Fayette County is looking for a new chief clerk, and the overall objective of the job, as posted on the county's website is: To perform a variety of complex financial and administrative duties to assist the County Commissioners in the management of the County, its programs and expenses.
The listed education/training requirement for this job? Bachelor's degree, preferably in Accounting, Public Administration, Business and/or related field.
The listed work experience? At least 4 years experience in Accounting, Public Administration, Business and/or any equivalent combination of experience, education and training which provides the required knowledge, skills and abilities.
You can view the entire job description here: http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/JobPost/Documents/Chief_Clerk.pdf
So it makes perfect sense that Commissioners Vince Zapotosky and Al Ambrosini are hiring Herald-Standard.com reporter Amy Revak, who:
1. Has zero work experience performing a variety of complex financial and administrative duties.
2. Has a bachelor's degree in English (which doesn't sound to us like a field related to accounting, public administration or business).
3. Has zero work experience in accounting, public administration or business.
Forget about this being an obvious political hire, which it is. The larger issue, and it's a big one, is Revak's nonexistant resume when it comes to fulfilling the obligations of this very important job. As a beat reporter for the Herald-Standard, and before that the Washington Observer-Reporter, she has not one visible shred of administrative or management experience.
The only financial experience she probably has is balancing her check book, which is not exactly the type of skill that qualifies you to help develop the county's multi-million-dollar budget.
Only Zapotosky and Ambrosini know why they favor Revak over a candidate who holds a master's of business administration degree. But that didn't stop Zapotosky from saying this to the Tribune-Review :
Zapotosky said he favors Revak over the candidate with accounting experience because of her knowledge of county government while working as a reporter.
"She brought that to the table, plus her writing skills and media background," Zapotosky said. "Another candidate had accounting skills, but the overall, well-rounded skills from one candidate exceeded those of the other."http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_791777.html
If Revak's "knowledge of county government while working as a reporter" qualifies her to be the county's chief clerk, then any of the gaggle of other reporters who have done a far superior job are qualified to be U.S. Secretary of State. (And that list includes the Tribune-Review's Liz Zemba, who unlike Revak at least deemed it newsworthy that the county district attorney was convening a grand jury.)
As far as Revak's "writing skills," we will wait to see the list of journalism awards she has won. And we will wait a very long time to see that list.
With Revak officially hired on Tuesday (sorry for the typo that originally said Thursday), her stories about letter to the editor writer Ruth Thompson and disaffected Marcellus Shale Task Force member Karen Jensen are coming into clearer focus.
Zapotosky and Ambrosini could still back out of this potential mess, but that is highly unlikely. What is certain is that Revak's days covering county government should be over. It even appears that at next Wednesday's Salary Board meeting, she will be getting a raise. The job has a starting salary of $32,064, but Zapotosky told the Trib that.the figure could be adjusted higher when the salary board meets. .Why would he even be mentioning that if it weren't already in the works?
We are eagerly waiting to see Sunday's issue of Herald-Standard.com, to see how editor Mark O'Keefe weighs in on this hire. He used to cover county government, so he is intimately familiar with the demands of this job. And he is certainly familiar with Revak's work background and abilities.
Revak is now fair game for editorial commentary. Let's see what is said.
Showing posts with label Fayette County. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fayette County. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Why five, not all 98?
Here in the patch, we find it extremely interesting to watch Dave Lohr's attempt to cherry-pick his way to the third and final spot as Fayette County commissioner. The effort raises some interesting questions that are flying below the radar.
You'll recall that on election night, Lohr's fellow Republican (and incumbent commissioner) Angela M. Zimmerlink was 10, 11 or 12 votes ahead of Lohr, depending on what number the election bureau was using and/or what number the particular media outlet was reporting.
After a painstaking and supposedly thorough process regarding the counting of absentee ballots -- a saga that involved scrutizining postmarks and the post office and a judge's ruling -- Zimmerlink was still the winner, only by then her margin had swelled to 18 votes (that's one-third greater than it was on election night).
Case closed? Not for Lohr, who apparently does not want to go down in the county's political history books as the only person to ever be a four-time loser in the quest to become a comissioner that dates back to his initial run in 1995.
No, Lohr and his attorney sought -- and have won -- a recount in five of the county's voting precincts. Fayette County Judge Ralph Warman has agreed with their argument that votes should be recounted in Bullskin Township 1 and 2, South Union Township 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5.
According to court papers filed by Lohr attorney David Montgomery, as reported by Herald-Standard,com, "It is submitted that the closeness of the race among Ms. Zimmerlink and Mr. Lohr requires a recount and a recanvass of the ballots cast in the Nov. 8, 2011 election, as there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots."
(It is also possible that additional absentee ballots delivered in time by carrier pigeon were deposited in the courthouse clock tower. Although that possibility is miniscule, perhaps someone should check, just in case.)
Here's the problem, as we see it: If Lohr and his attorney believe, and if Warman agrees, that "there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots," wouldn't that possibility exist for all 98 of the county's voting precincts?
Of course it would. But the Lohr camp is only seeking to recount the vote (or more accurately, a partial vote, using only paper ballots and not those registered by machine) in five precincts. The question everyone should be asking is, "Why just those five?"
In his court papers, attorney Montgomery is reported to have said that, "... based on information believed to be reliable, that fraud or error, although not manifest in the general return of votes made from the subject election district, was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots cast in the race for county commissioner."
Really? It seems to us that if attorney Montgomery and/or his client Lohr have "information believed to be reliable" that proves "fraud or error ... was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots," they should be asking for an investigation by Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks or state Attorney General Linda Kelly.
But we digress. Back to those five precincts: What happens, hypothetically, if the recount of Bullskin 1 and 2, South Union 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5, magically erases Zimmerlink's 18-vote lead and puts Lohr up by five votes?
Is that result set in stone, because Lohr and his attorney picked those five before the deadline for filing such a request passed? No one from the media has asked or answered that question, to our knowledge. But it should be asked and answered.
Our little hypothetical scenario poses quite a dilemma for Lohr: If the recount does put him up by five votes -- or 50 or 500 or 1, it really doesn't matter -- will he then ask that five more precints be recounted? Or all 98? (Assuming that the law allows for additional requests to be made.)
Or does Lohr say, "No, it took a while, but I'm finally satisfied with the election results. The people have spoken. Thank you, and good night."
You can bet the farm, including all Marcellus gas rights, that if the recount of only five precincts changes the outcome of this race, and if the opportunity to recount the other 93 precincts has already passed, some judicious cherry-picking did the trick.
You'll recall that on election night, Lohr's fellow Republican (and incumbent commissioner) Angela M. Zimmerlink was 10, 11 or 12 votes ahead of Lohr, depending on what number the election bureau was using and/or what number the particular media outlet was reporting.
After a painstaking and supposedly thorough process regarding the counting of absentee ballots -- a saga that involved scrutizining postmarks and the post office and a judge's ruling -- Zimmerlink was still the winner, only by then her margin had swelled to 18 votes (that's one-third greater than it was on election night).
Case closed? Not for Lohr, who apparently does not want to go down in the county's political history books as the only person to ever be a four-time loser in the quest to become a comissioner that dates back to his initial run in 1995.
No, Lohr and his attorney sought -- and have won -- a recount in five of the county's voting precincts. Fayette County Judge Ralph Warman has agreed with their argument that votes should be recounted in Bullskin Township 1 and 2, South Union Township 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5.
According to court papers filed by Lohr attorney David Montgomery, as reported by Herald-Standard,com, "It is submitted that the closeness of the race among Ms. Zimmerlink and Mr. Lohr requires a recount and a recanvass of the ballots cast in the Nov. 8, 2011 election, as there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots."
(It is also possible that additional absentee ballots delivered in time by carrier pigeon were deposited in the courthouse clock tower. Although that possibility is miniscule, perhaps someone should check, just in case.)
Here's the problem, as we see it: If Lohr and his attorney believe, and if Warman agrees, that "there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots," wouldn't that possibility exist for all 98 of the county's voting precincts?
Of course it would. But the Lohr camp is only seeking to recount the vote (or more accurately, a partial vote, using only paper ballots and not those registered by machine) in five precincts. The question everyone should be asking is, "Why just those five?"
In his court papers, attorney Montgomery is reported to have said that, "... based on information believed to be reliable, that fraud or error, although not manifest in the general return of votes made from the subject election district, was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots cast in the race for county commissioner."
Really? It seems to us that if attorney Montgomery and/or his client Lohr have "information believed to be reliable" that proves "fraud or error ... was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots," they should be asking for an investigation by Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks or state Attorney General Linda Kelly.
But we digress. Back to those five precincts: What happens, hypothetically, if the recount of Bullskin 1 and 2, South Union 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5, magically erases Zimmerlink's 18-vote lead and puts Lohr up by five votes?
Is that result set in stone, because Lohr and his attorney picked those five before the deadline for filing such a request passed? No one from the media has asked or answered that question, to our knowledge. But it should be asked and answered.
Our little hypothetical scenario poses quite a dilemma for Lohr: If the recount does put him up by five votes -- or 50 or 500 or 1, it really doesn't matter -- will he then ask that five more precints be recounted? Or all 98? (Assuming that the law allows for additional requests to be made.)
Or does Lohr say, "No, it took a while, but I'm finally satisfied with the election results. The people have spoken. Thank you, and good night."
You can bet the farm, including all Marcellus gas rights, that if the recount of only five precincts changes the outcome of this race, and if the opportunity to recount the other 93 precincts has already passed, some judicious cherry-picking did the trick.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Why should Zimmerlink talk?
Here in the patch, we really can't blame Fayette County Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink if she never talks to the Herald-Standard newspaper again. Why should she, considering the newspaper's continued pattern of anti-Zimmerlink bias demonstrated by:
1. The front-page story published Oct. 28 (11 days before the Nov. 8 election), entitled, "Official grilled on web postings." The first two paragraphs of that story, printed here verbatim, were:
Tanya Cellurale of Connellsville on Thursday accused Fayette County Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink of using county time to make derogatory comments on a local website.
Speaking during public comment, Cellurale said Zimmerlink has posted numerous comments on a local website, some of which slander people who attend public meetings.
Zimmerlink vigorously denied those claims in the story, authored by reporter Amy Revak, who also relayed to the reading public Cellurale's further claim to have laid hands on the IP (Internet Protocol) address of Zimmerlink's county work computer.
Only a fool would believe that Cellurale's comments were not politically motivated. And only a reporter who was either: A. Willing to play along, or B. Totally clueless, would have published Cellurale's unsubstaniated accusation, especially so close to Election Day.
To date, neither Revak nor any other Herald-Standard reporter has done a follow-up story, to find out if Cellurale was even close to telling the truth when she made her pre-election accusations. As we have noted previously, it's a fairly easy thing to do -- and it starts with having the guts to ask Cellurale to provide the IP address she claims to have in her possession. (If it is a county IP address, we would further ask how she obtained such proprietary information, which we can easily envision triggering a lot of stuttering and stammering.)
2. The story published Nov. 1, seven days before the Nov. 8 election, entitled, "County Conservation District raises fees." The first three paragraphs of that story, printed verbatim, were:
The Fayette County Conservation District will raise its fees by as much (as) $700 in 2012 for any land disturbed during development.
The seven-member board - which Fayette County Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink sits on with board Chairman Don Bowser and members Bill Geary, Frank Mutnansky, Larry Chaikcic, Warren Dick and Lloyd Moser -- is responsible for the conservation, protection, restoration and wise use of the county's natural resources.
During a meeting Oct. 24, the board voted to increase the Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Fee Schedule, with varying fees based on the amount of disturbed acres associated with a project.
That story, authored by reporter Rebekah Sungala, later noted that "Zimmerlink was absent from the meeting" and that "Zimmerlink, who represents the county on the board, did not respond to requests for comment."
(On Election Day, Sungala showed up and was photographed at the Bullskin Township 1 precinct, wearing a campaign sticker for Dave Lohr, Zimmerlink's main opponent for the third and final commissioner spot.)
Given the Herald-Standard's sudden interest in the operations of relatively obscure Fayette County Conservation District, we here in the patch were -- and are -- eagerly awaiting the news story on last month's Conservation District board meeting. It was held Nov. 28 and we are assured that Zimmerlink was in attendance.
We were initially disappointed that no story appeared on Nov. 29, the day after the latest meeting. But then we realized that perhaps we needed to wait eight days for something to appear in print, just like the October meeting.
What's important for everyone to know is that neither of these stories appeared without the oversight and approval of the Herald-Standard newsroom editors. It is they who decided the ideas were newsworthy and passed journalistic muster. It is they who read them before anyone else. It is they who decided where the stories would be placed in the newspaper.
These are not completely incidents of rogue reporters who are able to have their way and say, acting alone and without approval from above. Someone higher up the chain of command sanctioned each of these stories -- and someone who had the ability to put a stop to them, or to hold them until further and fairer research could be conducted, decided those steps were not necessary.
Now that Zimmerlink has won re-election by 18 votes, despite the best efforts of many (including the Herald-Standard) to defeat her, it will be real interesting to see how the newspaper treats her in the next four years.
We don't look for much change. Which is why we're glad that Zimmerlink is using her own blog to explain the decisions she makes as a county commissioner. http://blog.votezimmerlink.com/?ci=23323
From that blog, here is her enlightening explanation for why she voted no to a $2.7 million deficit county budget:
One of the most important duties of the commissioners is to develop an annual spending plan, i.e. the county budget
As provided by County Code, the preparation of the Proposed Budget must begin at least 90 days prior to adoption. In our preparation of the 2010 Proposed Budget the Commissioners advertised and held public work sessions beginning in September (90 days). In our preparation of the 2011 Proposed Budget the Commissioners began the process in September (90 days) and held public work sessions beginning in October . Now compare just those two prior years to this 2012 Proposed Budget wherein the Commissioners have not held one work session ………yet the 2 majority Commissioners on Monday, at a special commissioners meeting, voted to approve the Proposed Budget. I voted no.
Just how can Commissioners approve a proposed spending plan and present it to the public for a 20 day review period without having any meetings with their department heads, row officers, courts, etc? What's been going on for the past 90 days?
Could it be there were other things on their minds? Too busy campaigning for the Nov 8th election?
So what happens next? Well, we as Commissioners have 17 working days… but wait not really 17 because Commissioner Vicites' email to us asked that no public meetings be held Dec 6,7,8,or 9th while he is on vacation so that leaves 13 working days….but wait not really 13 because county manager Warren Hughes has a scheduled vacation so that leaves 9 working days.
Both majority Commissioners, Zapotosky and Vicites were quoted by the media saying they will work diligently to pare down the $2.7 deficit in order to balance the budget before December 30th. Really? Diligently in 9 days?
Yes, when Commissioner Vicites returns from vacation the process will begin as both majority Commissioners have instructed staff that the public work sessions will be held Monday, December 12th through Friday December 16th between 11-2pm................................ and if you are wondering courthouse hours are 8:30-4:30.
1. The front-page story published Oct. 28 (11 days before the Nov. 8 election), entitled, "Official grilled on web postings." The first two paragraphs of that story, printed here verbatim, were:
Tanya Cellurale of Connellsville on Thursday accused Fayette County Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink of using county time to make derogatory comments on a local website.
Speaking during public comment, Cellurale said Zimmerlink has posted numerous comments on a local website, some of which slander people who attend public meetings.
Zimmerlink vigorously denied those claims in the story, authored by reporter Amy Revak, who also relayed to the reading public Cellurale's further claim to have laid hands on the IP (Internet Protocol) address of Zimmerlink's county work computer.
Only a fool would believe that Cellurale's comments were not politically motivated. And only a reporter who was either: A. Willing to play along, or B. Totally clueless, would have published Cellurale's unsubstaniated accusation, especially so close to Election Day.
To date, neither Revak nor any other Herald-Standard reporter has done a follow-up story, to find out if Cellurale was even close to telling the truth when she made her pre-election accusations. As we have noted previously, it's a fairly easy thing to do -- and it starts with having the guts to ask Cellurale to provide the IP address she claims to have in her possession. (If it is a county IP address, we would further ask how she obtained such proprietary information, which we can easily envision triggering a lot of stuttering and stammering.)
2. The story published Nov. 1, seven days before the Nov. 8 election, entitled, "County Conservation District raises fees." The first three paragraphs of that story, printed verbatim, were:
The Fayette County Conservation District will raise its fees by as much (as) $700 in 2012 for any land disturbed during development.
The seven-member board - which Fayette County Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink sits on with board Chairman Don Bowser and members Bill Geary, Frank Mutnansky, Larry Chaikcic, Warren Dick and Lloyd Moser -- is responsible for the conservation, protection, restoration and wise use of the county's natural resources.
During a meeting Oct. 24, the board voted to increase the Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Fee Schedule, with varying fees based on the amount of disturbed acres associated with a project.
That story, authored by reporter Rebekah Sungala, later noted that "Zimmerlink was absent from the meeting" and that "Zimmerlink, who represents the county on the board, did not respond to requests for comment."
(On Election Day, Sungala showed up and was photographed at the Bullskin Township 1 precinct, wearing a campaign sticker for Dave Lohr, Zimmerlink's main opponent for the third and final commissioner spot.)
Given the Herald-Standard's sudden interest in the operations of relatively obscure Fayette County Conservation District, we here in the patch were -- and are -- eagerly awaiting the news story on last month's Conservation District board meeting. It was held Nov. 28 and we are assured that Zimmerlink was in attendance.
We were initially disappointed that no story appeared on Nov. 29, the day after the latest meeting. But then we realized that perhaps we needed to wait eight days for something to appear in print, just like the October meeting.
What's important for everyone to know is that neither of these stories appeared without the oversight and approval of the Herald-Standard newsroom editors. It is they who decided the ideas were newsworthy and passed journalistic muster. It is they who read them before anyone else. It is they who decided where the stories would be placed in the newspaper.
These are not completely incidents of rogue reporters who are able to have their way and say, acting alone and without approval from above. Someone higher up the chain of command sanctioned each of these stories -- and someone who had the ability to put a stop to them, or to hold them until further and fairer research could be conducted, decided those steps were not necessary.
Now that Zimmerlink has won re-election by 18 votes, despite the best efforts of many (including the Herald-Standard) to defeat her, it will be real interesting to see how the newspaper treats her in the next four years.
We don't look for much change. Which is why we're glad that Zimmerlink is using her own blog to explain the decisions she makes as a county commissioner. http://blog.votezimmerlink.com/?ci=23323
From that blog, here is her enlightening explanation for why she voted no to a $2.7 million deficit county budget:
One of the most important duties of the commissioners is to develop an annual spending plan, i.e. the county budget
As provided by County Code, the preparation of the Proposed Budget must begin at least 90 days prior to adoption. In our preparation of the 2010 Proposed Budget the Commissioners advertised and held public work sessions beginning in September (90 days). In our preparation of the 2011 Proposed Budget the Commissioners began the process in September (90 days) and held public work sessions beginning in October . Now compare just those two prior years to this 2012 Proposed Budget wherein the Commissioners have not held one work session ………yet the 2 majority Commissioners on Monday, at a special commissioners meeting, voted to approve the Proposed Budget. I voted no.
Just how can Commissioners approve a proposed spending plan and present it to the public for a 20 day review period without having any meetings with their department heads, row officers, courts, etc? What's been going on for the past 90 days?
Could it be there were other things on their minds? Too busy campaigning for the Nov 8th election?
So what happens next? Well, we as Commissioners have 17 working days… but wait not really 17 because Commissioner Vicites' email to us asked that no public meetings be held Dec 6,7,8,or 9th while he is on vacation so that leaves 13 working days….but wait not really 13 because county manager Warren Hughes has a scheduled vacation so that leaves 9 working days.
Both majority Commissioners, Zapotosky and Vicites were quoted by the media saying they will work diligently to pare down the $2.7 deficit in order to balance the budget before December 30th. Really? Diligently in 9 days?
Yes, when Commissioner Vicites returns from vacation the process will begin as both majority Commissioners have instructed staff that the public work sessions will be held Monday, December 12th through Friday December 16th between 11-2pm................................ and if you are wondering courthouse hours are 8:30-4:30.
Monday, November 7, 2011
The case for Angela Zimmerlink
In Tuesday’s election for Fayette County commissioner, only one candidate can lay undisputed claim to owing no one anything -- and that candidate is Republican Angela Zimmerlink.
That’s because Zimmerlink’s only campaign contributions have come from herself and her husband Tom. In an age where money matters immensely in politics, Zimmerlink has never accepted any campaign cash from outside her immediate family.
She’s won twice doing it that way -- and here in the patch, we think that her refusal to accept campaign cash is a powerful reason to keep Zimmerlink in office. This policy allows her to make decisions in the best interest of the county, without regard to politics. You can bet she won’t get any phone calls from someone seeking to cash in some chips, in terms of a board appointment, a contract, a hire, or any other sort of favorable treatment.
Let’s be brutally frank here: Does anyone think that campaign contributions -- especially hefty ones -- do not come with invisible strings attached? Do campaign contributors throw thousands of dollars your way because they think you’re a good guy?
However noble, Zimmerlink’s policy places her at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to such things as advertising and paying poll workers, two staples of the Fayette County political dynamic. Still, voters have twice elected her to the commissioners office -- and we hope they have the wisdom to do it again.
According to the Herald-Standard.com story, “$70,000 spent on Fayette’s race for commissioner,” of Nov. 3, 2011, Democrat Vince Zapotosky was the big kahuna when it comes to raking in other peoples’ money. Zapotosky pulled in $24,717 in the reporting period that ended Oct. 28.
Democrat Al Ambrosini got $17,600 in new contributions, and Republican Dave Lohr received $11,750.
Zimmerlink and her husband contributed $1,310 to her campaign. In the reporting period, Zapotosky raised nearly 19 times as much money as Zimmerlink, Ambrosini 13.4 times as much, and Lohr nearly 9 times as much. (That gross imbalance is likely to get worse when the candidates file their post-election reports, which cover campaign contributions raised and spent AFTER Oct. 28.)
In analyzing Lohr’s numbers, what popped out at us was this: Of the $11,750 he raised according to HeraldStandard.com, $5,500 came from two people named Terrance Shallenberger, another $4,800 came Lohr’s way from Sean Miller of Washington Security Group, and yet another $3,400 was put into Lohr’s campaign by Neil Brown of Acme.
(In the “Can you trust what you read?” department, we think someone ought to buy HeraldStandard.com a calculator, or give its reporters a refresher course in basic math, because the Shallenbergers, Miller and Brown contributions alone add up to $13,700, which is $2,000 more than the $11,750 the newspaper reported that Lohr raised. In any case, those three contributors provided the backbone of Lohr‘s campaign financing.)
Inaccurate numbers aside, would this happen to be the same Terrance Shallenberger who is a member of the Fayette County Airport Authority, or whose company is heavily involved in the Marcellus gas industry operating here (think “frackwater treatment plant, Masontown Borough“)? Would this happen to be the same Sean Miller whose company is embroiled in a zoning dispute over a shooting range near Laurel Mall? Would this be the same Neil Brown who is a member of the Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board?
According to Herald-Standard.com, Zapotosky received $1,000 each from John and Justin Garlow of Uniontown (would this be the same John Garlow who owns Ford Business Machines, which has the county copy machine contract?), $1,100 from Fred and Rhonda Zeigler of Uniontown (the same couple who are trying to purchase Great Meadows Amphitheater property from the county?), and $3,500 from Terrance Shallenberger.
Ambrosini also got $2,000 from Terrance Shallenberger and $1,000 from John Garlow, in addition to $1,000 each from Robert W. Sleighter of Uniontown and Terry E. McMillan of Uniontown (who are each affiliated with engineering firms, if memory serves us correctly.)
There is nothing wrong or improper with any of these contributions, which are allowable by law. But if and when the county commissioners ever have to make a decision involving these or any other contributors, or any of the interests they represent, the fact that they contributed money could be interpreted, well, as a contributing factor in those outcomes.
That will never be an issue, real or imagined, with Zimmerlink. And we like that very much.
That’s because Zimmerlink’s only campaign contributions have come from herself and her husband Tom. In an age where money matters immensely in politics, Zimmerlink has never accepted any campaign cash from outside her immediate family.
She’s won twice doing it that way -- and here in the patch, we think that her refusal to accept campaign cash is a powerful reason to keep Zimmerlink in office. This policy allows her to make decisions in the best interest of the county, without regard to politics. You can bet she won’t get any phone calls from someone seeking to cash in some chips, in terms of a board appointment, a contract, a hire, or any other sort of favorable treatment.
Let’s be brutally frank here: Does anyone think that campaign contributions -- especially hefty ones -- do not come with invisible strings attached? Do campaign contributors throw thousands of dollars your way because they think you’re a good guy?
However noble, Zimmerlink’s policy places her at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to such things as advertising and paying poll workers, two staples of the Fayette County political dynamic. Still, voters have twice elected her to the commissioners office -- and we hope they have the wisdom to do it again.
According to the Herald-Standard.com story, “$70,000 spent on Fayette’s race for commissioner,” of Nov. 3, 2011, Democrat Vince Zapotosky was the big kahuna when it comes to raking in other peoples’ money. Zapotosky pulled in $24,717 in the reporting period that ended Oct. 28.
Democrat Al Ambrosini got $17,600 in new contributions, and Republican Dave Lohr received $11,750.
Zimmerlink and her husband contributed $1,310 to her campaign. In the reporting period, Zapotosky raised nearly 19 times as much money as Zimmerlink, Ambrosini 13.4 times as much, and Lohr nearly 9 times as much. (That gross imbalance is likely to get worse when the candidates file their post-election reports, which cover campaign contributions raised and spent AFTER Oct. 28.)
In analyzing Lohr’s numbers, what popped out at us was this: Of the $11,750 he raised according to HeraldStandard.com, $5,500 came from two people named Terrance Shallenberger, another $4,800 came Lohr’s way from Sean Miller of Washington Security Group, and yet another $3,400 was put into Lohr’s campaign by Neil Brown of Acme.
(In the “Can you trust what you read?” department, we think someone ought to buy HeraldStandard.com a calculator, or give its reporters a refresher course in basic math, because the Shallenbergers, Miller and Brown contributions alone add up to $13,700, which is $2,000 more than the $11,750 the newspaper reported that Lohr raised. In any case, those three contributors provided the backbone of Lohr‘s campaign financing.)
Inaccurate numbers aside, would this happen to be the same Terrance Shallenberger who is a member of the Fayette County Airport Authority, or whose company is heavily involved in the Marcellus gas industry operating here (think “frackwater treatment plant, Masontown Borough“)? Would this happen to be the same Sean Miller whose company is embroiled in a zoning dispute over a shooting range near Laurel Mall? Would this be the same Neil Brown who is a member of the Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board?
According to Herald-Standard.com, Zapotosky received $1,000 each from John and Justin Garlow of Uniontown (would this be the same John Garlow who owns Ford Business Machines, which has the county copy machine contract?), $1,100 from Fred and Rhonda Zeigler of Uniontown (the same couple who are trying to purchase Great Meadows Amphitheater property from the county?), and $3,500 from Terrance Shallenberger.
Ambrosini also got $2,000 from Terrance Shallenberger and $1,000 from John Garlow, in addition to $1,000 each from Robert W. Sleighter of Uniontown and Terry E. McMillan of Uniontown (who are each affiliated with engineering firms, if memory serves us correctly.)
There is nothing wrong or improper with any of these contributions, which are allowable by law. But if and when the county commissioners ever have to make a decision involving these or any other contributors, or any of the interests they represent, the fact that they contributed money could be interpreted, well, as a contributing factor in those outcomes.
That will never be an issue, real or imagined, with Zimmerlink. And we like that very much.
Friday, November 4, 2011
What do you mean by a 'united front'?
There's a paragraph in the Herald-Standard.com election preview story, "Candidates running own campaigns," (Amy Revak, Oct. 16, 2011) that we really wish the newspaper had followed up on.
It reads:
Lohr said the three commissioners on the board need to present a united front, even if they despise each other personally.
Given the propensity for government entities to have meetings before the real meetings, to cut deals away from the public spotlight and, especially in Fayette County, to tamp down or eliminate dissension (which can also mean tamp down or eliminate opposition), we wonder what Lohr means -- and what this approach would mean for the concept of open government.
For example, if there is an issue on which he disagrees with the other commissioners, would Lohr be prone to say, "You know, I disagree with you 100 percent on this matter -- so much so that I despise you personally. Now let's get out there in the public meeting and present a united front!"
We certainly hope that would not be the case, because if it were, the public would end up being the big loser. There's a reason the system is structured so that one minority party commissioner is elected, and that reason is to prevent complete one-party dominance. The minority voice can be very effective in policy debate -- but only if that voice is raised. In public.
We wonder how Lohr's stated philosophy would have played back in the late 1990s, when he felt that voter fraud at personal care homes had contributed to his 1995 election loss and was a blight that needed eradicated. Lohr took a great personal interest in the voter fraud investigation matter, which at the time was being single-handidily pushed by Democrat commissioner Sean Cavanagh, who most certainly was not presenting a "united front" with fellow commissioners Harry Albert (Republican) and Vince Vicites (Democrat).
In short, without a county commissioner who was more interested in seeing justice done than in presenting a united front, there would not have been any uncovering of absentee ballot voter fraud at a large personal care home. Lohr was very much in Cavanagh's corner on that one, and Cavanagh's two terms as county commissioner are very much the antithesis of any "united front."
It would have been great if Herald-Standard.com, which champions the need for open government, had asked for, and provided to, its readers a fuller explanation of Lohr's "united front" comment. On face value, it's a pretty strong statement about how one intends to approach the job. And in our view, not a very good one.
It reads:
Lohr said the three commissioners on the board need to present a united front, even if they despise each other personally.
Given the propensity for government entities to have meetings before the real meetings, to cut deals away from the public spotlight and, especially in Fayette County, to tamp down or eliminate dissension (which can also mean tamp down or eliminate opposition), we wonder what Lohr means -- and what this approach would mean for the concept of open government.
For example, if there is an issue on which he disagrees with the other commissioners, would Lohr be prone to say, "You know, I disagree with you 100 percent on this matter -- so much so that I despise you personally. Now let's get out there in the public meeting and present a united front!"
We certainly hope that would not be the case, because if it were, the public would end up being the big loser. There's a reason the system is structured so that one minority party commissioner is elected, and that reason is to prevent complete one-party dominance. The minority voice can be very effective in policy debate -- but only if that voice is raised. In public.
We wonder how Lohr's stated philosophy would have played back in the late 1990s, when he felt that voter fraud at personal care homes had contributed to his 1995 election loss and was a blight that needed eradicated. Lohr took a great personal interest in the voter fraud investigation matter, which at the time was being single-handidily pushed by Democrat commissioner Sean Cavanagh, who most certainly was not presenting a "united front" with fellow commissioners Harry Albert (Republican) and Vince Vicites (Democrat).
In short, without a county commissioner who was more interested in seeing justice done than in presenting a united front, there would not have been any uncovering of absentee ballot voter fraud at a large personal care home. Lohr was very much in Cavanagh's corner on that one, and Cavanagh's two terms as county commissioner are very much the antithesis of any "united front."
It would have been great if Herald-Standard.com, which champions the need for open government, had asked for, and provided to, its readers a fuller explanation of Lohr's "united front" comment. On face value, it's a pretty strong statement about how one intends to approach the job. And in our view, not a very good one.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The new Harry Albert
The question everyone here in the patch is asking themselves -- and one we hope you are asking, too -- is this: Why is Republican challenger Dave Lohr running against fellow Republican incumbent Angela Zimmerlink for Fayette County commissioner, instead of against Democrats Vincent Zapotosky or Al Ambrosini?
The only plausible answer, of course, is that Lohr recognizes that given the Democrats' huge voter registration edge, there's only room for one Republican to sit at the Fayette County commissioner table. And the independent insurance salesman Lohr, who's failed in three previous attempts to secure the job, has no problem casting party unity aside if it finally benefits his ascension to the office.
Here in the patch, where we pride ourselves on having a little bit of political insight, it's plain to see that Lohr is quite willing to suit up as the new Harry Albert, the former Republican commissioner who was often the subject of Lohr's ire, back in the days when Lohr was railing against the county establishment rather than snuggling up to it.
Back in 2003, when Lohr was wearing his own clothes, he said this about then-competitor Joe Hardy: "I'm going to beat him," says Lohr, 46, who ran for commissioner in 1995 and 1999. "He can bring his money to the table all he wants, but this election's going to be won by sweat and hard work by the candidates."
The same primary election story that appeared in the Herald-Standard on March 26, 2003, entitled, "GOP hopes for political rebound in May primary," contains these continguous paragraphs:
Lohr also believes that Hardy was put in the race to "to knock me out," because back in 1995 he told the county political powers that he wasn't "buyable" as a candidate. Lohr predicts that if Hardy were elected, he would resign shortly thereafter, paving the way for appointment of a "hand-picked puppet" who would do the bidding of the old-guard political establishment.
Lohr also believes that Hardy was inserted into the race as a complement to one of the Democrat challengers, with hopes that electing both of them would return political power to the old guard.
It was Dave Lohr who once proclaimed that he wasn't "buyable" as a candidate, Dave Lohr who scoffed at Hardy for bringing all his money to the table, and Dave Lohr who warned against a "hand-picked puppet" and of a Republican running as a complement to a Democrat in order for the old guard to retain power.
With that curriculum vitae, it makes perfect sense that Dave Lohr, version 2011, would choose to unveil billboards and newspaper advertisements that show him shaking hands with ... Joe Hardy?
My, how the worm has turned. If Hardy is such a strong supporter of Lohr, why didn't they roll out this ad campaign back in 2003, instead of running against each other? Back then Lohr, based on his comments, wasn't too interested in shaking Hardy's hand, unless he intended to squeeze it hard enough for old Joe to reveal the name of his "hand-picked puppet."
Hardy certainly wasn't interested in shaking Lohr's hand in 2003, or in either of the other two times Lohr ran for commissioner and lost. If Hardy were interested in pressing the flesh with Lohr, he would have decorated the county's FACT buses with the handshake photo, instead of those garish historical scenes and painted-over windows.
As for Lohr's 2003 warning that Hardy was in the commissioners' race as a complement to a Democrat, we think that same trend is relevant today. And it's not Zimmerlink that we're concerned about.
Before anyone goes all ga-ga over Hardy's visual endorsement of Lohr, it is important to ask one question: What is a Hardy-endorsed Lohr going to do for Fayette County that Hardy himself could not do in four years as county commissioner? Hardy was swept into office with high hopes that he would use his business acumen and connections to turn the county around, at least economically.
That never happened. Not even close.
The biggest thing remaining from Hardy's tenure as a county commissioner is the controversial renaming of the county airport to the Joseph A. Hardy/Connellsville Airport.
Perhaps Lohr can build on that legacy, and they can change the name again, this time to the Dave Lohr/Joseph A. Hardy/Connellsville Airport.
The only plausible answer, of course, is that Lohr recognizes that given the Democrats' huge voter registration edge, there's only room for one Republican to sit at the Fayette County commissioner table. And the independent insurance salesman Lohr, who's failed in three previous attempts to secure the job, has no problem casting party unity aside if it finally benefits his ascension to the office.
Here in the patch, where we pride ourselves on having a little bit of political insight, it's plain to see that Lohr is quite willing to suit up as the new Harry Albert, the former Republican commissioner who was often the subject of Lohr's ire, back in the days when Lohr was railing against the county establishment rather than snuggling up to it.
Back in 2003, when Lohr was wearing his own clothes, he said this about then-competitor Joe Hardy: "I'm going to beat him," says Lohr, 46, who ran for commissioner in 1995 and 1999. "He can bring his money to the table all he wants, but this election's going to be won by sweat and hard work by the candidates."
The same primary election story that appeared in the Herald-Standard on March 26, 2003, entitled, "GOP hopes for political rebound in May primary," contains these continguous paragraphs:
Lohr also believes that Hardy was put in the race to "to knock me out," because back in 1995 he told the county political powers that he wasn't "buyable" as a candidate. Lohr predicts that if Hardy were elected, he would resign shortly thereafter, paving the way for appointment of a "hand-picked puppet" who would do the bidding of the old-guard political establishment.
Lohr also believes that Hardy was inserted into the race as a complement to one of the Democrat challengers, with hopes that electing both of them would return political power to the old guard.
It was Dave Lohr who once proclaimed that he wasn't "buyable" as a candidate, Dave Lohr who scoffed at Hardy for bringing all his money to the table, and Dave Lohr who warned against a "hand-picked puppet" and of a Republican running as a complement to a Democrat in order for the old guard to retain power.
With that curriculum vitae, it makes perfect sense that Dave Lohr, version 2011, would choose to unveil billboards and newspaper advertisements that show him shaking hands with ... Joe Hardy?
My, how the worm has turned. If Hardy is such a strong supporter of Lohr, why didn't they roll out this ad campaign back in 2003, instead of running against each other? Back then Lohr, based on his comments, wasn't too interested in shaking Hardy's hand, unless he intended to squeeze it hard enough for old Joe to reveal the name of his "hand-picked puppet."
Hardy certainly wasn't interested in shaking Lohr's hand in 2003, or in either of the other two times Lohr ran for commissioner and lost. If Hardy were interested in pressing the flesh with Lohr, he would have decorated the county's FACT buses with the handshake photo, instead of those garish historical scenes and painted-over windows.
As for Lohr's 2003 warning that Hardy was in the commissioners' race as a complement to a Democrat, we think that same trend is relevant today. And it's not Zimmerlink that we're concerned about.
Before anyone goes all ga-ga over Hardy's visual endorsement of Lohr, it is important to ask one question: What is a Hardy-endorsed Lohr going to do for Fayette County that Hardy himself could not do in four years as county commissioner? Hardy was swept into office with high hopes that he would use his business acumen and connections to turn the county around, at least economically.
That never happened. Not even close.
The biggest thing remaining from Hardy's tenure as a county commissioner is the controversial renaming of the county airport to the Joseph A. Hardy/Connellsville Airport.
Perhaps Lohr can build on that legacy, and they can change the name again, this time to the Dave Lohr/Joseph A. Hardy/Connellsville Airport.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Wrong direction, again
It looks like some folks in Fayette County have some explaining to do. Like Fayette County commissioners Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky, who told us they were "getting things done" when running for re-election earlier this year. Like Fay-Penn Economic Development head honcho Mike Krajovic, who has claimed there are jobs galore but no workers to fill them.
Thanks to today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, we have some interesting new numbers that paint a far less rosey and self-serving picture of where the county really stands. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11230/1168141-454-0.stm
Here in the patch, where our eyes are always open, they opened even wider as we read in the Post-Gazette that Fayette County has two of the top 10 population LOSERS among Pennsylvania's 203 state House districts. From 2000 to 2010, the 51st district represented by Tim Mahoney lost a little over 8 percent of its people, and the 52nd district represented by Deb Kula lost a little more than 8.5 percent of its people. Those are the ninth- and eighth-highest losses in the state.
Those numbers mean that of 203 House Districts, 194 did better than the two districts covering the vast majority of Fayette County's geographic territory.
On the state senate side, Rich Kasunic's district, which covers all of Fayette County, was the fifth-biggest population loser in Pennsylvania in the last census count, losing nearly 6 percent of its people. So 45 of the state's 50 senate districts are doing better than ours, in the population department.
If you want to see the numbers for youself, the Post-Gazette has a nifty chart that you can view free of charge. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pdf/201108/20110818population_loss_gain.pdf?cmpid=relatedarticle
What is striking to us, here in the patch, is that the chart also shows the top 10 population GAINERS. They all happen to be districts held by Republicans in eastern Pennsylvania, with population gains of roughly 20 to 25 percent. They must be doing something different.
We don't know why the Herald-Standard did not have this story first, which is what you would expect from a local paper. But for our money it appears to us the Post-Gazette is becoming the newspaper of record for Fayette County.
That's likely to further upset WMBS radio talk show host Mark Rafail, who prefers to emphasize positives, and who chastized the out-of-town paper for doing a story on the dismissal of his predecessor, Bob Foltz. (Maybe he can divert attention from this story by re-mentioning the spat between the two ice cream truck drivers, or talking about the weather.)
We can't wait to see tomorrow's Herald-Standard story on these numbers, if they even do one at all. And in addition to the perspectives that may be forthcoming from the usual old standbys -- who are sure to blame everybody but themselves -- we would be extremely interested in knowing what some outsiders or electoral challengers have to say.
We have resisted attempts to portray things in a more positive light than is deserving, and this Post-Gazette recitation of facts only enhances our belief that only in la-la-land is Fayette County doing as good as some proponents would have you believe.
A far more accurate appraisal can be found in the Thursday story, "Loan program making $105 million available to homeowners facing foreclosures," (Herald-Standard, Aug. 18)
"As we know in Fayette County, we're already struggling with high poverty and unemployment and a lot of challenges as far as job creation. It's important that we get the word out about this program."
That comes from James Stark, executive director of Fayette County Community Action Agency Inc.
We like his honesty so much, we are making Stark our first Honorary Patch Hunky.
Thanks to today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, we have some interesting new numbers that paint a far less rosey and self-serving picture of where the county really stands. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11230/1168141-454-0.stm
Here in the patch, where our eyes are always open, they opened even wider as we read in the Post-Gazette that Fayette County has two of the top 10 population LOSERS among Pennsylvania's 203 state House districts. From 2000 to 2010, the 51st district represented by Tim Mahoney lost a little over 8 percent of its people, and the 52nd district represented by Deb Kula lost a little more than 8.5 percent of its people. Those are the ninth- and eighth-highest losses in the state.
Those numbers mean that of 203 House Districts, 194 did better than the two districts covering the vast majority of Fayette County's geographic territory.
On the state senate side, Rich Kasunic's district, which covers all of Fayette County, was the fifth-biggest population loser in Pennsylvania in the last census count, losing nearly 6 percent of its people. So 45 of the state's 50 senate districts are doing better than ours, in the population department.
If you want to see the numbers for youself, the Post-Gazette has a nifty chart that you can view free of charge. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pdf/201108/20110818population_loss_gain.pdf?cmpid=relatedarticle
What is striking to us, here in the patch, is that the chart also shows the top 10 population GAINERS. They all happen to be districts held by Republicans in eastern Pennsylvania, with population gains of roughly 20 to 25 percent. They must be doing something different.
We don't know why the Herald-Standard did not have this story first, which is what you would expect from a local paper. But for our money it appears to us the Post-Gazette is becoming the newspaper of record for Fayette County.
That's likely to further upset WMBS radio talk show host Mark Rafail, who prefers to emphasize positives, and who chastized the out-of-town paper for doing a story on the dismissal of his predecessor, Bob Foltz. (Maybe he can divert attention from this story by re-mentioning the spat between the two ice cream truck drivers, or talking about the weather.)
We can't wait to see tomorrow's Herald-Standard story on these numbers, if they even do one at all. And in addition to the perspectives that may be forthcoming from the usual old standbys -- who are sure to blame everybody but themselves -- we would be extremely interested in knowing what some outsiders or electoral challengers have to say.
We have resisted attempts to portray things in a more positive light than is deserving, and this Post-Gazette recitation of facts only enhances our belief that only in la-la-land is Fayette County doing as good as some proponents would have you believe.
A far more accurate appraisal can be found in the Thursday story, "Loan program making $105 million available to homeowners facing foreclosures," (Herald-Standard, Aug. 18)
"As we know in Fayette County, we're already struggling with high poverty and unemployment and a lot of challenges as far as job creation. It's important that we get the word out about this program."
That comes from James Stark, executive director of Fayette County Community Action Agency Inc.
We like his honesty so much, we are making Stark our first Honorary Patch Hunky.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Why the sudden change?
Here in the patch, we wish HeraldStandard.com would at least attempt to rescue its shriveling relevency by asking a few questions regarding the sudden shift by Commissioners Vince Zapotosky and Vince Vicites concerning the county's copy machine contract.
Instead of putting the contract out to competitive bids/proposals, as has traditionally been done, we learned on July 27 that the Vinces now want to use a state cooperative purchasing program known as COSTARS. ("Copier contract debated at commissioner meeting," Amy Revak, HeraldStandard.com)
What is known, as this point, is that this is all about changing the procurement method used to obtain a service. Instead of using competitive bids/proposals, which generally means the low bidder wins, the Vinces want to switch to picking a company from a preapproved list kept by the state.
What is not known, at this point, is why these two seasoned commissioners, who each have been around long enough to know the various methods for obtaining contracted services, decided to rescind a prior motion to seek competitive bids/proposals and go instead with picking a company from the COSTARS list.
The plot thickens when you read that that, according to a Ford Business Machines representative, his is the ONLY approved copier machine vendor on the COSTARS list. (We find that hard to believe, by the way, and it is something we would like to see checked out.)
What the public should expect a reporter to do is walk across the street to the Fayette County Election Bureau, take 15 minutes to look at the campaign expense reports filed last year by Vicites and Zapotosky, and see if Ford Business Machines founder John Garlow made any contributions to their campaign(s).
If he, or any other known employees of the firm, did that, it certainly would put a different shine on this comment made by Zapotosky: "This is an opportunity to hire local. There's much more to a bottom line than a dollar."
Yes, there is. There are campaign conributions (possibly) -- and there are the votes of the dozen or so Ford Business Machines employees (and their families) who packed the commissioners' meeting on July 26.
The public deserves to know if campaign contributions could be a factor in this equation, don't you think?
Instead of putting the contract out to competitive bids/proposals, as has traditionally been done, we learned on July 27 that the Vinces now want to use a state cooperative purchasing program known as COSTARS. ("Copier contract debated at commissioner meeting," Amy Revak, HeraldStandard.com)
What is known, as this point, is that this is all about changing the procurement method used to obtain a service. Instead of using competitive bids/proposals, which generally means the low bidder wins, the Vinces want to switch to picking a company from a preapproved list kept by the state.
What is not known, at this point, is why these two seasoned commissioners, who each have been around long enough to know the various methods for obtaining contracted services, decided to rescind a prior motion to seek competitive bids/proposals and go instead with picking a company from the COSTARS list.
The plot thickens when you read that that, according to a Ford Business Machines representative, his is the ONLY approved copier machine vendor on the COSTARS list. (We find that hard to believe, by the way, and it is something we would like to see checked out.)
What the public should expect a reporter to do is walk across the street to the Fayette County Election Bureau, take 15 minutes to look at the campaign expense reports filed last year by Vicites and Zapotosky, and see if Ford Business Machines founder John Garlow made any contributions to their campaign(s).
If he, or any other known employees of the firm, did that, it certainly would put a different shine on this comment made by Zapotosky: "This is an opportunity to hire local. There's much more to a bottom line than a dollar."
Yes, there is. There are campaign conributions (possibly) -- and there are the votes of the dozen or so Ford Business Machines employees (and their families) who packed the commissioners' meeting on July 26.
The public deserves to know if campaign contributions could be a factor in this equation, don't you think?
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Just mail it in
Those seeking facts to support the oft-mouthed contention that Fayette County is "on the move" might want to chew on the list of possible post office closures that came out this week.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette broke down the closure list by county, which enables a quick comparison and analysis. You can check out their chart here: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11208/1163122-455.stm
Forty-eight post offices in the six-county region are being studied for closure, based on an assessment of floor traffic. Floor traffic, as everyone in the patch knows, means people. Fewer people usually means less floor traffic, because if you have to move away get a job, you're buying stamps in North Carolina, not in West Leisenring.
Guess which county is number one on the local post office closure list?
As hapless Marine Gomer Pyle would say: "Surprise, surprise!" It is Fayette County, with 16.
That's twice the number (8) for Washington County, which has a larger population than Fayette.
That's five more than the number (11) for Allegheny County, which has a much larger population than Fayette.
That's a whopping 11 more than the number (5) for Westmoreland County, which has a larger population than Fayette.
In Greene County, which has about one-third of Fayette's population, 7 post offices are slated for closure. In Butler County, where there has been significant population growtth, only one post office is on the hit list.
The Fayette County post offices that could be headed for extinction are: Cardale, Chestnut Ridge, Dickerson Run, East Millsboro, Hibbs, Isabella, Martin, New Geneva, Ronco, West Leisenring, Wickhaven, Downtown Uniontown, Brownfield, Fairhope, Gibbon Glade and Lake Lynn.
Here in our patch (which may or may not be one of those on the list), we do not doubt the need to close inefficent post offices. One look around, or one look at the most recnt census figures, provides all the evidence we need to conclude that when it comes to population, Fayette County is not on an upswing.
Once again, Fayette County leads an unenviable list, on this one ranking number one for slated post office closures. It will be interesting to see how local leaders spin this, if they are asked about it at all. Our guess is that they will come out en masse, calling on U.S. Rep. Mark Critz and U.S. Sen. Bob Casey to ride to the rescue and halt any closures. Or they will attempt to mitigate the bad news by saying that other areas of the county are growing, so stamp-buying has merely shifted elsewhere.
One thing is certain: No one can solve this problem by encouraging people to "buy local." When it comes to stamps and packages, they have already been doing that, and it apparently isn't enough.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette broke down the closure list by county, which enables a quick comparison and analysis. You can check out their chart here: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11208/1163122-455.stm
Forty-eight post offices in the six-county region are being studied for closure, based on an assessment of floor traffic. Floor traffic, as everyone in the patch knows, means people. Fewer people usually means less floor traffic, because if you have to move away get a job, you're buying stamps in North Carolina, not in West Leisenring.
Guess which county is number one on the local post office closure list?
As hapless Marine Gomer Pyle would say: "Surprise, surprise!" It is Fayette County, with 16.
That's twice the number (8) for Washington County, which has a larger population than Fayette.
That's five more than the number (11) for Allegheny County, which has a much larger population than Fayette.
That's a whopping 11 more than the number (5) for Westmoreland County, which has a larger population than Fayette.
In Greene County, which has about one-third of Fayette's population, 7 post offices are slated for closure. In Butler County, where there has been significant population growtth, only one post office is on the hit list.
The Fayette County post offices that could be headed for extinction are: Cardale, Chestnut Ridge, Dickerson Run, East Millsboro, Hibbs, Isabella, Martin, New Geneva, Ronco, West Leisenring, Wickhaven, Downtown Uniontown, Brownfield, Fairhope, Gibbon Glade and Lake Lynn.
Here in our patch (which may or may not be one of those on the list), we do not doubt the need to close inefficent post offices. One look around, or one look at the most recnt census figures, provides all the evidence we need to conclude that when it comes to population, Fayette County is not on an upswing.
Once again, Fayette County leads an unenviable list, on this one ranking number one for slated post office closures. It will be interesting to see how local leaders spin this, if they are asked about it at all. Our guess is that they will come out en masse, calling on U.S. Rep. Mark Critz and U.S. Sen. Bob Casey to ride to the rescue and halt any closures. Or they will attempt to mitigate the bad news by saying that other areas of the county are growing, so stamp-buying has merely shifted elsewhere.
One thing is certain: No one can solve this problem by encouraging people to "buy local." When it comes to stamps and packages, they have already been doing that, and it apparently isn't enough.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
All options explored?
We here in the patch are getting quite a chuckle out of the little dog-and-pony show going on as the Laurel Highlands School Board ramps up to its inevitable raising of property taxes, which we boldly predict will occur at tonight's 7 p.m. meeting.
Today's story in the Herald-Standard, "LH ponders tax increase or furloughs," reveals that LH needs $280,000 to balance its budget. Based on comments from key sources, the public gets the impression that all availabe options to close that gap are being given equal weight, including faculty furloughs and tapping the capital reserve fund.
What's missing, though, is ANY board member who has spoken up AGAINST raising taxes. We don't know if that occurred during Tuesday's planning meeting. It is possible that someone did, but it wasn't reported (our sources say this is sometimes the case).
In the story as it appeared, the stars are lining up for tax increase. First up, business manager Greg Hensh, noting that the maximum tax increase permitted under the state index would hike taxes $2.67 per $10,000 of assessed value, or $27.50 on a house assessed at $100,000.
Next up, retiring superintendent Dr. Gary Brain, noting that the district has already lost 10 to 15 teaching positions due to retirement or resignation, and he won't recommend further cuts in that area.
Third clue? Board president Angelo Giachetti said he doesn’t want to lay anyone off.
Fourth one? Solicitor Gary Frankhouser noted that borrowing from the capital reserve fund at this time could impact future tax increases.
Number five? “Twenty-seven dollars for a $100,000 home and we save our whole educational system. We can’t lose 18 teachers,” said school director Jim Tobal.
Tobal is, of course, a former teacher who retired under the district's generous retirement policy, so his bias in this area comes naturally.
It would have been very interesting -- and no doubt wold have caused a little squirming -- if the Herald-Standard had asked some questions at Tuesday's dog-and-pony show. Questions like, "Are LH administrators taking a one-year pay freeze, like the administration at the neighboring Albert Gallatin Area School District did?" And, "If they aren't, why not?"
As a public service, we here on our little blog present this story "Wage freezes reflect cold, hard reality," from the Valley News Dispatch, June 28:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/s_744249.html
Teachers, administrators and staff in some Alle-Kiski Valley school districts won't be taking home as much money as they may have been expecting in the new school year.
After Gov. Tom Corbett in March called on school employees to accept a one-year pay freeze, freezes and other concessions have been agreed to in a majority of area districts.
A pay freeze for the 2011-12 year was included in the new contract between the Riverview School District and its teachers. It saved the district up to $220,000, and avoided teacher furloughs or the need to balance the budget by dipping into cash reserves, said Business Manager Frank Thompson.
Please note that this pay freeze in Riverview saved the district $220,000, which is within striking distance of the $280,000 that LH needs to balance its budget.
The Valley News Dispatch also provided its readers with some other interesting facts:
The Pennsylvania School Boards Association lists 137 school entities -- including school districts, vocational-technical schools and intermediate units -- where wage freezes have been adopted for the 2011-12 year.
(Pennsylvania State Education Association spokesman Wythe) Keever said 65 out of the PSEA's 500 locals have agreed on a pay freeze. A number of others have agreed to other concessions.
At the Kiski Area School District, saving the jobs of eight furloughed teachers was an objective for their peers, who accepted a two-year freeze.
Freeport teachers agreed to cut four working days from their calendar, from 188 to 184; give up pay for extra morning duties; and freeze salaries for supplemental positions, such as serving as coaches and advisors.
At Franklin Regional (School District), the teachers union offered a wage-and-benefit package that totals $1.6 million in savings over three years. It includes increased health insurance contributions and a wage freeze beginning in 2012-13.
It seems that in the bigger world outside of Fayette County, there are a few other options beyond raiding the capital reserve fund, furloughs or raising taxes. But when board members and administrators have relatives on the payroll, a frequent occurrence in Fayette County, it's easy to understand why those other options aren't explored.
Today's story in the Herald-Standard, "LH ponders tax increase or furloughs," reveals that LH needs $280,000 to balance its budget. Based on comments from key sources, the public gets the impression that all availabe options to close that gap are being given equal weight, including faculty furloughs and tapping the capital reserve fund.
What's missing, though, is ANY board member who has spoken up AGAINST raising taxes. We don't know if that occurred during Tuesday's planning meeting. It is possible that someone did, but it wasn't reported (our sources say this is sometimes the case).
In the story as it appeared, the stars are lining up for tax increase. First up, business manager Greg Hensh, noting that the maximum tax increase permitted under the state index would hike taxes $2.67 per $10,000 of assessed value, or $27.50 on a house assessed at $100,000.
Next up, retiring superintendent Dr. Gary Brain, noting that the district has already lost 10 to 15 teaching positions due to retirement or resignation, and he won't recommend further cuts in that area.
Third clue? Board president Angelo Giachetti said he doesn’t want to lay anyone off.
Fourth one? Solicitor Gary Frankhouser noted that borrowing from the capital reserve fund at this time could impact future tax increases.
Number five? “Twenty-seven dollars for a $100,000 home and we save our whole educational system. We can’t lose 18 teachers,” said school director Jim Tobal.
Tobal is, of course, a former teacher who retired under the district's generous retirement policy, so his bias in this area comes naturally.
It would have been very interesting -- and no doubt wold have caused a little squirming -- if the Herald-Standard had asked some questions at Tuesday's dog-and-pony show. Questions like, "Are LH administrators taking a one-year pay freeze, like the administration at the neighboring Albert Gallatin Area School District did?" And, "If they aren't, why not?"
As a public service, we here on our little blog present this story "Wage freezes reflect cold, hard reality," from the Valley News Dispatch, June 28:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/s_744249.html
Teachers, administrators and staff in some Alle-Kiski Valley school districts won't be taking home as much money as they may have been expecting in the new school year.
After Gov. Tom Corbett in March called on school employees to accept a one-year pay freeze, freezes and other concessions have been agreed to in a majority of area districts.
A pay freeze for the 2011-12 year was included in the new contract between the Riverview School District and its teachers. It saved the district up to $220,000, and avoided teacher furloughs or the need to balance the budget by dipping into cash reserves, said Business Manager Frank Thompson.
Please note that this pay freeze in Riverview saved the district $220,000, which is within striking distance of the $280,000 that LH needs to balance its budget.
The Valley News Dispatch also provided its readers with some other interesting facts:
The Pennsylvania School Boards Association lists 137 school entities -- including school districts, vocational-technical schools and intermediate units -- where wage freezes have been adopted for the 2011-12 year.
(Pennsylvania State Education Association spokesman Wythe) Keever said 65 out of the PSEA's 500 locals have agreed on a pay freeze. A number of others have agreed to other concessions.
At the Kiski Area School District, saving the jobs of eight furloughed teachers was an objective for their peers, who accepted a two-year freeze.
Freeport teachers agreed to cut four working days from their calendar, from 188 to 184; give up pay for extra morning duties; and freeze salaries for supplemental positions, such as serving as coaches and advisors.
At Franklin Regional (School District), the teachers union offered a wage-and-benefit package that totals $1.6 million in savings over three years. It includes increased health insurance contributions and a wage freeze beginning in 2012-13.
It seems that in the bigger world outside of Fayette County, there are a few other options beyond raiding the capital reserve fund, furloughs or raising taxes. But when board members and administrators have relatives on the payroll, a frequent occurrence in Fayette County, it's easy to understand why those other options aren't explored.
Friday, June 24, 2011
We are still waiting ...
When the topic of Fayette County Children and Youth Services came up during this week's meeting of the county commissioners, we here in the patch thought it might have something to do with a long-awaited report from "Fayette County's highest elected official."
That's how WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh referred to Commission chairman Vince Zapotosky back on January 6, when he was interviewed following the death of a 15-month-old in Point Marion.
As the camera rolled, "Fayette County's highest elected official" said this:
“I will assure the people of Fayette County there will be accountability. I will work on it and I will find out what went wrong, and we will do everything we can to hopefully prevent future incidents of this kind.”
You don't have to take our word for it; just go here and see for yourself: http://www.wtae.com/news/26391968/detail.html
It will soon be six months since Zapotosky made that bold statement. To us, that seems like plenty of time for him to "work on it" and to "find out what went wrong" and to tell us what has been done to "hopefully prevent future incidents of this kind."
According to media reports, part of the problem with this tragic situation was that neighbors reportedly had notified CYS -- repeatedly -- of concerns about the household in which the child was found. As one of three chief administrators of the county, and as one who has had no qualms about pointing out how lawsuits against the county are a big problem (especially when they involved someone else and not him), Zapotosky was on the money in pledging that he would get to the bottom of this.
The great unknown, at this point at least, is what exactly has he done? Has he conducted his own investigation? Has he called the state Department of Public Welfare to conduct one? Has he brought in any law enforcement agencies?
If Zapotosky is stumped at what to do next, perhaps he should place a call to his one-time running mate, former Commissioner Sean Cavanagh, who seemed to excel at initiating such probes and uncovering unseemly behaviors.
Based on his vote to fire election bureau director Laurie Lint, one thing we should be able to look forward to is that if there is any hint of procedural failure at CYS, Zapotosky should stand at the ready to clean house.
But first, he will need to be serious about his stated desire to "find out what went wrong."
That's how WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh referred to Commission chairman Vince Zapotosky back on January 6, when he was interviewed following the death of a 15-month-old in Point Marion.
As the camera rolled, "Fayette County's highest elected official" said this:
“I will assure the people of Fayette County there will be accountability. I will work on it and I will find out what went wrong, and we will do everything we can to hopefully prevent future incidents of this kind.”
You don't have to take our word for it; just go here and see for yourself: http://www.wtae.com/news/26391968/detail.html
It will soon be six months since Zapotosky made that bold statement. To us, that seems like plenty of time for him to "work on it" and to "find out what went wrong" and to tell us what has been done to "hopefully prevent future incidents of this kind."
According to media reports, part of the problem with this tragic situation was that neighbors reportedly had notified CYS -- repeatedly -- of concerns about the household in which the child was found. As one of three chief administrators of the county, and as one who has had no qualms about pointing out how lawsuits against the county are a big problem (especially when they involved someone else and not him), Zapotosky was on the money in pledging that he would get to the bottom of this.
The great unknown, at this point at least, is what exactly has he done? Has he conducted his own investigation? Has he called the state Department of Public Welfare to conduct one? Has he brought in any law enforcement agencies?
If Zapotosky is stumped at what to do next, perhaps he should place a call to his one-time running mate, former Commissioner Sean Cavanagh, who seemed to excel at initiating such probes and uncovering unseemly behaviors.
Based on his vote to fire election bureau director Laurie Lint, one thing we should be able to look forward to is that if there is any hint of procedural failure at CYS, Zapotosky should stand at the ready to clean house.
But first, he will need to be serious about his stated desire to "find out what went wrong."
Monday, June 20, 2011
Would you like some gravy with that?
Here in the patch, we've enjoyed some pretty good home cooking through the years, but it seems nothing like the kid-gloves treatment the Herald-Standard continues to bestow on favorite sons Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky.
Case in point: Monday's story, "Countywide candidates file campaign finance reports," which had some reporting gaps big enough to drive a runaway truck on Summit Mountain through.
Everyone in politics knows that the two biggest and most interesting campaign expense reports are the one filed two weeks before the election, and the one filed 30 days after Election Day. The "second Friday pre," as it is commonly known, gives a detailed glimpse of how much money each candidate has raised, from whom, and how it has been spent.
But because it is filed on the second Friday BEFORE the election, it doesn't provide a complete picture. Any contributions received in the home stretch, as well as any expenditures (including advertising and cash paid to poll workers), won't show up until the "30-day post" election report is filed with the Fayette County Election Bureau.
These filings are not optional; they are required by law. And if you miss a filing deadline, you have to pay a small daily fine until that is done.
In Monday's story, readers found out that Al Ambrosini, who finished first in the Democratic primary for county commissioner, "loaned himself $20,000" and "paid poll workers amounts ranging from $25 to $75 each" and "spent a total of $25,681 in the reporting period, which included May 3 through June 6. The expenses included advertising costs for WLSW radio for $2,000; Mail Specialty Inc. of Greensburg for mail services in the amount of $3,050; and Herald-Standard.com ads for $1,927."
That's a pretty detailed snapshot on Ambrosini, who was not endorsed by the Herald-Standard.
The newspaper also reported that "Republican incumbent Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink of Allison, who was the top vote-getter for her party, listed expenditures of $2,134. Zimmerlink does not accept campaign contributions. She spent money on a radio advertisement and a $2,054 mailer." Another fairly detailed analysis, though of a much lesser amount, on a candidate who did not get an endorsement.
Readers found out that "Dave Lohr of South Connellsville, who won the second Republican party nomination, spent $1,557 during the reporting period and ended with unpaid debts and obligations of $1,090, which he owes to himself," and that he got a $250 contribution from Mark Rowan, a Connellsville attorney
.
The newspaper also told us that "Marilyn Cellurale of Lemont Furnace, who finished third on the Republican ticket and did not win a nomination for county commissioner, spent $2,999 during the reporting period, and received $9,500 in contributions," and that her contributions included $7,500 from Terry“Tuffy” Shallenberger of Connellsville, chairman of the Fayette County Airport Authority.
But when it comes to the campaign's two biggest spenders, Monday's story left out some details and more than a few unanswered questions.
Vicites, readers found out, "spent $24,905 during the reporting period. He also listed unpaid debts and obligations of $14,728, which he owes to himself." But when it comes to ANY details, such as how much he paid poll workers (see Ambrosini) or spent on advertising (see Ambrosini and Zimmerink, above), nothing was mentioned.
Even worse, from a reporting angle -- or at least from a "fair and balanced" reporting angle -- is this paragraph from that story: Vicites, who is finishing his fourth term in office, listed contributions of $12,224, but a detailed listing was not available.
If a detailed listing was not available, shouldn't the newspaper tell its readers why? As we noted earlier, this filing is required by law and it was due Friday. Was the listing of which sources contributed more than $12,000 to Vicites in the weeks leading up to the election not included in his expense report? Did the election bureau refuse to give it out? Did the reporter lose those particular pages on the way to the office and say, "Oh, what the heck!"?
If the Herald-Standard can inform us that of Cellurale's $9,500 in contributions, $7,500 from Terry “Tuffy” Shallenberger of Connellsville, chairman of the Fayette County Airport Authority, shouldn't they be obligated to tell us where Vicites got $12,000? Or at least tell us why they couldn't find that out? We are pretty sure they have his phone number.
If the newspaper can tell us that Ambrosini paid his poll workers between $25 and $75 each, why can't they give us some idea of what Vicites paid his? And if Vicites paid no poll workers at all -- which is highly unlikely -- why couldn't the newspaper simply report that fact?
Of Zapotosky, the newspaper reported that he "did not file a report with his committee as of Friday afternoon and had only filed a report in which he paid his campaign $300." So did he miss the filing deadline? Will he have to pay the daily fine for doing so? If and when his campaign committee files its 30-day post-election report, will the Herald-Standard tell us how much he raked in, from whom, and how he spent it?
Back on May 15, in the story "Fayette County commissioner candidates file expense reports," the newspaper reported this: “The Committee to Elect Vincent Zapotosky” brought more than $25,000 forward from his last report and received $25,300 in contributions. He had $50,535 available and spent $31,181, leaving a balance of $19,353. He also has unpaid debts and obligations of $4,800." You can read it for yourself here: http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/fayette-county-commissioner-candidates-file-expense-reports/article_01427f18-3baa-5b15-8a44-ce6e9c242d63.html
So Zapotosky's campaign committee carried forward more than $19,000, and we have no public accounting of how -- or if -- it was spent. Or of how much in contributions "The Committee to Elect Vincent Zapotsky" raked in in the two weeks leading up to the election.
But, thank God, the Herald-Standard had the moxie to let us know that Dave Lohr got a $250 contribution from attorney Mark Rowan, that Zimmerlink spent a whopping $2,130 and that the going rate for an Ambrosini poll worker was between $25 and $75.
We will let you judge whether this was fair and equal treatment of all six candidates.
Case in point: Monday's story, "Countywide candidates file campaign finance reports," which had some reporting gaps big enough to drive a runaway truck on Summit Mountain through.
Everyone in politics knows that the two biggest and most interesting campaign expense reports are the one filed two weeks before the election, and the one filed 30 days after Election Day. The "second Friday pre," as it is commonly known, gives a detailed glimpse of how much money each candidate has raised, from whom, and how it has been spent.
But because it is filed on the second Friday BEFORE the election, it doesn't provide a complete picture. Any contributions received in the home stretch, as well as any expenditures (including advertising and cash paid to poll workers), won't show up until the "30-day post" election report is filed with the Fayette County Election Bureau.
These filings are not optional; they are required by law. And if you miss a filing deadline, you have to pay a small daily fine until that is done.
In Monday's story, readers found out that Al Ambrosini, who finished first in the Democratic primary for county commissioner, "loaned himself $20,000" and "paid poll workers amounts ranging from $25 to $75 each" and "spent a total of $25,681 in the reporting period, which included May 3 through June 6. The expenses included advertising costs for WLSW radio for $2,000; Mail Specialty Inc. of Greensburg for mail services in the amount of $3,050; and Herald-Standard.com ads for $1,927."
That's a pretty detailed snapshot on Ambrosini, who was not endorsed by the Herald-Standard.
The newspaper also reported that "Republican incumbent Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink of Allison, who was the top vote-getter for her party, listed expenditures of $2,134. Zimmerlink does not accept campaign contributions. She spent money on a radio advertisement and a $2,054 mailer." Another fairly detailed analysis, though of a much lesser amount, on a candidate who did not get an endorsement.
Readers found out that "Dave Lohr of South Connellsville, who won the second Republican party nomination, spent $1,557 during the reporting period and ended with unpaid debts and obligations of $1,090, which he owes to himself," and that he got a $250 contribution from Mark Rowan, a Connellsville attorney
.
The newspaper also told us that "Marilyn Cellurale of Lemont Furnace, who finished third on the Republican ticket and did not win a nomination for county commissioner, spent $2,999 during the reporting period, and received $9,500 in contributions," and that her contributions included $7,500 from Terry“Tuffy” Shallenberger of Connellsville, chairman of the Fayette County Airport Authority.
But when it comes to the campaign's two biggest spenders, Monday's story left out some details and more than a few unanswered questions.
Vicites, readers found out, "spent $24,905 during the reporting period. He also listed unpaid debts and obligations of $14,728, which he owes to himself." But when it comes to ANY details, such as how much he paid poll workers (see Ambrosini) or spent on advertising (see Ambrosini and Zimmerink, above), nothing was mentioned.
Even worse, from a reporting angle -- or at least from a "fair and balanced" reporting angle -- is this paragraph from that story: Vicites, who is finishing his fourth term in office, listed contributions of $12,224, but a detailed listing was not available.
If a detailed listing was not available, shouldn't the newspaper tell its readers why? As we noted earlier, this filing is required by law and it was due Friday. Was the listing of which sources contributed more than $12,000 to Vicites in the weeks leading up to the election not included in his expense report? Did the election bureau refuse to give it out? Did the reporter lose those particular pages on the way to the office and say, "Oh, what the heck!"?
If the Herald-Standard can inform us that of Cellurale's $9,500 in contributions, $7,500 from Terry “Tuffy” Shallenberger of Connellsville, chairman of the Fayette County Airport Authority, shouldn't they be obligated to tell us where Vicites got $12,000? Or at least tell us why they couldn't find that out? We are pretty sure they have his phone number.
If the newspaper can tell us that Ambrosini paid his poll workers between $25 and $75 each, why can't they give us some idea of what Vicites paid his? And if Vicites paid no poll workers at all -- which is highly unlikely -- why couldn't the newspaper simply report that fact?
Of Zapotosky, the newspaper reported that he "did not file a report with his committee as of Friday afternoon and had only filed a report in which he paid his campaign $300." So did he miss the filing deadline? Will he have to pay the daily fine for doing so? If and when his campaign committee files its 30-day post-election report, will the Herald-Standard tell us how much he raked in, from whom, and how he spent it?
Back on May 15, in the story "Fayette County commissioner candidates file expense reports," the newspaper reported this: “The Committee to Elect Vincent Zapotosky” brought more than $25,000 forward from his last report and received $25,300 in contributions. He had $50,535 available and spent $31,181, leaving a balance of $19,353. He also has unpaid debts and obligations of $4,800." You can read it for yourself here: http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/fayette-county-commissioner-candidates-file-expense-reports/article_01427f18-3baa-5b15-8a44-ce6e9c242d63.html
So Zapotosky's campaign committee carried forward more than $19,000, and we have no public accounting of how -- or if -- it was spent. Or of how much in contributions "The Committee to Elect Vincent Zapotsky" raked in in the two weeks leading up to the election.
But, thank God, the Herald-Standard had the moxie to let us know that Dave Lohr got a $250 contribution from attorney Mark Rowan, that Zimmerlink spent a whopping $2,130 and that the going rate for an Ambrosini poll worker was between $25 and $75.
We will let you judge whether this was fair and equal treatment of all six candidates.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Fair and balanced?
Here in the patch, we are starting a drive to collect old telephone books to donate to the Herald-Standard. That way, its reporters would have no excuse for not calling and including all sides in a news story.
The impetus for our altruism? Monday's story titled, "Mining operations near historic church resume without county authorization." It detailed how a company operating a strip mine near the Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church and cemetery in Dunbar Township has revived that work, even though the Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board still has not granted it the required special exception permit to conduct such activity.
In order of appearance, here are the sources quoted in Monday's story regarding the resumption of strip mining: Nathanael Parker, the attorney for the strip mining company.
That's it. A grand total of one source, who predictably poo-pooed the situation. "They can't leave a strip cut like that. DEP (the Department of Environmental Protection) sould have cited us. We have a situation here," said Parker.
Thus, the public is left with the impression that this poor little strip mining company had no choice but to resume its illegal activity, lest a big state agency come down hard. But is that true?
A simple phone call to the DEP could have verified or debunked Parker's explanation. Does the DEP have the ability to trump local zoning laws? If so, did it order that this be done in this instance? Or is Parker just dishing out some BS?
A second phone call should have been made to the Fayette County Zoning Office, which is charged with enforcing the county's zoning laws. The question to ask them would be, "Can or should this company be investiated or fined by your office for operating without the required special exception permit?"
A third phone call, for any news operation seeking to be fair and balanced, should have gone out to someone affiliated with the Laurel Hill Prwesbyterian Church. As the other side in this controversy, one would think that their perspective would be vital.
In a prior story on May 8, the Herald-Standard quoted these pro-church sources: the Rev. Peter Malik, church member Karen Babyak of Perryopolis, church member Tom Fosbrink and church member Alberta Herber. It took us all of three second to find this story on the Internet. http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/church-members-voice-concerns-to-dep-about-blasting/article_3da46709-2ff2-5384-a7b0-72d2abc72834.html?photo=1
It took another three seconds to find the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's story on the same public hearing. That story identifies and quotes the church's attorney, Thomas Earhart.
If you are going to call the company's attorney for comment on a story, shouldn't you also call the church's attorney for his side? That seems pretty fundamental to us.
But even if we didn't feel that way, at least one person of significance says he does. Herald-Standard editor Mark O'Keefe informed the reading world, in a Dec. 5, 2010 column, that, "Our aim is to give all sides a fair airing of their views."
We will let you judge whether that happened with Monday's story.
The impetus for our altruism? Monday's story titled, "Mining operations near historic church resume without county authorization." It detailed how a company operating a strip mine near the Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church and cemetery in Dunbar Township has revived that work, even though the Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board still has not granted it the required special exception permit to conduct such activity.
In order of appearance, here are the sources quoted in Monday's story regarding the resumption of strip mining: Nathanael Parker, the attorney for the strip mining company.
That's it. A grand total of one source, who predictably poo-pooed the situation. "They can't leave a strip cut like that. DEP (the Department of Environmental Protection) sould have cited us. We have a situation here," said Parker.
Thus, the public is left with the impression that this poor little strip mining company had no choice but to resume its illegal activity, lest a big state agency come down hard. But is that true?
A simple phone call to the DEP could have verified or debunked Parker's explanation. Does the DEP have the ability to trump local zoning laws? If so, did it order that this be done in this instance? Or is Parker just dishing out some BS?
A second phone call should have been made to the Fayette County Zoning Office, which is charged with enforcing the county's zoning laws. The question to ask them would be, "Can or should this company be investiated or fined by your office for operating without the required special exception permit?"
A third phone call, for any news operation seeking to be fair and balanced, should have gone out to someone affiliated with the Laurel Hill Prwesbyterian Church. As the other side in this controversy, one would think that their perspective would be vital.
In a prior story on May 8, the Herald-Standard quoted these pro-church sources: the Rev. Peter Malik, church member Karen Babyak of Perryopolis, church member Tom Fosbrink and church member Alberta Herber. It took us all of three second to find this story on the Internet. http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/church-members-voice-concerns-to-dep-about-blasting/article_3da46709-2ff2-5384-a7b0-72d2abc72834.html?photo=1
It took another three seconds to find the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's story on the same public hearing. That story identifies and quotes the church's attorney, Thomas Earhart.
If you are going to call the company's attorney for comment on a story, shouldn't you also call the church's attorney for his side? That seems pretty fundamental to us.
But even if we didn't feel that way, at least one person of significance says he does. Herald-Standard editor Mark O'Keefe informed the reading world, in a Dec. 5, 2010 column, that, "Our aim is to give all sides a fair airing of their views."
We will let you judge whether that happened with Monday's story.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Don't call us, we'll call you
You would think that a newspaper story bearing the headline, "Fayette radio host says shale criticism led to firing" might be something of interest to folks in Fayette County, Pa. And you might guess that any newspaper claiming to best serve that readership would be the likely source of that story's publication.
Guess again.
The aforementioned story, on last month's pre-election firing of long-time WMBS radio talk show host Bob Foltz, appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on May 30. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11150/1150213-55-0.stm
That it did not appear in the Herald-Standard has left more than one person here in the patch scratching his head. After all, we did read this boast from editor Mark O'Keefe, in his Dec.5, 2010 column "Ethics issues taken seriously": It's paramount that our newsroom maintains its independence and covers stories objectively. It's what we're trained to do. Our aim is to give all sides a fair airing of their views.
Independence? Objectivity? A fair aiting of all views?
Then why, pray tell, have O'Keefe and the newsroom he ostensibly leads played deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to any coverage of what happend to Foltz? Certainly they cannot pretend it was unnewsworthy, when a big metropolitan paper 50 miles away sees its news value. If this head-in-the-sand approach keeps up, perhaps the Herald-Standard should change its motto to, "Ignorance is bliss."
Over at the church bingo Friday night, one of our neighbors, who has a cousin who knows Foltz pretty well, found out that the affable ex-talk show host sent a letter detailing his side of the firing to ALL area newspapers, including the Herald-Standard. The cousin says that while the Post-Gazette used the letter as a starting point and quickly put a reporter on the story, all Foltz got from the Herald-Standard was a phone call from O'Keefe, saying the Herald-Standard couldn't run his letter.
Fayette Countians should be asking themselves one simple question: If the Post-Gazette can do ""what we're trained to do," and "give all sides a fair airing of their views" -- to borrow O'Keefe's own phraseologies -- what is keeping his newspaper from doing the same thing?
In the Post-Gazette story, Foltz is quoted thusly: "It amazes me that the station took this stance. It was a combination of politics and (comments on) the drilling" that forced him out.
The Post-Gazette, doing the job as it should be done, also printed this rebuttal by WMBS station manager Brian Mroziak: "The natural gas stuff had absolutely nothing to do with Bob being let go."
We doubt that entirely, but what's more interesting to us is that Mroziak apparently didn't rebut Foltz' belief that politics was also a factor. When we turn on the radio and in Foltz' old spot hear Mike Krajovic, the head of Fay-Penn Economic Development Council who gets a $180,000 a year compensation package, blather on about high gasoline prices and the national energy picture, the handwriting on the WMBS wall becomes a tad more visible. Especially when the "host" of that particular show is Fay-Penn employee Bob Junk.
What is keeping the Herald-Standard from doing a news story, other than an unwillingness or inability to tackle any real controversy?
Guess again.
The aforementioned story, on last month's pre-election firing of long-time WMBS radio talk show host Bob Foltz, appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on May 30. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11150/1150213-55-0.stm
That it did not appear in the Herald-Standard has left more than one person here in the patch scratching his head. After all, we did read this boast from editor Mark O'Keefe, in his Dec.5, 2010 column "Ethics issues taken seriously": It's paramount that our newsroom maintains its independence and covers stories objectively. It's what we're trained to do. Our aim is to give all sides a fair airing of their views.
Independence? Objectivity? A fair aiting of all views?
Then why, pray tell, have O'Keefe and the newsroom he ostensibly leads played deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to any coverage of what happend to Foltz? Certainly they cannot pretend it was unnewsworthy, when a big metropolitan paper 50 miles away sees its news value. If this head-in-the-sand approach keeps up, perhaps the Herald-Standard should change its motto to, "Ignorance is bliss."
Over at the church bingo Friday night, one of our neighbors, who has a cousin who knows Foltz pretty well, found out that the affable ex-talk show host sent a letter detailing his side of the firing to ALL area newspapers, including the Herald-Standard. The cousin says that while the Post-Gazette used the letter as a starting point and quickly put a reporter on the story, all Foltz got from the Herald-Standard was a phone call from O'Keefe, saying the Herald-Standard couldn't run his letter.
Fayette Countians should be asking themselves one simple question: If the Post-Gazette can do ""what we're trained to do," and "give all sides a fair airing of their views" -- to borrow O'Keefe's own phraseologies -- what is keeping his newspaper from doing the same thing?
In the Post-Gazette story, Foltz is quoted thusly: "It amazes me that the station took this stance. It was a combination of politics and (comments on) the drilling" that forced him out.
The Post-Gazette, doing the job as it should be done, also printed this rebuttal by WMBS station manager Brian Mroziak: "The natural gas stuff had absolutely nothing to do with Bob being let go."
We doubt that entirely, but what's more interesting to us is that Mroziak apparently didn't rebut Foltz' belief that politics was also a factor. When we turn on the radio and in Foltz' old spot hear Mike Krajovic, the head of Fay-Penn Economic Development Council who gets a $180,000 a year compensation package, blather on about high gasoline prices and the national energy picture, the handwriting on the WMBS wall becomes a tad more visible. Especially when the "host" of that particular show is Fay-Penn employee Bob Junk.
What is keeping the Herald-Standard from doing a news story, other than an unwillingness or inability to tackle any real controversy?
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Doublespeak
When Fayette County Commissioners Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky voted last year to raise the salaries of all county row officers, including the commissioners, by 3 percent a year for the next six years, the Herald-Standard newspaper lauded and supported the move.
Here are some excerpts from their editorial, titled “Fair Wage -- Pay Raise for County Officials Backed” and published on Aug. 6, 2010:
“Things are not great here in Fayette, but we're not in such a bad shape that a fairly standard 3 percent increase should be seen as inappropriate.”
“The economy is in bad shape and some people are struggling across the county, but we don't think a 3 percent raise is exorbitant. We're not talking about a 20 percent jump in pay here.”
“It's important that our public officials are paid fairly. They deserve to be compensated with a respectable wage. There's no way of getting around the fact that you get what you pay for, and if we want to make sure that decent, intelligent people run for public office, then we have to pay them accordingly.”
The newspaper thus firmly put its stamp of approval on what actually does amount to a 19.4 percent pay raise for county elected officials over the next six years. No matter how bad the economy gets, the Fayette County commissioners and row officers are going to get regular 3 percent raises for more than half of a decade.
Given the newspaper’s official stance as concerns Fayette County officials, everyone in the patch -- even 99-year-old Stutta Bubba in House 222 -- is confused over the newspaper’s Thursday editorial.
“Vat’s vis dis stuff?” proclaimed Stutta Bubba. “I am old lady from old countary, and I learn English as second language, dis is true. But does Herald-Standard tink I am stupid?”
From underneath her babushka, Stutta Bubba pulled out a neatly folded copy of Thursday’s editorial, entitled, “Legislative staffers to get raises.” It was critical of the Pennsylvania House Republicans and Senate Democrats for deciding to lift a pay freeze for their legislative employees.
The fact that House Republican staffers haven’t had a pay raise in three years doesn’t matter to the Herald-Standard, which now says, “To this, many Pennsylvanians would say, ‘Welcome to the club.’ They haven’t been getting any pay raises either, and that’s not likely to change in the foreseeable future.”
Maybe if the House Republican leaders had decided to guarantee 3 percent raises for their employees for the next six years, like Vicites and Zapotosky did, the Herald-Standard would see things differently. (It might help, too, if House Republican leaders decided to throw a little money into the Redstone Foundation pot to operate Fayette TV, but that’s another blog post.)
Although the House Democrats and Senate Republicans have made no decision on granting their employees a pay raise for the first time in three years, that didn’t stop the Herald-Standard from doing what it does best these days: speculating. Absent any facts, the newspaper speculated that they probably will, following the pattern of “theft from Pennsylvania taxpayers” set in motion by the House Republicans and Senate Democrats.
Accusing somebody of theft is a pretty serious thing, isn’t it? The newspaper might want to take a refresher course in the laws of libel, but then again, that class has been failed in that building before.
On Thursday, the Herald-Standard held this chest-thumping position: “The fact is, pay raises are problematic these days in a Pennsylvania economy that is more used to seeing pay freezes, pay cuts or -- worse -- pink slips.”
But just eight months ago, their position, at least as concerns something done by Vicites and Zapotosky, was comparatively demure: “Things are not great here in Fayette, but we're not in such a bad shape that a fairly standard 3 percent increase should be seen as inappropriate.”
Which side of their mouth will be speaking tomorrow?
Here are some excerpts from their editorial, titled “Fair Wage -- Pay Raise for County Officials Backed” and published on Aug. 6, 2010:
“Things are not great here in Fayette, but we're not in such a bad shape that a fairly standard 3 percent increase should be seen as inappropriate.”
“The economy is in bad shape and some people are struggling across the county, but we don't think a 3 percent raise is exorbitant. We're not talking about a 20 percent jump in pay here.”
“It's important that our public officials are paid fairly. They deserve to be compensated with a respectable wage. There's no way of getting around the fact that you get what you pay for, and if we want to make sure that decent, intelligent people run for public office, then we have to pay them accordingly.”
The newspaper thus firmly put its stamp of approval on what actually does amount to a 19.4 percent pay raise for county elected officials over the next six years. No matter how bad the economy gets, the Fayette County commissioners and row officers are going to get regular 3 percent raises for more than half of a decade.
Given the newspaper’s official stance as concerns Fayette County officials, everyone in the patch -- even 99-year-old Stutta Bubba in House 222 -- is confused over the newspaper’s Thursday editorial.
“Vat’s vis dis stuff?” proclaimed Stutta Bubba. “I am old lady from old countary, and I learn English as second language, dis is true. But does Herald-Standard tink I am stupid?”
From underneath her babushka, Stutta Bubba pulled out a neatly folded copy of Thursday’s editorial, entitled, “Legislative staffers to get raises.” It was critical of the Pennsylvania House Republicans and Senate Democrats for deciding to lift a pay freeze for their legislative employees.
The fact that House Republican staffers haven’t had a pay raise in three years doesn’t matter to the Herald-Standard, which now says, “To this, many Pennsylvanians would say, ‘Welcome to the club.’ They haven’t been getting any pay raises either, and that’s not likely to change in the foreseeable future.”
Maybe if the House Republican leaders had decided to guarantee 3 percent raises for their employees for the next six years, like Vicites and Zapotosky did, the Herald-Standard would see things differently. (It might help, too, if House Republican leaders decided to throw a little money into the Redstone Foundation pot to operate Fayette TV, but that’s another blog post.)
Although the House Democrats and Senate Republicans have made no decision on granting their employees a pay raise for the first time in three years, that didn’t stop the Herald-Standard from doing what it does best these days: speculating. Absent any facts, the newspaper speculated that they probably will, following the pattern of “theft from Pennsylvania taxpayers” set in motion by the House Republicans and Senate Democrats.
Accusing somebody of theft is a pretty serious thing, isn’t it? The newspaper might want to take a refresher course in the laws of libel, but then again, that class has been failed in that building before.
On Thursday, the Herald-Standard held this chest-thumping position: “The fact is, pay raises are problematic these days in a Pennsylvania economy that is more used to seeing pay freezes, pay cuts or -- worse -- pink slips.”
But just eight months ago, their position, at least as concerns something done by Vicites and Zapotosky, was comparatively demure: “Things are not great here in Fayette, but we're not in such a bad shape that a fairly standard 3 percent increase should be seen as inappropriate.”
Which side of their mouth will be speaking tomorrow?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)