Vicites has no EB conflicts?

Speaking of ethics, is anybody besides us willing to question the continued presence of Fayette County Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites as a member of the Fayette County Election Board?

The three-member election board, which includes Vicites, is currently playing a critical role in the closest race ever for a spot as a county commissioner. The decisions that the board makes -- which absentee and provisional ballots to count, which to throw out --- are likely to determine a winner between Republican incumbent Angela Zimmerlink and Republican challenger Dave Lohr.

Since he wasn't a candidate in the Nov. 8 election, Vicites is legally eligible to reclaim his role on the election board (he had to step down during the primary election because he was then a candidate). But just because he can sit in judgment, does that mean he should?

Anybody who has followed county politics, even at the third-grade level, has got to be aware of these three salient points:

1. Vicites was the running mate of fellow Democrat Vincent Zapotosky in the spring 2011 primary election. On that basis alone, should Vicites be one of the three folks who will ultimately certify the results of the fall 2011 general election, where his former running mate was a candidate?

2. Vicites (along with Zapotosky) is the subject of a current lawsuit filed by Zimmerlink, who alleges that the two Democrats have basically hobbled her ability to do her job. On this basis alone, doesn't Vicites have an ethical, if not legal, conflict of interest? Think about it: If you were suing Vicites, would you want him having any say -- let alone the final say -- in the outcome of your close election? Would you think he would be impartial? (And if the roles were reversed, with Vicites locked in a nip-and-tuck battle with someone else for the third and final commissioner spot, and with Vicites having sued Zimmerlink, and with Zimmerlink sitting on the election board, how content do you think Vicites would be with that arrangement?)

3. Vicites and Zapotosky are the ones who voted to can former election bureau director Laurie Lint, and to replace her with current office director Larry Blosser. Zimmerlink voted against this switcheroo. Nothing against Blosser or the job he is doing, but the split vote clearly makes him Vicites' and Zapotosky's guy. Is Vicites the best person to serve in an oversight capacity where policies and procedures of that office are in play?

These are certainly questions worth asking. But we don't expect the Herald-Standard to even mention them. Not when editor Mark O'Keefe's choice for co-anchor of the newspaper's televised election night coverage was sitting Fayette County Commissioner (and election board member) Vincent Vicites.

There are a host of reasons why we don't expect the Herald-Standard to raise any of these issues. But what we find inexcusable is that during this whole election certification process, they have not to our knowledge made one single phone call to the Pennsylvania Department of State to independently find out the rules or to verify that the ballot-counting decisions by the Fayette County Election Board do indeed pass muster.

They have also not called any other counties to find out what they did, do, or have done with absentee and provisional ballots that fall into any of the categories that many of us are hearing about for the first time (i.e., those that were reportedly delivered to or by the post office but somehow didn't make it to the polls on election day).

How come we never have read of problems like this occuring with any other county election bureau in the area? Is that because those problems have never been reported -- or because they have never had such problems? That's something the Fayette County public, regardless of which candidates win or lose, deserves to know.

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.

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.

Size didn't matter

According to the last round of campaign expense reports filed before the May 17 election, the combined war chest of Fayette County commissioners Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky was a staggering $112,453. (This for a job that will pay $49,409 in 2012.)

That is 6.7 times as much cash as their Democratic challenger Al Ambrosin, who reported a $16,640 war chest. Of that total, more than half -- $9,000 -- was a contribution from Ambrosini to his own campaign.

So in addition to a decided advantage in name recognition, the Vinces were comparatively flush with cash. Anyone who even remotely follows politics will tell you that name recognition and campaign funding are usually the two key factors in determining who wins.

But not only did Ambrosini, in his first bid for elected office, win. He also ended up as the top vote-getter, against two better-funded and better-known opponents. They even got a front-page Election Day endorsement from the Herald-Standard, which printed this one-sided assessment from Fred L. Lebder, chairman of the county's Democratic Party:

For the Fayette County commissioners race, Lebder predicted that the two Democratic incumbents, Vincent A. Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky, would garner the nominations. They are running as a team. Lebder said he never has seen a more organized campaign than they are running.

So Vince Sr. and Vince Jr. had the money, the name recognition, the newspaper's endorsement, the advantages of incumbency AND the enthusiastic backing of the titular head of the county's Democratic Party.

Ambrosini had none of the above, yet he won -- and won big. What does his win say about the state of Fayette County politics?

Here in the patch, the consensus is that Ambrosini's win represents a sea change that does not bode well for those used to winning elections by stuffing $50 bucks into the pocket of a precinct captain or handing out a flimsy emory board with your name on it. We think more people are paying attention to the issues, and realizing that by electing the same-old, same old, the results will be the same-old, same-old.

County commissioners have very little to do with things like replacing the Masontown Bridge or building the Mon-Fayette Expressway or obtaining state and federal grant funding. They are merely cheerleaders who stick their hand up and say, "Me, too!" Right off the bat, Ambrosini can do that as well as Vicites or Zapotosky.

Need proof of this theory? We would like Vicites to tell us what project in which he claimed involvement WILL NOT happen now that he's been defeated. Will the autism center NOT come to Highlands Hospital? Will the turnpike commission decide NOT to finish the Mon-Fayette Expressway? Will the new Army Reserve center NOT come to the Fayette Business Park operated by Fay-Penn Economic Development Council?

The real power of a county commissioner lies in pretty mundane things: setting a county budget (and millage rate); overseeing the tax assessment, election and planning/zoning offices; funding the county prison; and making appointments to various boards, commissions and authorities that have a tie to county government.

We think a majority of Fayette County voters -- finally -- were hungry for a change from the status quo, which obviously was not "moving Fayette forward" or "getting things done."

Truth in advertising

A few days after the May 17 election, a defeated and groggy-sounding Vince Vicites called the WMBS talk show and put on his good-guy, I-never-go-negative schtick. Then Vicites, obviously unable or unwilling to grasp that voters had decided to give him the boot, went negative.

"I think they need to divulge to the public who they're working with," said Vicites of other candidates in the field. He then went on to imply some sort of political alliance between Democrat Al Ambrosini and Repubican Angela Zimmerlink, who each finished as the top vote-getters in their respective primaries.

Here in the patch, the only similarity we see between Ambrosini and Zimmerlink is that they each have no love for Vicites. Ambrosini was obviously trying to take a job away from Vicites and/or his running mate Vince Zapotosky. Zimmerlink has been frozen out of county decision-making by Vicites and Zapotosky, which makes any claims bu them or their supporters that all three commissioners "need to work together" dubious at best.

The old saying that, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" would certainly seem appropriate to describe any relationship between Ambrosini and Zimmerlink. And if Ambrosini is willing to say "Hello" to Zimmerlink, that's red-carpet treatment compared to the cold shoulder she's gotten from Vicites and Zapotosky.

The seed that Vicites is trying to plant, though, is that Ambrosini is somehow not a real Democrat, that the man who desposed him is -- gasp! -- willing to work with a Republican! That's funny, but wasn't it Vicites who once took a $20,000 campaign contribution from another Republican, former commissioner Joe Hardy? How does a loyal Democrat do something like that?

Still, as flawed as his premise is concerning Ambrosini and Zimmerlink, we're glad that Vicites issued a call for complete transparency. The next time he calls his buddy Mark Rafail on WMBS, we would like Vicites to offer his explanation on something that caught our eye.

While reading the Herald-Standard story "Fayette County commissioner candidates file expense reports" on May 15, we noticed that Joseph A. Bezjak of New Geneva was listed as making a $100 contribution to the Marilyn E. Cellurale for Commissioner Campaign.

Bezjak is a longtime Democrat who just happens to be the uncle of current Democrat Commissioner Vince Zapotosky. Cellurale was running as a Republican candidate for county commissioner.

Why would a close relative of Zapotosky, who was Vicites' running mate, be contributing to the campaign of a Republican seeking the same office? Wouldn't you think that Bezjak would funnel every last nickel he had to the duo who were "getting things done?"

We suspect that in addition to working to get themselves re-elected, Vicites and Zapotosky had more than a passing interest in the outcome of the Republican primary. We believe that they would have liked nothing more than to knock Zimmerlink out of the running.

The next time Vicites starts talking about who was working with whom, he should start with a full vetting of the relationship between the team that was "getting things done" and Cellurale, beginning with Bezjak's contribution to her campaign.

Please wipe this egg off our face

Somebody in the patch should pick up the telephone -- if they can get through on the party line -- and give the Herald-Standard a clue. When it comes to local politics, the newspaper is as out of touch as Snoop Doggy Dogg would be if asked to sing a polka.

In the just-concluded primary election races for Fayette County commissioner, not only did the newspaper fail to endorse top Democratic vote-getter Al Ambrosini and top Republican vote-getter Angela M. Zimmerlink; it pretty much trashed each of them in the process. While completely dismissive of Ambrosini, the newspaper was both dismissive and disrespectful of Zimmerlink, which is totally unwarranted.

The high command at 8-18 E. Church St. in Uniontown still seems baffled that their favorite son, four-term incumbent Democrat Vince Vicites, and Republican endorsee Marilyn Cellurale each finished in last place.

In an attempt to wipe massive amounts of egg off its collective face, the Herald-Standard filled its editorial space ("Unpredictable," May 20) with some spin that sounded like it came straight from the Vicites damage-control machine.

The newspaper bemoaned the fact that in this year's May 17 primary election, "turnout was abysmal at 26.7 percent of registered voters." Taking another swipe at Ambrosini, the Herald-Standard further stated that "even he has to be somewhat mystified that he won despite getting only about 13 percent of votes from registered Democrats and about 7 percent of the county's total population."

The implication, of course, is that Ambrosini somehow benefitted from low voter turnout. But voter turnout has always been low, and we would love to see the newspaper analyze prior elections. We guarantee you that Vicites never won with 90 percent of Democrat votes or with the support of even 50 percent of the county's total population.

If the Herald-Standard finds it shocking that voter turnout in this year's primary election was only 26.7 percent, do they also find it shocking that in the 2007 GENERAL ELECTION that put Vicites in office for a fourth term, voter turnout was only 28 percent? Don't take our word for it; check out "Fayette County may still have electronic voting issues," Tribune-Review, Nov. 22, 2007, at http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/print_539264.html

Voter turnout in this year's primary was just 1.3 percent less than in the real-deal election that put Vicites and fellow Democrat Vince Zapotosky in office for a four-year term. So what's the big deal?

We also have to debunk another spin that proves the Herald-Standard has its head in the sand. In the same post-election editorial, the newspaper focused on the drop in number of Democratic and Republican votes in the races for county commissioner. It noted that in 1999, there were 37,713 Democratic votes, compared to 25,857 in this year's primary. On the Republican side, it said the number of votes slid from 9,513 to 5.850 in the same period.

Please note that this assessment is only about the number of VOTES, not the number of VOTERS. We postulate that part of the slide, and perhaps a big part of it, is the fact that more voters are plunking for their candidate of choice. (We know for a fact that many folks we talked to plunked for Ambrosini).

Insiders have plunked for years, giving their candidate a decided advantage, but now the tactic has mass appeal. Here's how it works: In the Democratic and Republican primary elections for county commissioner, registered voters of each party get to cast TWO ballots, because their parties are each nominating two candiates for the fall election.

But even though you are allowed to vote for two, you don't have to. If you want to, you can only vote for one. If you really wanted to ensure that Ambrosini got elected, it made no sense to cast a vote for him AND for Vicites, or for him AND Zapotosky. Supporters of Vicites and Zapotosky, who were running as a team, obviously knew the value of plunking. How else do you explain that one member of the team (Zapotosky) got several hundred more votes than the other (Vicites)?

Here's an easier way to illustrate the phenomenon: If 20,000 Democratic voters head to the polls and they each vote for two Democrat commission candidates, a total of 40,000 votes gets cast. But if each of them only votes for one Democrat candidate -- i.e., they plunk -- a total of only 20,000 votes gets cast.

You can bet that if Vicites had won with only 7 percent of the county's population voting for him, with voter turnout of "only" 26.7 percent, he would have done handstands on Route 40 nonstop from the courthouse to Fort Necessity.

Different Vince, same result

Fayette County voters may have dispensed with long-time incumbent county commissioner Vince Vicites on Tuesday, in favor of newcomer Al Ambrosini, but the Vicites tradition is likely to live on in the person of Vince Zapotosky.

It was a three-man primary with two winners, so it was a foregone conclusion that unless voters fell for the "getting things done" slogan, one of the Vicites-Zapotosky tandem was going to wave bye-bye to elected office.

Anyone hoping for a compete U-turn from the past is unlikely to see it if Zapotosky wins a spot in the fall. Part of the reason that Zapotosky and Vicites were able to forge such a close bond is that they are so much alike, especially when it comes to political governance and opportunism.

Take a trip down memory lane to the last county commissioner election, in 2007. Zapotosky had no qualms about forging a "team" with former commissioner Sean Cavanagh, who had been Vicites' arch-nemesis for the eight years they simultaneously served in office. Zapotosky said some pretty nasty things about Vicites, but when the dust settled, and after Zapotosky had won election using a pile of Cavanagh's campaign cash, a strange thing happened.

Zapotosky and Vicites became pals and allies. Here in the patch, we play by a different set of rules. Someone says something nasty about you, you don't forget or tolerate that. You sure don't consider that person a friend.

So why would Zapotosky, the trasher, want to be friends with Vicites, a guy that he obviously had a low opinion of? And why would Vicites, the trashee, even want to be friends with Zapotosky, who had bad-mouthed Vicites and just been allies with Vicites' top political foe, Cavanagh? The answer goes back to our theory that they easily could do so because they are so much alike.

They both make decisions based on their own political well-being and influence (cross reference their board appointees and campaign contributors, and you'll see what we mean). They both take credit for work done by someone else (state and federal legislators really provide the money for nearly all projects). They both have no problem in using others to accomplish their goals, then unceremoniously casting them aside (Cavanagh and one-time Vicites strategist Martin Griglak immediately come to mind).

Their philosophical kinship is perhaps best evident in the fact that they are both products of old-school Fayette County Democratic machine politics. In real-life political science, they have attended the same classes, shared instructors and graduated with the same degree. As a result, they approach elected office with the same world view, a view that has unfortunately governed Fayette County for at least the past 40 years.

Now that Vicites is leaving power, watch the bulk of his supporters and campaign contributors gravitate to Zapotosky, even though there was noticeable overlap already. Expect some of them to reach out to Ambrosini, as well, in hopes of influencing him to make decisions in their best interest. We'll be watching to see if Ambrosini takes that bait, but we're hopeful he won't.

If Fayette County is ever going to move ahead, for all its citizens and not just a few, it needs to move away from the type of politics that Zapotosky represents.

Slogan versus reality

Words are funny things. You can say just about anything, but the hard part comes when the discerning listener asks if there are any facts to back up what he or she has just heard. So it was in the patch a couple days ago, when we tuned in to WMBS thinking the Pirates-Dodgers game would be on.

We instead were treated to a different kind of play-by-play, from incumbent Fayette County commissioners Vince Zapotosky and Vince Vicites. They were aided by some friendly home cooking by their own Fayette County Zoning Hearing board appointee (recently elevated to talk show host) Mark Rafail.

Listening to the Vinces, one would think that under their combined leadership, Fayette County has become the land of milk and honey. With absolutely no comparative statistical basis to support any of these contentions -- and Rafail wasn't going to try pinning them down, even if it wasn't paid airtime -- here are some things they said:

"We are moving in the right direction." -- Vicites.

"We're getting things done." -- Zapotosky.

"It's been a great three-and-a-half years ... The future of Fayette County is promising." -- Zapotosky.

"Leaders must be positive, not negative." -- Vicites.

And, of course, they proffered the usual pablum about taking the high road during the campaign and not making any derogatory comments. (We wonder when someone is going to call Bob Foltz, the deposed longtime host of "Let's Talk," to ask his opinion of those statements.) By the way, it's a little trick of the trade in Fayette County politics that you always use surrogates to do the real dirty work, so that as a candidate you can claim that you are above such things.

People who live in Fayette County should take a good, hard, objective look around.

Do you think we are "moving in the right direction," as claimed by Vicites, who has been the coxswain on this boat for 16 long years? In what category are we better off now than when Vicites first won election in 1995?

Do you think it has been "a great three-and-a-half years," and that "we're getting things done," as claimed by Zapotosky? The fact that he has been gainfully employed for the past three-and-a-half years may make it a great period for Zapotosky, but what about everyone else?

On Tuesday, Zapotosky said of his newfound alliance with Vicites, of whom he was sharply critical in the 2007 primary election, that as commissioner you must do a job "and work with whomever that may be." If that's true, perhaps someone should inform Zapotosky that Angela Zimmerlink, too, was elected as a county commissioner -- albeit as a Republican.

In the future, we challenge Vicites and Zapotosky -- and more importantly, the folks who have an opportunity to question them -- to back up their vague assertions with statistical facts. They should be able to tell us where Fayette County ranks in terms of job creation, average income, poverty rate, etc., and how that standing has improved since they took office.

Anyone who boldly proclaims that they are "getting things done" should be able to back it up, don't you think? Otherwise, the slogan doesn't match the reality.

Favorite sons

No one here in the patch ever went to journalism school, but we watched enough episodes of "Lou Grant" back in the 70s to know that newspapers are supposed to be fair and unbiased in their news coverage. That's why someone at the fire hall, after his fifth Iron City, merrily suggested that the new Fayette County TV operation air those reruns as part of its public programming quest.

"Somebody please tell the Herald-Standard, or the Laurel Highlands Visitors Bureau, or the Fayette County Tourism Alliance, or Vicites and Zapotosky, or the Fayette Chamber of Commerce, or the Redstone Foundation, or the new nonprofit that's being created to take over from the Redstone Foundation, or whoever is running that station, that 'Lou Grant' would be great public service," said Big Mike.

When the bartender wanted to cut Big Mike off because he seemed too confused, his drinking buddies came to the rescue, saying that he was not on some inebriated spiel, and in fact none of them were absolutely sure who was running the TV channel.

The provocation that led to the call for a "Lou Grant" refresher course is the newspaper's obvious news coverage tilt toward favorite sons Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky. Real newspapers go to great pains to appear fair to all candidates in their election coverage.

So how does the Herald-Standard explain its front page on Sunday, May 1, which prominently featured a photo of Vicites and Zapotosky in a story titled, "Battle royale: Commissioner candidates outline platforms"? The story also included separate head shots of all three candidates in the Democratic primary race: Vicites, Zapotosky and newcomer Al Ambrosini.

But why did Vicites and Zapotosky warrant favored treatment by way of a separate photo, with this prominent cutline: "Incumbent Fayette County Commissioner Vncent A. Vicites gestures as he responds to questions during a recent candidates forum before the Herald-Standard editorial board. Seated next to Vicites is Fayette County Commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky. Both are seeking the Democratic nomination for commissioner in the May primary."

So is Ambrosini, but he had to settle for the standard head shot.
Head shots were also all the newspaper gave each of the three Republican commission candidates -- incumbent Angela Zimmerlink, perpetual candidate Dave Lohr and two-time candidate Marilyn Cellurale -- in their separate election story.

Perhaps Mark "Please Don't Question My Ethics" O'Keefe, the Herald-Standard editor, can explain why only two of the six candidates running for Fayette County commissioner warranted a separate front-page photo.
And while he's at it, we would like for O'Keefe to expound on the matter of which lawsuits warrant mention in news stories.

In the aforementioned story on GOP commission candidates, by the third and fourth paragraphs readers are reminded, "Zimmerlink is suing her fellow commissioners, Democrats Vincent A. Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky, alleging the two majority commissioners cut her out of county business, stifled her right to free speech and retaliated against her when she criticized their way of doing business.

"Zimmerlink also was the target of litigation filed by Cellurale, and the county's insurance company settled without going to court."

(We will leave our analysis of the Cellurale-Kriss zoning feud for another day, but be assured that Zimmerlink is the least of our concerns in that long-simmering matter.)

But when we scoured the Herald-Standard story on the Democratic commission candidates, we found no mention of another lawsuit, this one filed by former election bureau director Laurie Lint against -- can you beleive it? -- Vicites and Zapotosky!

Here's the gist of that one, taken from the Herald-Standard's own story of March 12, 2010 and entitled, "Former election director files suit":

The former director of the Fayette County election bureau sued the county and two Democratic commissioners on Thursday, claiming she was fired last year because she is a Republican.

Laurie Lint of Fayette City was fired in October by commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky and Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites. The majority commissioners said at the time that Lint had ongoing problems with her job performance.

However, Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink, the county's Republican representative, disagreed with the firing and supported implementing a plan to improve operations in the office.

In the lawsuit, Lint's attorney, Samuel Cordes, said Zapotosky and Vicites violated her "federally protected right to not have her employment conditioned on a pledge of alligiance to a party or candidate she may not prefer to support."

Only an idiot would believe the Herald-Standard newsroom is not aware of Lint's lawsuit against Vicites and Zapotosky. The question is, "Why would they fail to mention it?"

On May 18, who will ask, "What happened?"

With the May 17 election just one week away, seasoned political observers here in the patch are speculating on which incumbent Democratic Fayette County commissioner is going to outfox the other.

Sure, everyone has seen the campaign signs and heard the radio advertisements, and is aware that, on the surface at least, Vince Vicites and Vince Zapotosky are running as a team. But everyone, including ardent supporters of each of them, also knows that teams never win.

Former commissioner Fred Lebder ran as a team with Vicites and then with lawyer Richard Bower, but was not able to pull either of them into office along with him. Four years ago, Zapotosky ran as a team with former commissioner Sean Cavanagh, but they weren't able to nail down both Democratic nominations in the primary.

On the GOP side, remember Rich Brown and Bill Middleton? They ran as a team a few elections ago, and did so poorly that they finished behind two Democrats (Vicites and the late Ron Nehls) and Democrat-running-as-independent Cavanagh).

Given the historic trend, we believe it unlikely that both Vicites and Zapotosky will win nominations, particularly since a solid challenger exists in Al Ambrosini. But it really doesn't matter what we think; what matters is what each of them and their key advisers think. And you can bet your last pierogie that if Ambrosini is running stride for stride with them around the final turn, as it appears he is, it will be every man for himself.

What this election may turn on is who does the best job of convincing his supporters to "plunk." For those who moved into the patch just recently -- and that's not many, since Fayette County lost 8.2 percent of its people as Vicites and Zapotosky were "getting things done" -- the concept of "plunking" has been used forever to give one candidate the advantage over another.

It's pretty simple, really. Although registered Democrats can vote for TWO of their party's commission candidates in the primary election (as can registered Republicans), you only vote for ONE. This keeps your vote solidly in the corner of the candidate you really want to win. If you vote for two candidates, you are also giving a vote to a less-favored candidate. And by doing so, you could end up cancelling out the vote for the guy (or gal) that you really want in office.

As crunch time comes upon us, we see this race devolving into an "every man for himself" mentality, with in-the-know supporters of Vicites and Zapotosky, and even Ambrosini, opting to plunk in order to enhance the chance of their guy prevailing.

Since Ambrosini isn't aligned with anyone, plunking by his camp isn't unexpected and won't send any shock waves through the political community. But when the dust settles, if only one of the Vicites/Zapotosky team wins on May 17, a key factor is likely to be which one's supporters did a better job of plunking.

Our bet is on Vicites, because he is by far a better politican and strategist than Zapotosky. Four years ago, Zapotosky's teaming with Cavanagh was a sham, and Cavanagh was too naive to see how he was being used. That won't happen with Vicites.