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?
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Gimme shelter
If you are a single person earning $53,760 a year, or a family of four with annual income of $76,800, would you expect to qualify for subsidized housing in the city of Uniontown? Probably not.
But those are exactly the thresholds to qualify for new houses in the Maple Street Estates complex, being overseen by the Uniontown Redevelopment Authority.
Here in the patch, we were stunned to read in HeraldStandard.com that the first three of these houses are built. They are appraised at $144,000, $136,500 and $135,000, but each of them also apparently qualifies for a $30,000 grant and a $10,000 deferred loan. ("Uniontown Redevelopment Authority approves parking lot sales agreement," HeraldStandard.com, August 10)
That type of subsidy would ostensibly take the price of the $144,000 house to $104,000, the $136,500 house to $96,500, and the price of the $135,000 house to $95,000.
That's a pretty sweet deal -- if you can get it. Who wouldn't like a 27 percent reduction on the fair market value of a new home, even if you are a single person making nearly $54,000 a year, or a family of four making nearly $77,000 a year?
Most single people we know in Fayette County are perfectly able to buy their own home on a salary of $54,000 without a federal subsidy. Same thing for a family of four with $77,000 of household income.
Down the road, we would be just a tad curious to know who these lucky homeowners turn out to be. According to the story, the names of nine people are already on a list being kept by the redevelopment authority.
Here in the patch, we'll lay you 3-1 odds that many, if not most, of these homes end up in the hands of people who have some type of connections. We would love to see HeraldStandard.com inquire about seeing that list, and asking a few question about how the winners of this sweepstakes will be chosen.
After all, this is a project subsidized by the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program and overseen by the Uniontown Redevelopment Authority, so it should all be public information.
Those of you who wonder why the federal government is broke now have part of the answer. It is providing $40,000 subsidies to families with incomes of $77,000, so they can buy $144,000 brand-new homes for $104,000, in a county where many people earning far less are able to buy their own homes in that price range and above.
But those are exactly the thresholds to qualify for new houses in the Maple Street Estates complex, being overseen by the Uniontown Redevelopment Authority.
Here in the patch, we were stunned to read in HeraldStandard.com that the first three of these houses are built. They are appraised at $144,000, $136,500 and $135,000, but each of them also apparently qualifies for a $30,000 grant and a $10,000 deferred loan. ("Uniontown Redevelopment Authority approves parking lot sales agreement," HeraldStandard.com, August 10)
That type of subsidy would ostensibly take the price of the $144,000 house to $104,000, the $136,500 house to $96,500, and the price of the $135,000 house to $95,000.
That's a pretty sweet deal -- if you can get it. Who wouldn't like a 27 percent reduction on the fair market value of a new home, even if you are a single person making nearly $54,000 a year, or a family of four making nearly $77,000 a year?
Most single people we know in Fayette County are perfectly able to buy their own home on a salary of $54,000 without a federal subsidy. Same thing for a family of four with $77,000 of household income.
Down the road, we would be just a tad curious to know who these lucky homeowners turn out to be. According to the story, the names of nine people are already on a list being kept by the redevelopment authority.
Here in the patch, we'll lay you 3-1 odds that many, if not most, of these homes end up in the hands of people who have some type of connections. We would love to see HeraldStandard.com inquire about seeing that list, and asking a few question about how the winners of this sweepstakes will be chosen.
After all, this is a project subsidized by the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program and overseen by the Uniontown Redevelopment Authority, so it should all be public information.
Those of you who wonder why the federal government is broke now have part of the answer. It is providing $40,000 subsidies to families with incomes of $77,000, so they can buy $144,000 brand-new homes for $104,000, in a county where many people earning far less are able to buy their own homes in that price range and above.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Show us the (state) money!
At the next Laurel Highlands School District board meeting, we here in the patch hope that someone pulls board member Bill Elias aside and reminds him to stop biting the hand that has fed him.
In his commentary, "Students hurt by budget cuts," (Herald-Standard.com, July 24), Elias railed against the $2 million cut in state subsidy to Laurel Highlands that "Harrisburg imposed."
While Elias correctly recited that Gov. Tom Corbett's budget "drastically short-changed public schools," he failed to make an important distinction when applying the rest of his tar and feathers.
Elias teed off on the legislature in general, ending his commentary with: "I will continue to work tirelessly to garner state support for their fair share of local school budgets. Furthermore, I ask local voters to demand our state political leaders to work tirelessly to ensure a fairer return to local school districts."
As a retired Laurel Highlands school teacher (he taught driver's ed, we hear), Elias surely knows that the Democratic legislators who have represented his school district for time immemoriam have worked tirelessly to bring big state subsidies to the district. The Pennsylvania State Education Association, the union representing teachers, is after all a key Democratic constituency.
And Elias is surely aware that not one local Democrat, in the senate or house, voted in favor of this year's state budget, largely out of protest over the cuts to education. But those Democrats are seriously outnumbered by Republicans in both chambers -- Republicans from other areas who, apparently, are working tirelessly to curtail the practice of paying for their own schools AND those like Laurel Highlands.
A May 19 news story noted that Corbett's proposed budget cut Laurel Highland's state subsidy by $2.2 million, or 9 percent. But when we checked the state Department of Education website, we found that Laurel Highlands' basic education subsidy for 2011-12 actually increased 2 percent, or $250,000, to $13 million. (The board still raised property taxes for this year.)
At least some of that state money goes toward allowing Laurel Highlands to enact a policy of paying retirees $100 for each unused sick day. We don't recall Elias speaking out on altering that policy during the recent budget discussion. Could that be because he cashed a pretty hefty check for his own unused sick days when he retired as a teacher?
The state subsidy also has allowed Laurel Highlands, in part, to continue paying family insurance coverage to early retirees until they reach age 65, at a huge cost to the district. We don't recall Elias uttering a public peep about ending this costly practice. Was he a recipient of this perk, as well?
In slightly more than 40 of Pennsylvania's 500 school districts, employees this year agreed to take a one-year pay freeze to save programs and/or avoid tax hikes. Laurel Highlands, which is still getting a pretty hefty state subsidy, was not one of them. Does Elias think it should have been?
After years and years and years of increased state subsidy, all because it qualifies as a "poor" school district, how has all that extra state cash affected the performance of the students that Elias claims are hurt by this year's budget cuts? It is a fair question, but one that few dare to ask.
In student performance on state standardized test scores, Laurel Highlands ranked 425th out of 500 school districts in Pennsylvania, accordng to the Pittburgh Business Times.
http://www2.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/events/pennsylvania_schools/statewiderank.html
That is 75 spots from the bottom, out of 500. We would like to know what Elias' plan is for changing that poor ranking, other than blaming Harrisburg and asking for even more money. There doesn't appear to be any correlation between state subsidy increases and better student test scores.
In an editorial that appeared next to Elias' column, HeraldStandard.com once again called for school districts to adopt anti-nepotism policies. The only public school district in the county that has done so (Frazier) also happens to reside far from the basement when it comes to student test scores.
It is a commendable position to stake out. But it will also never happen. Too many school board members look at you like you're from another planet for even mentioning the topic.
It is easier for them to pass the buck by asking for more state bucks, just like Elias.
In his commentary, "Students hurt by budget cuts," (Herald-Standard.com, July 24), Elias railed against the $2 million cut in state subsidy to Laurel Highlands that "Harrisburg imposed."
While Elias correctly recited that Gov. Tom Corbett's budget "drastically short-changed public schools," he failed to make an important distinction when applying the rest of his tar and feathers.
Elias teed off on the legislature in general, ending his commentary with: "I will continue to work tirelessly to garner state support for their fair share of local school budgets. Furthermore, I ask local voters to demand our state political leaders to work tirelessly to ensure a fairer return to local school districts."
As a retired Laurel Highlands school teacher (he taught driver's ed, we hear), Elias surely knows that the Democratic legislators who have represented his school district for time immemoriam have worked tirelessly to bring big state subsidies to the district. The Pennsylvania State Education Association, the union representing teachers, is after all a key Democratic constituency.
And Elias is surely aware that not one local Democrat, in the senate or house, voted in favor of this year's state budget, largely out of protest over the cuts to education. But those Democrats are seriously outnumbered by Republicans in both chambers -- Republicans from other areas who, apparently, are working tirelessly to curtail the practice of paying for their own schools AND those like Laurel Highlands.
A May 19 news story noted that Corbett's proposed budget cut Laurel Highland's state subsidy by $2.2 million, or 9 percent. But when we checked the state Department of Education website, we found that Laurel Highlands' basic education subsidy for 2011-12 actually increased 2 percent, or $250,000, to $13 million. (The board still raised property taxes for this year.)
At least some of that state money goes toward allowing Laurel Highlands to enact a policy of paying retirees $100 for each unused sick day. We don't recall Elias speaking out on altering that policy during the recent budget discussion. Could that be because he cashed a pretty hefty check for his own unused sick days when he retired as a teacher?
The state subsidy also has allowed Laurel Highlands, in part, to continue paying family insurance coverage to early retirees until they reach age 65, at a huge cost to the district. We don't recall Elias uttering a public peep about ending this costly practice. Was he a recipient of this perk, as well?
In slightly more than 40 of Pennsylvania's 500 school districts, employees this year agreed to take a one-year pay freeze to save programs and/or avoid tax hikes. Laurel Highlands, which is still getting a pretty hefty state subsidy, was not one of them. Does Elias think it should have been?
After years and years and years of increased state subsidy, all because it qualifies as a "poor" school district, how has all that extra state cash affected the performance of the students that Elias claims are hurt by this year's budget cuts? It is a fair question, but one that few dare to ask.
In student performance on state standardized test scores, Laurel Highlands ranked 425th out of 500 school districts in Pennsylvania, accordng to the Pittburgh Business Times.
http://www2.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/events/pennsylvania_schools/statewiderank.html
That is 75 spots from the bottom, out of 500. We would like to know what Elias' plan is for changing that poor ranking, other than blaming Harrisburg and asking for even more money. There doesn't appear to be any correlation between state subsidy increases and better student test scores.
In an editorial that appeared next to Elias' column, HeraldStandard.com once again called for school districts to adopt anti-nepotism policies. The only public school district in the county that has done so (Frazier) also happens to reside far from the basement when it comes to student test scores.
It is a commendable position to stake out. But it will also never happen. Too many school board members look at you like you're from another planet for even mentioning the topic.
It is easier for them to pass the buck by asking for more state bucks, just like Elias.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Shared sacrifice?
Here in the patch, we couldn't help but feel saddened by the pain conveyed by Uniontown Hospital CEO Paul Bacharach, as conveyed in the un-bylined Herald-Standard.com story, "Uniontown Hospital lays off 25." (July 26, 2011)
Most of these job cuts came in the business, service, maintenance and clerical departments, said Bacharach, who informed the reading public that the cuts were due to reductions in state and federal reimbursements in Medicare and Medicaid.
Those two programs, which provide health insurance for the elderly and the poor, cover a whopping 80 percent of the hospital's patients, said Bacharach. (And while that is a statistic that doesn't seem to jive with all the pronouncements that the county is on the move economically, that's a matter for another day.)
"While we regret being forced to trim our expenses, we simply can't ignore the fact that decisions in Washington, D.C., and Harrisburg have dramatically affected our budget," said Bacharach. " ... we have no choice but to adjust our expenses to be more in line with what hte government decides to pay us for those services."
The fact that this front-page story carried no byline by a reporter is a powerful clue that it was a hospital press release, printed verbatim as submitted by the hospital heirarchy. That is a sad substitute for real news produced by a real reporter.
If a good reporter had been assigned to the story, perhaps they could have added just a little bit of balance and perspective, don't you think? We visited our favorite free website, Guidestar.com, which allows you to look at the federal tax reports filed by all nonprofit organizations.
There, we found Uniontown Hospital's tax form for 2009, the last year available online. And under Schedule J, Part II, the listing of highest compensated employees, we found Paul Bacharach.
His total compensation package for 2009, for running a hospital where 80 percent of patients are covered by Medicare and Medicaid, was $507,464. (That's not a misprint; the total is over a half-million dollars.) Here is the breakdown, which you can view yourself if you take the time: base compensation $287,582, other reportable compensation $19,275, retirement and deferred compensation $167,636 and nontaxable benefits $33,153.
Those numbers make it easier for us to understand when Bacharach says that expense reductions are necessary "because we simply can't spend more than we are paid for the services we provide."
At least when it comes to employees at the lower rungs of the pay scale, that appears to be the case.
Bacharach isn't alone in being a highly paid hospital employee. According to the tax form, Steven Handy had a 2009 base compensation of $184,954 and total compensation of $328,442, and William Johnson had a 2009 base of $121,212 and total of $151,931.
Add them up and you have $988,019 going to three top hospital employees in a single year. (And that was two years ago, the last for which the information is available.)
We don't doubt that Uniontown Hospital, and lots of other hospitals, are going through tough times. Nor do we doubt that skilled leaders are needed to steer them through those choppy waters.
But we have serious doubts that in Uniontown Hospital's case, the pain is being shared at all rungs of the employee ladder.
Most of these job cuts came in the business, service, maintenance and clerical departments, said Bacharach, who informed the reading public that the cuts were due to reductions in state and federal reimbursements in Medicare and Medicaid.
Those two programs, which provide health insurance for the elderly and the poor, cover a whopping 80 percent of the hospital's patients, said Bacharach. (And while that is a statistic that doesn't seem to jive with all the pronouncements that the county is on the move economically, that's a matter for another day.)
"While we regret being forced to trim our expenses, we simply can't ignore the fact that decisions in Washington, D.C., and Harrisburg have dramatically affected our budget," said Bacharach. " ... we have no choice but to adjust our expenses to be more in line with what hte government decides to pay us for those services."
The fact that this front-page story carried no byline by a reporter is a powerful clue that it was a hospital press release, printed verbatim as submitted by the hospital heirarchy. That is a sad substitute for real news produced by a real reporter.
If a good reporter had been assigned to the story, perhaps they could have added just a little bit of balance and perspective, don't you think? We visited our favorite free website, Guidestar.com, which allows you to look at the federal tax reports filed by all nonprofit organizations.
There, we found Uniontown Hospital's tax form for 2009, the last year available online. And under Schedule J, Part II, the listing of highest compensated employees, we found Paul Bacharach.
His total compensation package for 2009, for running a hospital where 80 percent of patients are covered by Medicare and Medicaid, was $507,464. (That's not a misprint; the total is over a half-million dollars.) Here is the breakdown, which you can view yourself if you take the time: base compensation $287,582, other reportable compensation $19,275, retirement and deferred compensation $167,636 and nontaxable benefits $33,153.
Those numbers make it easier for us to understand when Bacharach says that expense reductions are necessary "because we simply can't spend more than we are paid for the services we provide."
At least when it comes to employees at the lower rungs of the pay scale, that appears to be the case.
Bacharach isn't alone in being a highly paid hospital employee. According to the tax form, Steven Handy had a 2009 base compensation of $184,954 and total compensation of $328,442, and William Johnson had a 2009 base of $121,212 and total of $151,931.
Add them up and you have $988,019 going to three top hospital employees in a single year. (And that was two years ago, the last for which the information is available.)
We don't doubt that Uniontown Hospital, and lots of other hospitals, are going through tough times. Nor do we doubt that skilled leaders are needed to steer them through those choppy waters.
But we have serious doubts that in Uniontown Hospital's case, the pain is being shared at all rungs of the employee ladder.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The good old days
In praising the completion of the southern end of the Mon Fayette Expressway, the Herald-Standard brought up a name we here in the patch haven't heard for years: Mike Ellis.
In its July 17 editorial, the paper said: Mike Ellis, former executive editor of the Herald-Standard, in particular, was tireless during his tenure in promoting the benefits of completing the expressway.
In doling out credit and praise, though, the paper also took some time to generically pat itself on the back, noting: We've also been a big backer of the project since its inception and like to think that our support has played a role in its success.
Other people singled out for credit, in addition to Ellis, were state Sens. Richard A. Kasunic and Barry Stout, late U.S. Rep. Frank Mascara and soon-to-be-ex-Commissioner Vince Vicites. (Never mind that it is virtually impossible to find a local elected official in the past 30 years who DID NOT support the expressway with all that he or she had.)
Back to Ellis. We here in the patch had some friends in the grassroots Fayette Expressway Completion Organization (FAECO), including its late chairman Jim Marzullo, both of which played key roles in keeping the highway project alive. (But neither of which got a mention in the editorial.)
We vividly recall those FAECO connections telling us that among the battles Ellis faced as editor was tremendous resistence from within the local political and community establishments. Some of these "leaders" did not think it wise to rock the boat after the project was mothballed during the administration of former Gov. Bob Casey.
Making a stink, and especially a big stink, might mean the road would never be completed, they said. They wanted Ellis to lay low and keep quiet, and stay away from generating what could be perceived as -- gasp! -- negative news.
The most instructive part of this story is that Ellis did not succumb to these pressures. He and our friends Marzullo and FAECO refused to accept the status quo -- and they refused to accept no for an answer.
Because of that stance, today the link to Route 68 in West Virginia is completed, and the Uniontown-Brownsville link will be open shortly. For the first time in history, a limited access, modern highway will run through Fayette County.
But that was in the good old days, when the newspaper was less interested in forming partnerships with the people it is supposed to cover, and more interested in calling it as it was and letting the chips fall where they may.
We will let you decide whether the paper was better under Ellis than it is under his successor. But we know who we would take in any stare-down with the establishment.
In its July 17 editorial, the paper said: Mike Ellis, former executive editor of the Herald-Standard, in particular, was tireless during his tenure in promoting the benefits of completing the expressway.
In doling out credit and praise, though, the paper also took some time to generically pat itself on the back, noting: We've also been a big backer of the project since its inception and like to think that our support has played a role in its success.
Other people singled out for credit, in addition to Ellis, were state Sens. Richard A. Kasunic and Barry Stout, late U.S. Rep. Frank Mascara and soon-to-be-ex-Commissioner Vince Vicites. (Never mind that it is virtually impossible to find a local elected official in the past 30 years who DID NOT support the expressway with all that he or she had.)
Back to Ellis. We here in the patch had some friends in the grassroots Fayette Expressway Completion Organization (FAECO), including its late chairman Jim Marzullo, both of which played key roles in keeping the highway project alive. (But neither of which got a mention in the editorial.)
We vividly recall those FAECO connections telling us that among the battles Ellis faced as editor was tremendous resistence from within the local political and community establishments. Some of these "leaders" did not think it wise to rock the boat after the project was mothballed during the administration of former Gov. Bob Casey.
Making a stink, and especially a big stink, might mean the road would never be completed, they said. They wanted Ellis to lay low and keep quiet, and stay away from generating what could be perceived as -- gasp! -- negative news.
The most instructive part of this story is that Ellis did not succumb to these pressures. He and our friends Marzullo and FAECO refused to accept the status quo -- and they refused to accept no for an answer.
Because of that stance, today the link to Route 68 in West Virginia is completed, and the Uniontown-Brownsville link will be open shortly. For the first time in history, a limited access, modern highway will run through Fayette County.
But that was in the good old days, when the newspaper was less interested in forming partnerships with the people it is supposed to cover, and more interested in calling it as it was and letting the chips fall where they may.
We will let you decide whether the paper was better under Ellis than it is under his successor. But we know who we would take in any stare-down with the establishment.
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, July 20, 2011
Constituent feedback?
Now that state Rep. Tim Mahoney has put forth the big and bold idea of administratively consolidating Fayette County's public school districts, in an attempt to save money, boost academic performance and have greater all-around accountability, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the man he replaced in office is flapping his figurative gums.
Contrary to the wishes of just about everyone here in the patch -- and probably outside it, too -- Larry Roberts just won't go away. Maybe he dislikes Mahoney for defeating him in his comeback attempt, maybe he fears that his own 14-year legacy of do-littleness pales in comparison, or maybe he's jealous that Mahoney is showing leadership the likes of which he could never muster. (You're not going to make any big enemies promoting cable TV for Ohiopyle Borough, one of Roberts' signature accomplishments.)
But we suspect that the duplicitious Roberts thinks Mahoney could be on to something here, and wants to position himself as: A., The guy who can say, "I told you it wouldn't work" if the idea fails; and B. The guy who can say, "I would have done that, too" if the idea pans out.
We base that assessment on Robert's June 19 letter to the editor, "Caution recommended over consolidation study," published in the Herald-Standard. In it, Roberts reminded us of the following:
When I was a Representative in the General Assembly, I surveyed my district several times a year with mail-in questionnaires. I also held regular town meetings across the district each year. All this was designed to learn what my constituents wanted and needed. It also provided a way for my constituents to let me know how me and my staff were doing.
Several of his surveys included questions about school consolidation, said Roberts, and it was the topic of some of his town meetings. Personally, Roberts said, he felt consolidation was a "good idea," but when it was "overwhelmingly rejected" by survey respondents and town meeting participants, he didn't pursue the topic.
Had I received feedback suggesting my constituents favored school consolidation, I would have provided the information to the county commissioners, wrote Roberts in his letter. (We don't know why he would have given this to the county commissioners, who are politically impotent in such things since the state Department of Education and local school boards would be the big players on this.)
Not surprisingly, Roberts has already prejudged the study being spearheaded by Mahoney, saying he is "opposed to a study designed to convince us that we should consolidate school districts." (Never mind that Mahoney only wants the study to focus on the feasibility of consolidating the ADMINISTRATIVE functions of the county school districts.)
But we're very glad that Roberts is reminding us of how keen he was on getting constituent feedback, through mailed surveys (at taxpayer expense) and town hall mettings, and how he used it as a guiding principle during his tenure as a state representative.
Thus, we look foward to his next letter to the editor, where he can explain how that modus operandi helped guide him through some other tough decisions.
We are certain, for example, that before voting in favor of the 2005 midnight pay raise, Roberts surveyed his constituents, who overwhelmingly told him, "Take the money, Larry -- you deserve it. Just don't spend it all in one place."
When his then-wife got a job with the Laurel Highlands School Board, igniting a controversy that included allegations of Roberts throwing around his weight as a state legislator in order to get her hired, we're sure another constituent survey was conducted. The question probably was, "What criteria do you think school districts should use in hiring teachers?" and the choices likely were: A. Best qualified;, B. Relative of a school board member; or C. Relative of mine.
When Mahoney was first running against Roberts, we can imagine the town hall meeting where a constituent jumped up and said, "We don't want a two-man race, Larry. We insist that a 20-year-old carpet installer with a well-known last name be in the race, too, even if he is a high school dropout. Offer to pay him $100 bucks if you have to. The people have spoken!"
And it was probably at another town hall meeting where Roberts got the idea to appeal the tax assessment on his expensive new home, a move that started a chain reaction that led to Fayette County's first property reassessmentn in 40 years. We can picture the constituent feedback at that scene: "Forget about tax relief for us, Larry; take care of yourself first!" ... "I have been wondering about that 1958 rate book myself, but never got around to asking about it. Thanks for reminding me, Larry!" ... "I don't mind paying more, Larry, as long as I know that you're paying less!"
We don't know whether Mahoney's idea is a good one or not, but we are willing to wait for the study results and add them to the mix before we ultimately decide.
But we don't need to wait even a second to know that when Roberts starts talking, the BS machine is kicking into high gear.
Contrary to the wishes of just about everyone here in the patch -- and probably outside it, too -- Larry Roberts just won't go away. Maybe he dislikes Mahoney for defeating him in his comeback attempt, maybe he fears that his own 14-year legacy of do-littleness pales in comparison, or maybe he's jealous that Mahoney is showing leadership the likes of which he could never muster. (You're not going to make any big enemies promoting cable TV for Ohiopyle Borough, one of Roberts' signature accomplishments.)
But we suspect that the duplicitious Roberts thinks Mahoney could be on to something here, and wants to position himself as: A., The guy who can say, "I told you it wouldn't work" if the idea fails; and B. The guy who can say, "I would have done that, too" if the idea pans out.
We base that assessment on Robert's June 19 letter to the editor, "Caution recommended over consolidation study," published in the Herald-Standard. In it, Roberts reminded us of the following:
When I was a Representative in the General Assembly, I surveyed my district several times a year with mail-in questionnaires. I also held regular town meetings across the district each year. All this was designed to learn what my constituents wanted and needed. It also provided a way for my constituents to let me know how me and my staff were doing.
Several of his surveys included questions about school consolidation, said Roberts, and it was the topic of some of his town meetings. Personally, Roberts said, he felt consolidation was a "good idea," but when it was "overwhelmingly rejected" by survey respondents and town meeting participants, he didn't pursue the topic.
Had I received feedback suggesting my constituents favored school consolidation, I would have provided the information to the county commissioners, wrote Roberts in his letter. (We don't know why he would have given this to the county commissioners, who are politically impotent in such things since the state Department of Education and local school boards would be the big players on this.)
Not surprisingly, Roberts has already prejudged the study being spearheaded by Mahoney, saying he is "opposed to a study designed to convince us that we should consolidate school districts." (Never mind that Mahoney only wants the study to focus on the feasibility of consolidating the ADMINISTRATIVE functions of the county school districts.)
But we're very glad that Roberts is reminding us of how keen he was on getting constituent feedback, through mailed surveys (at taxpayer expense) and town hall mettings, and how he used it as a guiding principle during his tenure as a state representative.
Thus, we look foward to his next letter to the editor, where he can explain how that modus operandi helped guide him through some other tough decisions.
We are certain, for example, that before voting in favor of the 2005 midnight pay raise, Roberts surveyed his constituents, who overwhelmingly told him, "Take the money, Larry -- you deserve it. Just don't spend it all in one place."
When his then-wife got a job with the Laurel Highlands School Board, igniting a controversy that included allegations of Roberts throwing around his weight as a state legislator in order to get her hired, we're sure another constituent survey was conducted. The question probably was, "What criteria do you think school districts should use in hiring teachers?" and the choices likely were: A. Best qualified;, B. Relative of a school board member; or C. Relative of mine.
When Mahoney was first running against Roberts, we can imagine the town hall meeting where a constituent jumped up and said, "We don't want a two-man race, Larry. We insist that a 20-year-old carpet installer with a well-known last name be in the race, too, even if he is a high school dropout. Offer to pay him $100 bucks if you have to. The people have spoken!"
And it was probably at another town hall meeting where Roberts got the idea to appeal the tax assessment on his expensive new home, a move that started a chain reaction that led to Fayette County's first property reassessmentn in 40 years. We can picture the constituent feedback at that scene: "Forget about tax relief for us, Larry; take care of yourself first!" ... "I have been wondering about that 1958 rate book myself, but never got around to asking about it. Thanks for reminding me, Larry!" ... "I don't mind paying more, Larry, as long as I know that you're paying less!"
We don't know whether Mahoney's idea is a good one or not, but we are willing to wait for the study results and add them to the mix before we ultimately decide.
But we don't need to wait even a second to know that when Roberts starts talking, the BS machine is kicking into high gear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)