high level of comfort with social media is an asset.
A proven record of successful leadership in deadline-driven journalism and solid news judgment skills are essential. Concern for our organization’s circulation, audience and advertising as they merge with delivery of news and information are a must.
Candidates meeting these criteria are encouraged to submit resumes to Karen Tweardy at8 East Church Street, Uniontown PA 15401 or ktweardy@heraldstandard.com.
Newspaper Executive Editor Uniontown PA
Posted: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:37 am
http://www.waaytv.com/contact/employment/newspaper-executive-editor-uniontown-pa/article_3766dc6a-b71b-11e2-98a1-001a4bcf6878.html
Fast-paced, family-owned multi-platform publishing company (SUN circ 22,500) in Southwestern PA seeks forward-thinking Executive Editor, committed to providing smart, indispensable, accessible and timely content across a variety of platforms.
This hands-on position is responsible for the day-to-day direction of reporters, web producers and independent content providers, within management’s established vision and financial parameters.
Effective communication with all levels of decision-makers and industry peers is an ongoing and vital function of the position.
The successful candidate must be committed to sustaining and improving existing print products while leading the way in digital innovations and overseeing the creation of innovative online tools and features.
A journalism degree or equivalent work experience is required. A high level of comfort with social media is an asset.
A proven record of successful leadership in deadline-driven journalism and solid news judgment skills are essential. Concern for our organization’s circulation, audience and advertising as they merge with delivery of news and information are a must.
Candidates meeting these criteria are encouraged to submit resumes to Karen Tweardy at8 East Church Street, Uniontown PA 15401 or ktweardy@heraldstandard.com.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Missing the boat
Today’s
front-page story, “Election expert says overzealous supporters can harm
campaign” (Herald-Standard, May 13), not only misses the boat, it’s in a totally
wrong harbor.
Where
is the news in telling the public that in the heat of a political campaign,
volunteers may violate a law or a policy on behalf of their favored candidate?
If the
Herald-Standard considers that to be a big news flash, there’s a serious lack
of real-world insight in that building.
This
one-source story, quoting a Harrisburg attorney, goes to great pains to explain
the obvious. It also implies strongly that two volunteers for the campaign of
judicial candidate Douglas Sepic – one of whom used a Laurel Highland School district
fax machine to send out campaign-related material, and the other an Albert
Gallatin Area School district teacher who sent home some type of vote-for-Sepic
letter with her students – fit in the “overzealous” category.
This
Harrisburg attorney, further identified as an “election expert,” is quoted as
saying that local campaigns, whether for a borough council seat or a judicial
seat, are “complex.”
While
running a campaign may be complex, it is pretty simple to figure out what the
real stories should be here.
The
real story is not, and should not be, about judicial candidate Douglas Sepic. Although
there may be some degree of guilt by association or insinuation, we’ll give you
that he cannot be held responsible for everything that his supporters (and
maybe his non-supporters) may do on his behalf.
Taken
to extreme ridiculousness, if a guy robbed a liquor store while wearing a “Vote
for Sepic” button on his lapel and drove away in a car with a “Vote for Sepic”
bumper sticker, would or should that have any real bearing on Sepic, personally
or professionally?
No, the
real thrust of Herald-Standard follow up should be probing the two incidents
that have come to light, neither of which directly involves Douglas Sepic.
First
up: The reported use of a LH fax machine by Melvyn Sepic, Douglas Sepic’s
father who just so happens to be a member of the LH school board. We still don’t
know how many faxes were sent, if this was an isolated incident, or if it is
common practice for LH board members (not just M. Sepic) to use public
resources for personal or political business.
We don’t
know what, if any, measures are being taken to punish M. Sepic. And we sure don’t
know if this rises to the level of something serious, such as an ethics, school
board or crimes code violation. Wouldn’t it make sense to call some experts in
those fields, to gain their perspectives? (Or call the other eight LH school
board members?)
Next
up: The use of AG students as political pack mules. All we know is that a
teacher was reportedly suspended for this activity. But we still don’t know
this teacher’s name, or whether she’s back to work, or whether she has appealed
the suspension, or whether such activity violates the school code. Again, how
hard would it be to find some experts in this area to get some perspectives?
(Or call the nine AG school board members?)
We can’t
really fault AG for not releasing the name, because we’re not even certain they’ve
been asked to do that. You’d think that a news reporter would make asking for
the name the first order of business; this is, after all, a public employee
being paid for by tax dollars. If the district has a legitimate and legal
reason for not releasing the name, we would love to hear it.
A
prior Herald-Standard story made mention that D. Sepic does have relatives
working in the AG district. It makes a world of difference if the teacher who
distributed a letter on his behalf is or is not a relative of his. If it is, it
might lead the public to believe that the teacher was trying to help him win.
If it isn’t, the public might conclude that someone was trying to tarnish his
name and undermine his campaign.
Instead
of stories that involve hard questions in the quest to further examine and
illuminate unsavory practices, readers were treated to a piece of
fluff as soft as a roll of Charmin. Weeks after they were first reported on, readers
still have no idea whether either of these school-related activities even
qualifies as a potential crime or ethics violation.
One
thing is for sure: You can’t characterize the Herald-Standard as being
overzealous in pursuing these two stories.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Why we like Larry
We must admit that we don’t know much about seven of the
eight candidates running for the Democratic nomination for Fayette County treasurer
in the upcoming primary election.
But we do know a lot about one of them. And that’s why we
are wholeheartedly endorsing former State Representative (and self-employed
labor arbitrator) Larry Roberts for this position.
(We want to make sure we cover all of our bases, so
depending on when you met or knew Larry, our endorsement also covers anyone
named Larry Rabbit, Larry Zajac or Larry LaMonica).
In the election preview story “Treasurer candidates discuss post responsibilities,” (Herald-Standard,
May 7), Roberts said his
qualifications put him at the front of the line.
“My
level of responsibility over the years has meaning, and I have served in several
levels of responsibility,” Roberts said.
Amen to that. We think you’d be hard-pressed to find a
candidate with more experience than Larry Roberts. He’s done it all – and one
of the things we like about him is that should he be elected, the people who
put him in office won’t be in for any big surprises.
You don’t have to worry about being shocked by a Larry
Roberts ethics case. He’s already been hit with a $600 ethics penalty for allowing legislative staff to
arrange campaign events in 2001 and again in 2004.
Worried about Larry’s name popping up in connection with allegations
of hanky-panky? That’s already happened, in a 2004 Election Board hearing where
20-year-old carpet installer Michael Ciampanelli testified that Roberts agreed
to pay him $200 to enter the race for state representative.
Holding off on voting for Larry because you think he
might let you down by voting to increase his pay as treasurer? Roberts can’t
let you down, because he already voted to increase his legislative pay, in the
infamous midnight pay raise of 2005, from
$69,647 to $81,050 each year. (Calculations showed that vote additionally hiked
his state pension by $721 per year.)
http://triblive.com/x/dailycourier/news/s_359223.html#axzz2SephmF1O
http://triblive.com/x/dailycourier/news/s_359223.html#axzz2SephmF1O
We
know that some of you probably have concerns about how Larry as treasurer would
interpret the fourth-class county code. Put your mind at ease -- after voting
for that 2005 legislative pay raise, Roberts accepted the unvouchered expenses
used to skirt a constitutional prohibition on midterm raises.
Think
there might be dissension in the treasurer’s office if Roberts wins? Do not
fear; Roberts already has had a staffer testify against him during an election
board hearing.
Nepotism
is a big issue these days in Fayette Co. The great thing about Larry is you don’t
have to sit around wondering if he’ll help out a family member. Roberts' son
Mark has already been county controller, and Mark Roberts even tried to keep
challenger (and current controller) Sean Lalley from running against him in
2007.
If
philosophy of governance is important to you, Roberts already has made his
position clear, making the press go to court to try to obtain information on his
expenses paid for by the public.
Of
course, there are many other reasons to vote for Larry Roberts, some of which
we detailed in our own critique of Roberts' performance, back in 2011.
When
you go to the polls on May 21, please vote for Larry Roberts for Fayette County
treasurer. Remember, in 14 years as a state representative, he brought cable TV
to Ohiopyle Borough.
With
all his experience, just think what he can do for you now.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Help for Jesse
Here in the patch, we are laughing out loud at judicial candidate Douglas Sepic's rationalization of his father's reported use of a Laurel Highlands School District fax machine to send out political campaign material.
"Laurel Highlands school board member faxed campaign notices," (Herald-Standard, May 1) contains this paragraph regarding the actions reportedly taken by LH school board member Melvyn Sepic:
Douglas Sepic said that despite the allegation of wrongdoing, his father did not use his position to access the school fax to send campaign material.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/election/laurel-highlands-school-board-member-faxed-campaign-notices/article_5ce9eb31-7dbe-5653-9d94-8a3aa3a446be.html
Huh? Are we to believe, then, that any member of the public can trot on over to Hutchinson Elementary School, gain access to the building, enter the office and be granted permission to use the fax machine for personal reasons?
Has Melvyn Sepic ever heard of Kinkos or Staples? You can send faxes from there, but it means you'll also have to reach into your pocket to pay for the service.
Kudos, by the way, to LH superintendent Jesse Wallace for launching an investigation (but really, once the story broke, how could he avoid doing that?). But we're not buying for one minute Wallace's own statements that it is impossible to track down how many faxes Melvyn Sepic sent out on his son's behalf.
"The first thing I sought was the activity report, but because it was more than 24 hours (after April 23), I was unable to retrieve the report," said Wallace, adding that the manufacturer was also contacted to determine if access could be made. "It is due to the age and ability of the machine that we were unable to get it."
Even if the fax machine is too old to provide a count, wasn't there someone in the office who could testify to Melvyn Sepic's use of the equipment? After all, Douglas Sepic himself has stated of his father's activity, "It was done during the hustle and bustle of a busy day."
Surely, Wallace can find someone who was in the office who can say, "He was in here for (however long it was), using the machine." And if Wallace wanted to, we are pretty certain he could find out how many calls were placed from the Hutchinson office on the day and time frame in question.
Here's our easy, four-step approach for Wallace to follow:
1. Pick up the phone.
2. Call Verizon (or whatever phone company provides LH with service).
3. Say, "I am the superintendent of the Laurel Highlands School District, and I want a list of all outgoing calls made from the Hutchinson Elementary School fax number on April 23, 1013."
4. Thank the phone company representative for his or her time.
Still left unanswered as part of Wallace's "investigation" is the question of whether this was the first and only time Melvyn Sepic or any other board member used the fax machine for personal or campaign reasons. The public deserves an answer to that one.
According to Herald-Standard's Patty Yauger, who deserves some credit for following up on this story, Wallace said that the staff has been instructed that political material can not be distributed via the school district equipment by employees, students or anyone associated with the district.
We would like to see the answer to this question: WHEN was staff given this instruction? If it was before M. Sepic's reported use of the fax machine, then someone ignored the policy and should be held accountable. If it was given after M. Sepic's reported use of the fax machine, then it is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that this isn't the first time something like this has happened in the school district.
We also got a big chuckle out of D. Sepic's stated belief that this story didn't rise to the level of front-page news. That's a sure-fire sign that the Herald-Standard made the right call in putting it there.
D. Sepic said, and we quote from the story, "I’ve spent my career prosecuting serious, violent criminals, drug dealers, murderers and trying to do what is right for Fayette County. (This minimal matter) detracts from the real issues in this campaign that are plaguing Fayette County."
We wonder if D. Sepic, the experienced career prosecutor, has ever put anybody away for theft of services or conflict of interest.
"Laurel Highlands school board member faxed campaign notices," (Herald-Standard, May 1) contains this paragraph regarding the actions reportedly taken by LH school board member Melvyn Sepic:
Douglas Sepic said that despite the allegation of wrongdoing, his father did not use his position to access the school fax to send campaign material.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/election/laurel-highlands-school-board-member-faxed-campaign-notices/article_5ce9eb31-7dbe-5653-9d94-8a3aa3a446be.html
Huh? Are we to believe, then, that any member of the public can trot on over to Hutchinson Elementary School, gain access to the building, enter the office and be granted permission to use the fax machine for personal reasons?
Has Melvyn Sepic ever heard of Kinkos or Staples? You can send faxes from there, but it means you'll also have to reach into your pocket to pay for the service.
Kudos, by the way, to LH superintendent Jesse Wallace for launching an investigation (but really, once the story broke, how could he avoid doing that?). But we're not buying for one minute Wallace's own statements that it is impossible to track down how many faxes Melvyn Sepic sent out on his son's behalf.
"The first thing I sought was the activity report, but because it was more than 24 hours (after April 23), I was unable to retrieve the report," said Wallace, adding that the manufacturer was also contacted to determine if access could be made. "It is due to the age and ability of the machine that we were unable to get it."
Even if the fax machine is too old to provide a count, wasn't there someone in the office who could testify to Melvyn Sepic's use of the equipment? After all, Douglas Sepic himself has stated of his father's activity, "It was done during the hustle and bustle of a busy day."
Surely, Wallace can find someone who was in the office who can say, "He was in here for (however long it was), using the machine." And if Wallace wanted to, we are pretty certain he could find out how many calls were placed from the Hutchinson office on the day and time frame in question.
Here's our easy, four-step approach for Wallace to follow:
1. Pick up the phone.
2. Call Verizon (or whatever phone company provides LH with service).
3. Say, "I am the superintendent of the Laurel Highlands School District, and I want a list of all outgoing calls made from the Hutchinson Elementary School fax number on April 23, 1013."
4. Thank the phone company representative for his or her time.
Still left unanswered as part of Wallace's "investigation" is the question of whether this was the first and only time Melvyn Sepic or any other board member used the fax machine for personal or campaign reasons. The public deserves an answer to that one.
According to Herald-Standard's Patty Yauger, who deserves some credit for following up on this story, Wallace said that the staff has been instructed that political material can not be distributed via the school district equipment by employees, students or anyone associated with the district.
We would like to see the answer to this question: WHEN was staff given this instruction? If it was before M. Sepic's reported use of the fax machine, then someone ignored the policy and should be held accountable. If it was given after M. Sepic's reported use of the fax machine, then it is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that this isn't the first time something like this has happened in the school district.
We also got a big chuckle out of D. Sepic's stated belief that this story didn't rise to the level of front-page news. That's a sure-fire sign that the Herald-Standard made the right call in putting it there.
D. Sepic said, and we quote from the story, "I’ve spent my career prosecuting serious, violent criminals, drug dealers, murderers and trying to do what is right for Fayette County. (This minimal matter) detracts from the real issues in this campaign that are plaguing Fayette County."
We wonder if D. Sepic, the experienced career prosecutor, has ever put anybody away for theft of services or conflict of interest.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Who will act?
Today's Herald-Standard story, "Political fax sent from school questioned," (April 30) details Fayette County Republican Committee Chairman Russ Rhodes' ire over a political fundraiser invitation allegedly sent from a fax machine at Hutchinson Elementary School in the Laurel Highlands School District.
The April 23 fax, according to Rhodes, was
distributed on behalf of Douglas Sepic, one of five candidates for county judge
in the upcoming primary election.
"What we have is a political person using
taxpayer-funded resources for their own purposes," said Rhodes.
Sepic, who is an assistant district attorney in
Fayette County, disavowed any personal involvement in the matter. "It is
improper to send a (political campaign) fax from a government or school district
fax and I did not authorize it," said Sepic.
We'll take both men at their word.
But that doesn't change the fact that Rhodes is
100 percent correct in pointing out that a fax machine being paid for with
taxpayer dollars should not be used for political campaign purposes.
The practice could end up landing someone in
jail. It has in neighboring Allegheny County, where district attorney Stephen
Zappala prosecuted former state Senator Jane Orie for such office practices and
won a conviction.
Rhodes says his next step is considering filing a
complaint with the State Ethics Commission.
We wonder what would happen if Rhodes also
dropped a dime to call Fayette County district attorney Jack Heneks and the
Pennsylvania state police. They, after all, sprang into action (and are
presumably still investigating) the nearly year-long "Saga of the
Packet" presumably left at a restaurant by Fayette County Housing
Authority board member Bev Beal during a lunch with Sonya Over and county
commissioner Angela Zimmerlink.
Heneks and the PSP also rushed headfirst into the
effort to track down the identities of anonymous posters on an Internet
community bulletin board, once they started repeating potentially libelous
rumors about a sitting county judge.
This case seems far more solid than either of
those two. It's not like anyone can walk in off the street at any time and use
the fax machine at Hutchinson Elementary School to send out an invitation to a
political "meet and greet" for a judicial candidate. (Or can they?)
And what of the Laurel Highlands School District?
Someone should call superintendent Jesse Wallace and the nine school board
members, asking them what policy the school district has regarding the sending
of such faxes, and how they plan to get to the bottom of who sent this one.
(Are there security cameras that might have captured the culprit?)
Heck, the school district should be conducting
its own investigation. Someone on staff just might have seen or heard
something. How many of these faxes were sent? Who sent this one? Has anything
like this ever happened before?
For all we know, it is standard operating
procedure for someone -- maybe even anyone -- with ties to the Laurel Highlands
School District to use public property (and thus taxpayer funds) to conduct
political campaigning.
We hope someone does the right thing and at least
calls for an investigation, maybe even by attorney general Kathleen Kane. Who
knows what an investigator with no ties to local politics might uncover?
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Selective presentation
According to Fayette County Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink's most recent blog posting, the following paragraph was deleted from her commentary by the Herald-Standard prior to its publication Sunday.
To say the article is inaccurate and misleading is an understatement. My experience shows information is not always accurately relayed and then reported resulting in misinformation to the public about a county issue. Knowing this, I initiated contact with the Herald Standard to provide accurate information before the article was printed, but it did no good; hence the reason for this letter.
The question for the newspaper's high command is: Why? What is so offensive about this paragraph, other than the fact that it is critical of the job done by the paper?
The newspaper ended up running a correction on the very same issue to which Zimmerlink was refering, so there obviously was a problem with the story. And Zimmerlink certainly has a strong basis for forming the opinion put forth in the deleted paragraph.
You can -- and should -- read the full text of Zimmerlink's blog post here: http://blog.votezimmerlink.com/
It's not like Zimmerlink wants favorable treatment, or is asking for a favor, or wants the paper to stop letting people criticize her. All she wants is for what is printed to be accurate -- especially as concerns what she says and provides to a reporter. That's a pretty reasonable request -- and one to which all sources are entitled.
When inaccurate information is printed, particularly in a front-page story, the damage isn't erased by an apology and a page 2 correction. That's why errors are anathema to good journalists.
Whatever happened to getting the story right?
We're glad that Zimmerlink has pointed out what she calls the "censorship" of her letter. It lets the public know that free speech seems to end when it reaches criticism of the job being done by the paper.
To say the article is inaccurate and misleading is an understatement. My experience shows information is not always accurately relayed and then reported resulting in misinformation to the public about a county issue. Knowing this, I initiated contact with the Herald Standard to provide accurate information before the article was printed, but it did no good; hence the reason for this letter.
The question for the newspaper's high command is: Why? What is so offensive about this paragraph, other than the fact that it is critical of the job done by the paper?
The newspaper ended up running a correction on the very same issue to which Zimmerlink was refering, so there obviously was a problem with the story. And Zimmerlink certainly has a strong basis for forming the opinion put forth in the deleted paragraph.
You can -- and should -- read the full text of Zimmerlink's blog post here: http://blog.votezimmerlink.com/
It's not like Zimmerlink wants favorable treatment, or is asking for a favor, or wants the paper to stop letting people criticize her. All she wants is for what is printed to be accurate -- especially as concerns what she says and provides to a reporter. That's a pretty reasonable request -- and one to which all sources are entitled.
When inaccurate information is printed, particularly in a front-page story, the damage isn't erased by an apology and a page 2 correction. That's why errors are anathema to good journalists.
Whatever happened to getting the story right?
We're glad that Zimmerlink has pointed out what she calls the "censorship" of her letter. It lets the public know that free speech seems to end when it reaches criticism of the job being done by the paper.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Oops! They did it again!
It wasn't on the front page, but the Friday, April 19 edition of the Herald-Standard contained the following important and noteworthy correction:
Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink did receive a packet of information related to the Fayette County Airport Authority and turned over copies of the documents to members of the authority as asked for in a right-to-know request. Incorrect information was reported in a story published Wednesday. The Herald-Standard apologizes for the error.
Given the newspaper's patttern of shabby treatment of Zimmerlink, you would think these type of errors wouldn't be happening. Remember the reporter who was permitted to do a hatchet job on her in print on the eve of the 2011 commissioner election, then was caught working the polls for the other Republican in the race? Remember the pre-election meeting story on the politically motivated (and unsubstantiated) allegation that Zimmerlink was posting items to a website on county time (authored by a reporter later hired as the county's chief clerk)?
We do: http://fayettepatchhunky.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-should-zimmerlink-talk.html
In a less obvious and more easily defensible display, the paper spared no shortage of ink on the red herring we call "Packetgate," which tried to tie Zimmerlink to a packet of information regarding the Fayette County Housing Authority left at a local restaurant on May 30, 2012. Much ado was made about the matter being investigated by the district attorney, the state pollice and a private investigator hired by the housing authority with tax dollars. Eleven months later, as we predicted, nothing of substance has been presented.
So how in the world does the paper STILL end up having to print a major correction admitting that "incorrect information was reported" in a major story dealing with Zimmerlink? Aren't reporters and newspapers supposed to get it right the first time?
Even if the reporter goofs up, what of the editors whose job it is to catch such things before they are published and cause embarrassment?
A final word on right-to-know requests: Instead of being fixated on airport authority chairman Fred Davis' RTK request seeking information that Zimmerlink obtained from the airport authority -- and in the case of the Herald-Standard, getting a key fact wrong -- the media should be launching its own RTK requests to find out more about the Federal Aviation Administration findings that form the basis of Zimmerlink's concerns over airport operations.
In her column of April 21, "Concerns about airport are valid," Zimmerlink notes that according to the FAA, federal funds may be in jeopardy "because of the airport's continued unauthorized uses of airport property, the failure to collect fair market rent and other deficiencies" first brought to the authority's attention in 2011.
We need to hear more -- from airport board members and employees, past and present, and the FAA -- about these unauthorized uses of airport property and the failure to collect fair market rent.
We need to hear less about Zimmerlink trying to get the accurate answers that the independent media should be providing.
Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink did receive a packet of information related to the Fayette County Airport Authority and turned over copies of the documents to members of the authority as asked for in a right-to-know request. Incorrect information was reported in a story published Wednesday. The Herald-Standard apologizes for the error.
Given the newspaper's patttern of shabby treatment of Zimmerlink, you would think these type of errors wouldn't be happening. Remember the reporter who was permitted to do a hatchet job on her in print on the eve of the 2011 commissioner election, then was caught working the polls for the other Republican in the race? Remember the pre-election meeting story on the politically motivated (and unsubstantiated) allegation that Zimmerlink was posting items to a website on county time (authored by a reporter later hired as the county's chief clerk)?
We do: http://fayettepatchhunky.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-should-zimmerlink-talk.html
In a less obvious and more easily defensible display, the paper spared no shortage of ink on the red herring we call "Packetgate," which tried to tie Zimmerlink to a packet of information regarding the Fayette County Housing Authority left at a local restaurant on May 30, 2012. Much ado was made about the matter being investigated by the district attorney, the state pollice and a private investigator hired by the housing authority with tax dollars. Eleven months later, as we predicted, nothing of substance has been presented.
So how in the world does the paper STILL end up having to print a major correction admitting that "incorrect information was reported" in a major story dealing with Zimmerlink? Aren't reporters and newspapers supposed to get it right the first time?
Even if the reporter goofs up, what of the editors whose job it is to catch such things before they are published and cause embarrassment?
A final word on right-to-know requests: Instead of being fixated on airport authority chairman Fred Davis' RTK request seeking information that Zimmerlink obtained from the airport authority -- and in the case of the Herald-Standard, getting a key fact wrong -- the media should be launching its own RTK requests to find out more about the Federal Aviation Administration findings that form the basis of Zimmerlink's concerns over airport operations.
In her column of April 21, "Concerns about airport are valid," Zimmerlink notes that according to the FAA, federal funds may be in jeopardy "because of the airport's continued unauthorized uses of airport property, the failure to collect fair market rent and other deficiencies" first brought to the authority's attention in 2011.
We need to hear more -- from airport board members and employees, past and present, and the FAA -- about these unauthorized uses of airport property and the failure to collect fair market rent.
We need to hear less about Zimmerlink trying to get the accurate answers that the independent media should be providing.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
No easy landing
After reading today's story, "Zimmerlink vows to monitor airport authority," (Herald-Standard, April 18), our eyes perked up at this line:
Zimmerlink said that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) deficiencies included unsigned lease agreements, safety issues, fair market value rental fees and other matters.
These problems, as reported, were flagged by the FAA during an inspection back in May 2011 and reiterated in a letter sent to the Fayette County Airport Authority in February of this year.
Apparently, the unresolved issues are serious enough to jeopardize state and federal funding for the airport. That alone should be reason enough for Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink -- or any other elected official, but especially the county commissioners who appoint airport authority board members -- to put this matter front and center on the radar screen.
The obvious question here is: If the airport is being run by a "competent" board, as described by chairman Fred Davis, why haven't these problems been resolved in the past 23 months? Instead of being miffed at Zimmerlink for requesting information from the FAA -- a nifty move, actually, because the federal Freedom of Information Act pretty much guarantees a speedy and thorough response -- the airport board should be supplying some answers.
They should be using their public meeting to tell us how many unsigned leases there were, who they were made out to and why they weren't signed in the first place.
They should be using their public meeting to tell us what the problems were with fair market rental fees, and if they were too low, why was that the case and who were the beneficiaries of these low rents.
And they should be using their public meeting to tell us about these safety issues, what they are, what progress has been made to correct them, and what still needs to be done.
Unsigned leases and problems with fair market value rental fees, as flagged by the FAA, sounds to us like a combination worthy of further investigation. On the surface, it certainly appears at least as interesting as the unsolved copper thefts and alleged voter fraud targeted by the investigating grand jury convened by Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks Jr.
Zimmerlink said that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) deficiencies included unsigned lease agreements, safety issues, fair market value rental fees and other matters.
These problems, as reported, were flagged by the FAA during an inspection back in May 2011 and reiterated in a letter sent to the Fayette County Airport Authority in February of this year.
Apparently, the unresolved issues are serious enough to jeopardize state and federal funding for the airport. That alone should be reason enough for Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink -- or any other elected official, but especially the county commissioners who appoint airport authority board members -- to put this matter front and center on the radar screen.
The obvious question here is: If the airport is being run by a "competent" board, as described by chairman Fred Davis, why haven't these problems been resolved in the past 23 months? Instead of being miffed at Zimmerlink for requesting information from the FAA -- a nifty move, actually, because the federal Freedom of Information Act pretty much guarantees a speedy and thorough response -- the airport board should be supplying some answers.
They should be using their public meeting to tell us how many unsigned leases there were, who they were made out to and why they weren't signed in the first place.
They should be using their public meeting to tell us what the problems were with fair market rental fees, and if they were too low, why was that the case and who were the beneficiaries of these low rents.
And they should be using their public meeting to tell us about these safety issues, what they are, what progress has been made to correct them, and what still needs to be done.
Unsigned leases and problems with fair market value rental fees, as flagged by the FAA, sounds to us like a combination worthy of further investigation. On the surface, it certainly appears at least as interesting as the unsolved copper thefts and alleged voter fraud targeted by the investigating grand jury convened by Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks Jr.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Who's behind the ownership curtain?
Here in the patch, we've seen a thousand Herald-Standard.com business stories over the years, promoting the opening or expansion of everything from grocery stores to flower shops to manufacturing faciliites to auto dealers.
Each and every one of them included one key fact: The actual owner(s) of the business, whose smiling face could usually be found in a prominent photograph accompanying the feel-good story.
Thus we were perplexed -- and somewhat curious -- that the Sunday, March 17 story, "SWC Properties opens real estate office in Uniontown" made no mention of who actually owns this fledgling new real estate company.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/business/swc-properties-opens-real-estate-office-in-uniontown/article_60ef47f4-7ed5-5460-a81e-3f25dbe5061f.html
Our curiosity was further piqued when a photo of a "broker" with the company showed him standing in front of the newspaper-owned building that formerly housed the now-failed HSTV operation. Before that, the site was home to Eddie's Fruit Basket.
Something about this presentation just wasn't adding up. So we visited the Pennsylvania Department of State website, where you can research such things, typed in SWC Properties, and easily found this listing:
SWC Properties LLC Current Name
Limited Liability Company - Domestic - Information
Entity Number: 4157830 Status: Active Entity Creation Date: 1/10/2013 State of Business.: PA Registered Office Address: 8 East Church Street
Uniontown PA 15401
Fayette Mailing Address: No Address
Then we used the same search engine and typed in Uniontown Newspapers Inc., and found this listing:
UNIONTOWN NEWSPAPERS INC Current NameBusiness Corporation - Domestic - Information
Entity Number: 368249 Status: Active Entity Creation Date: Registered Office Address: [Address Not Available]
PA 0 -0
Mailing Address: No Address
Officers
Name: VALERIE J LAUB Title: President Address: 8 E CHURCH ST
UNIONTOWN PA 15401-3563
Name: SANDRA C HARDY Title: Secretary Address: 8 E CHURCH ST
UNIONTOWN PA 15401-3563
Name: MICHAEL WHITE Title: Treasurer Address: 8 E CHURCH ST
UNIONTOWN PA 15401-3563
Name: STANLEY ELLIS Title: Vice President Address: 8 E CHURCH ST
UNIONTOWN PA 15401-3563
So, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State, the registered office address of SWC Properties turns out to be same address -- 8 E. Church St., Uniontown -- used by the owners/corporate officers of the company that runs Herald-Standard.com.
If you don't believe us, visit the website and look it up yourself. https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/csearch.asp
Call us crazy, but this common address seems to be a pretty strong indication that the newspaper has branched out into the real estate business. We have no problem with that -- but, ethically and for the sake of journalistic accuracy and credibility, shouldn't that have been mentioned as part of the story?
Surely, Herald-Standard.com knows who the owner(s) of SWC Properties is/are, or there wouldn't have been a confirmable basis for a grand-opening story in the first place.
Was a conscious decision made somewhere along the line -- perhaps from the top-down -- to leave that information out of the story? If so, why? What's the big secret?
Each and every one of them included one key fact: The actual owner(s) of the business, whose smiling face could usually be found in a prominent photograph accompanying the feel-good story.
Thus we were perplexed -- and somewhat curious -- that the Sunday, March 17 story, "SWC Properties opens real estate office in Uniontown" made no mention of who actually owns this fledgling new real estate company.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/business/swc-properties-opens-real-estate-office-in-uniontown/article_60ef47f4-7ed5-5460-a81e-3f25dbe5061f.html
Our curiosity was further piqued when a photo of a "broker" with the company showed him standing in front of the newspaper-owned building that formerly housed the now-failed HSTV operation. Before that, the site was home to Eddie's Fruit Basket.
Something about this presentation just wasn't adding up. So we visited the Pennsylvania Department of State website, where you can research such things, typed in SWC Properties, and easily found this listing:
SWC Properties LLC Current Name
Limited Liability Company - Domestic - Information
Entity Number: 4157830 Status: Active Entity Creation Date: 1/10/2013 State of Business.: PA Registered Office Address: 8 East Church Street
Uniontown PA 15401
Fayette Mailing Address: No Address
Then we used the same search engine and typed in Uniontown Newspapers Inc., and found this listing:
UNIONTOWN NEWSPAPERS INC Current NameBusiness Corporation - Domestic - Information
Entity Number: 368249 Status: Active Entity Creation Date: Registered Office Address: [Address Not Available]
PA 0 -0
Mailing Address: No Address
Officers
Name: VALERIE J LAUB Title: President Address: 8 E CHURCH ST
UNIONTOWN PA 15401-3563
Name: SANDRA C HARDY Title: Secretary Address: 8 E CHURCH ST
UNIONTOWN PA 15401-3563
Name: MICHAEL WHITE Title: Treasurer Address: 8 E CHURCH ST
UNIONTOWN PA 15401-3563
Name: STANLEY ELLIS Title: Vice President Address: 8 E CHURCH ST
UNIONTOWN PA 15401-3563
So, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State, the registered office address of SWC Properties turns out to be same address -- 8 E. Church St., Uniontown -- used by the owners/corporate officers of the company that runs Herald-Standard.com.
If you don't believe us, visit the website and look it up yourself. https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/csearch.asp
Call us crazy, but this common address seems to be a pretty strong indication that the newspaper has branched out into the real estate business. We have no problem with that -- but, ethically and for the sake of journalistic accuracy and credibility, shouldn't that have been mentioned as part of the story?
Surely, Herald-Standard.com knows who the owner(s) of SWC Properties is/are, or there wouldn't have been a confirmable basis for a grand-opening story in the first place.
Was a conscious decision made somewhere along the line -- perhaps from the top-down -- to leave that information out of the story? If so, why? What's the big secret?
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Under his skin
Man, did
HeraldStandard.com get under the skin of Uniontown police chief Jason Cox, with
its Dec. 7 editorial “Shame on mayor,” which you can read it its entirely here:
The newspaper took
Mayor Ed Fike to task – and rightfully so – for his unilateral imposition of a
two-minute speaking limit for council member to address, of all things, the
city’s 2013 budget. In so doing, it described as “heavy handed” Cox’s
intervention as a lawman when councilman Gary Gearing proceeded to exceed Fike’s
two-minute rule with his comment.
Said
the newspaper: “Suggesting that council
members have a time limit is one thing, having the chief of police step in and
play time cop is another thing altogether. Need we remind Fike that being mayor
is not the same as being a dictator. And Cox isn’t Fike’s personal servant. Cox
works for all the residents of Uniontown, including Gearing. He’s supposed to
dispense justice evenhandedly not siding with one public official over another
one.”
It would be
ridiculous to limit members of the public to two minutes of speaking time, let
alone a duly elected member of council. Like Gearing or not, regardless of his
motives or the validity of his comments, he has a right to be heard. The public
will decide if his comments have merit, if he’s merely grandstanding, or if he’s
a candidate for the loony bin. But it’s not up to Fike to arbitrarily and
severely limit how much he can say, or how many questions he may ask.
It is impossible
for any member of council to address something as complicated and far-reaching
as a city budget, in less time that it takes to hear your favorite song on the
radio.
Enter police chief
Cox, who submitted his own rebuttal commentary, “Police chief defends actions
at meeting,” Dec. 7 (we couldn’t find it online, by the way, which leads us to
wonder if that’s because it prominently took aim at editor Mark O’Keefe).
Cox bristled at the
notion that anyone would imply that he is a “heavy-handed time cop” or a “personal
servant” of Fike. A main bone of Cox’s contention is that O’Keefe, whom he
portrays as the author of the editorial, wasn’t even at the meeting to view
firsthand what transpired.
Well, O’Keefe wasn’t
in Dallas when Oswald shot JFK, either – but that doesn’t mean he can’t
formulate an opinion on the assassination of President Kennedy.
Cox claimed to have
been at the meeting as a department head, one who it just so happens does not
leave his badge or his authority at the door when the meeting begins. He said
he works directly under the mayor, and was only fulfilling Fike’s directive to
bring order to the situation.
If his Marshall Matt
Dillon skills were necessary to defuse a volatile situation, we’d like to know
why Gearing wasn’t charged with any crime. Is speaking more than two minutes at
a public meeting something that could land a councilman in the hoosgow? Was
Gearing disturbing the peace? Making terroristic threats? Engaging in
disorderly conduct?
Cox may have just
been doing his job and following the boss’s orders, and we’ll give him the
benefit of the doubt on that count. But that does nothing to alter the point of
the editorial, which is that it doesn’t look good when one elected official
tries to muzzle another, or when the police chief gets involved as enforcer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)