Here in the patch, no one knows Julie Toye. But more and more people are hearing about her. Or should we say, reading about her. And they are liking what they are reading.
Toye's blog is fast becoming "must" reading for anyone who wishes to obtain more than a cursory view of what's going on in Fayette County government. It was she -- not the Tribune-Review, not the Daily Courier, not HeraldStandard.com -- who kept on commissioner Vince Zapotosky until he filed his campaign expense report (five months late).
And now it is she who is following up on the last meeting of the Fayette County Election Board -- or rather, a behind-the-scenes but still newsworthy controversy about how that meeting came to fruition.
You can read about it here: http://www.julietoye.com/electionboardemails.html
Nor surprisingly, it appears that commissioner Angela Zimmerlink was an afterthought in this process. By way of Toye's reporting, we discover that Zimmerlink was not even consulted as to her availability for a date and time for the hearing. And her signature was solicited, it appears, after that date and time were set. (Who can blame her for saying thanks, but no thanks, to that sort of second-class treatment?)
This incident provides a great jumping off point to discuss the role of minority commissioner. More specifically, it affords an opportunity to debunk some common and often politically motivated myths.
One is that the "minority" commissioner, whoever that is, just can't get along with anybody. That myth is more often than not promulgated by the two commissioners who are running the show (and their supporters).
It easy for the majority partners (and they don't have to be from the same political party) to point to the one who isn't part of the power-sharing arrangement (or who doesn't wish to be), and portray that person as an undesirable governing partner. But just because that person isn't willing to quietly "play ball" doesn't make them unfit to govern.
The second myth is that the minority commissioner has nothing to offer, because he or she is always voting "no." Anyone who believes this one must first believe that all votes need to be unanimous (which means more often than not that they need to be ironed out ahead of time, away from the public eye). This myth is spread to try to undermine the credibility of the minority commissioner.
But as a tactic, it relies heavily on voter ignorance or apathy for success. It ignores the fact that the minority commissioner just might have a point, or a very good point, that just might sway the public into stopping or slowing down something the other two want to do
If the majority has a good idea -- "We are voting to lower taxes and bring in a new factory" -- not even the protest vote of the minority commissioner will dent public perception that this is a good thing. But if the majority has a bad idea -- "We are voting to hire someone now, and we'll set the salary later," or, "Let's change the ordinance now, we'll get public input and work out the details later" -- then the minority commissioner can and should be a thorn in the majority's paw. That is why the law forbids all three commisioners from being from the same political party.
These tricks of the trade have been used for years. Just ask Democrats Carmine Molinaro, Susanne Teslovich, Sean Cavanagh, Vince Vicites (when Cavanagh and Ron Nehls formed a working alliance), and Republican Zimmerlink. All have been the minority commissioner at one point in time.
Here in the patch, people still remember that these very same things were said about Cavanagh back when he was the odd man out in an administration where Vicites and Republican Harry Albert were running the show. As minority commissioner, Cavanagh used the only tool available to him -- the bully pulpit -- to push for an investigation into alleged voter fraud. It wasn't the majority leading that charge; it was the minority.
In the end -- surprise, surprise! -- voter fraud was documented.
Tactically speaking, there are powerful reasons for a ruling majority on any board to keep information and plans from the minority board member or members. The sooner the minority is informed or gets wind of something, the longer it has to analyze and strategize. The later the minority is informed or gets wind of something, the less time it has to do those things.
The more that the minority can be kept in the dark, and the darker the landscape can be made, the clearer the path for the majority to carry out its wishes.
We are sure that the powers that be don't like Toye, any more than they like us. But we hope that she keeps on asking questions and providing the answers that she gets. She provides valuable information and insight that isn't being supplied elswehere.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
What is the plan?
During the May 15 meeting where Fayette County Commissioners Al Ambrosini and Vince Zapotosky hired a new chief clerk and public works director, we are told by some folks who were in attendance that something very interesting was said.
Ambrosini and Zapotosky came under fire from citizens -- primarily Jerrie Mazza, Michael Cavanagh and Evelyn Hovanec -- for the hires of HeraldStandard.com reporter Amy Revak for $32,740 as chief clerk and Connellsville Township supervisor Robert Carson as public works director at $40,331 (or $41,000-something, depending on who spins the salary wheel today).
In the face of blistering criticism over one or both of these hires, our sources say that Ambrosini said something to the effect that he and Zapotosky shouldn't be judged just on these two moves. Rather, we're told, Ambrosini intimated -- or said outright -- that he and Zapotosky have a plan on where they want to take the county.
We are paraphrasing here, of course, but the gist of it is Ambrosini reportedly attempted to diffuse the situation by saying that there are more moves to be made, and that people should reserve judgment until all the pieces of the plan are put in place.
Surprisingly, no news reporters have chosen to follow up on this theme. But it is well worth pursuing. If there is a plan, shouldn't Ambrosini and Zapotosky, now armed with media expert Revak, be able to adequately convey it to the public? Doesn't the public of Fayette County, hungry enough for change to dump former Democratic Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites in favor of Ambrosini, deserve to know where Ambrosini and Zapotosky plan to steer this ship for the next three years?
Maybe they intend to use the extra $4 million from this year's 28-percent county real estate tax hike to do something wonderful and bold. But if that's the case, shouldn't they be telling us how? Shouldn't the public be clamoring to know the plan?
Surely for this plan to work, it must involve more than dumping Joseph E. Ferens Jr. as county chief solicitor, naming Westmoreland County attoney Kenneth Burkley as the "interim" solicitor for three to six months, at $4,000 per month. (And there are skeptics who think it is just a matter of time before Burkley is named to the post permanently.)
For the plan to be effective, it must have a better strategy than advertising for a new county clerk using a job description heavy on business and accounting skills, then hiring someone because of their supposed general knowledge of county government and media relations skills.
Does this plan to transform Fayette County include more than hiring a business manager for the Fayette County Prison -- and will that job, too, end up going to someone based on a skill set tthat morphs into something the average person wouldn't ascertain from the advertised job description?
Is granting a three-year contract, at $122,400 a year, to Greensburg's Felice Associates for human resources services -- and then watching the ever-changing starting salaries for the new chief clerk and public works director look like a carnival game of spin-the-wheel -- part of the plan?
We have heard mention elsewhere, in defense of Ambrosini and Zapotosky, that part of the plan is to direct some of this year's extra tax revenue -- a sum that Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink said was twice what was needed to be raised -- as local match toward water and sewerage projects in the county, so it can grow and prosper.
If this is part of the plan, Ambrosini and Zapotosky sure haven't done a good job telling everyone about it. That shouldn't be a problem now, with Revak at their side. If they are searching for a way to say, "We intend to roll out an ambitious $2 million water-and-sewerage grant or loan program using county funds," she can surely write up a press release that says, "We intend to roll out an ambitious $2 million water-and-sewerage grant or loan program using county funds."
We have even heard rumors of a new Fayette County Prison being built. But that would definitely eat up any county budget surplus, and then some, and would require another increase in county property taxes. Is this or is it not part of the overall plan?
At the next commissioners' meeting, the people of Fayette County and the press should follow up on Ambrosini's comments. They can't judge whether it is a good or bad plan, or whether they should or should not support it, until they know the details on what it is.
Ambrosini and Zapotosky came under fire from citizens -- primarily Jerrie Mazza, Michael Cavanagh and Evelyn Hovanec -- for the hires of HeraldStandard.com reporter Amy Revak for $32,740 as chief clerk and Connellsville Township supervisor Robert Carson as public works director at $40,331 (or $41,000-something, depending on who spins the salary wheel today).
In the face of blistering criticism over one or both of these hires, our sources say that Ambrosini said something to the effect that he and Zapotosky shouldn't be judged just on these two moves. Rather, we're told, Ambrosini intimated -- or said outright -- that he and Zapotosky have a plan on where they want to take the county.
We are paraphrasing here, of course, but the gist of it is Ambrosini reportedly attempted to diffuse the situation by saying that there are more moves to be made, and that people should reserve judgment until all the pieces of the plan are put in place.
Surprisingly, no news reporters have chosen to follow up on this theme. But it is well worth pursuing. If there is a plan, shouldn't Ambrosini and Zapotosky, now armed with media expert Revak, be able to adequately convey it to the public? Doesn't the public of Fayette County, hungry enough for change to dump former Democratic Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites in favor of Ambrosini, deserve to know where Ambrosini and Zapotosky plan to steer this ship for the next three years?
Maybe they intend to use the extra $4 million from this year's 28-percent county real estate tax hike to do something wonderful and bold. But if that's the case, shouldn't they be telling us how? Shouldn't the public be clamoring to know the plan?
Surely for this plan to work, it must involve more than dumping Joseph E. Ferens Jr. as county chief solicitor, naming Westmoreland County attoney Kenneth Burkley as the "interim" solicitor for three to six months, at $4,000 per month. (And there are skeptics who think it is just a matter of time before Burkley is named to the post permanently.)
For the plan to be effective, it must have a better strategy than advertising for a new county clerk using a job description heavy on business and accounting skills, then hiring someone because of their supposed general knowledge of county government and media relations skills.
Does this plan to transform Fayette County include more than hiring a business manager for the Fayette County Prison -- and will that job, too, end up going to someone based on a skill set tthat morphs into something the average person wouldn't ascertain from the advertised job description?
Is granting a three-year contract, at $122,400 a year, to Greensburg's Felice Associates for human resources services -- and then watching the ever-changing starting salaries for the new chief clerk and public works director look like a carnival game of spin-the-wheel -- part of the plan?
We have heard mention elsewhere, in defense of Ambrosini and Zapotosky, that part of the plan is to direct some of this year's extra tax revenue -- a sum that Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink said was twice what was needed to be raised -- as local match toward water and sewerage projects in the county, so it can grow and prosper.
If this is part of the plan, Ambrosini and Zapotosky sure haven't done a good job telling everyone about it. That shouldn't be a problem now, with Revak at their side. If they are searching for a way to say, "We intend to roll out an ambitious $2 million water-and-sewerage grant or loan program using county funds," she can surely write up a press release that says, "We intend to roll out an ambitious $2 million water-and-sewerage grant or loan program using county funds."
We have even heard rumors of a new Fayette County Prison being built. But that would definitely eat up any county budget surplus, and then some, and would require another increase in county property taxes. Is this or is it not part of the overall plan?
At the next commissioners' meeting, the people of Fayette County and the press should follow up on Ambrosini's comments. They can't judge whether it is a good or bad plan, or whether they should or should not support it, until they know the details on what it is.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
The hardest-working judge is ...
The laudatory editorial by HeraldStandard.com on the legal career of retiring Fayette County Judge Ralph C. Warman should come as no suprise. Warman is, after all, a long-time and long-known pal of HeraldStandard.com editor Mark O'Keefe.
It's also no secret that the two mens' wives have been fast friends for a long time.
While there is nothing wrong with writing an editorial that pays homage to Warman -- who by all accounts has been a pretty good judge -- we found one line in "Big shoes to fill," (Herald-Standard.com, May 20) that was a little over the top.
Here it is:
While some judges have served longer, few, if any, have worked harder than Warman during his 16-year tenure on the Fayette County bench.
There is, of course, no objective basis for making such a claim. Can or has it been documented, for example, that Warman's case load is greater than the other Fayette County judges?
During court week, does he preside over more trials than the other judges?
Has he written more opinions?
Fact is, there has been absolutely no real basis to crown Warman with the title of "hardest-working judge," other than an assessment that probably germinated and then rattled around inside O'Keefe's head.
Chances are pretty good that if you talked to someone who is a close associate -- or pal -- of Judges Gerald Solomon, Steve Leskinen, John F. Wagner Jr. or Nancy D. Vernon, they would probably think that "their" judge was the hardest-working.
The difference is, they do not have the same level of access to the newspaper's pages as O'Keefe. So they cannot broadcast their personal opinion and preferences to a wider audience as fact.
We won't bore you with the details of everything that was said in this particular editorial. If you want to pay to get on the newspaper's website, you can read it for yourself.
Among the things there you will find there is this comment:
There was no such thing as a shortcut or doing something the easy way. To Warman, there was only one way to do things and that was the right way.
That may have been indisputable during Warman's years on the bench, but his 32 years of service included time as Fayette County district attorney and as a prosecutor in that office. And in that capacity, Warman's name is inexorably tied to that of one David Munchinski.
Munchinski is the convicted murderer who was set free last year. We won't go into all those details, but you can read a pretty comprehensive overview here:
"After 25 years in prison in the 'Bear Rocks Murders,' Former Latrobe Man Released Pending Outcome of Appeal," (Innocence Institue of Point Park University, Oct. 6, 2011)
http://innocenceinstitute.org/blog/munchinski%E2%80%99s-free/
Three paragraphs from that story are as follows:
During questioning at one hearing by (Noah) Geary, Munchinski’s most recent lawyer, the lead prosecutor who is now Fayette County Common Pleas Judge Ralph Warman admitted he removed two paragraphs from the original Bowen police report which stated a tape was made.
Judge Warman said he did it with the approval of District Attorney Gerald Solomon, now President Judge of Fayette County. While he said he removed the paragraphs and cut and pasted the paperwork to disguise his actions because no tape was made, other reports and testimony suggested that critical interview was recorded. The tape has never surfaced.
All of that misconduct became the basis for a visiting judge’s scathing opinion in October 2004, where citing intentional prosecutorial misconduct, he reversed the convictions against Munchinski and ordered the tape of Bowen turned over within 10 days or he would dismiss the case. He also referred the Fayette prosecutors for criminal prosecution. No one has been charged.
The Munchinski case is complicated, convoluted and controversial. But there is no way that anyone can accurately recap Warman's long legal career, as a prosecutor and judge, without at least some mention of it.
Wonder why that wasn't done? Selective memory? Or just not enough space?
It's also no secret that the two mens' wives have been fast friends for a long time.
While there is nothing wrong with writing an editorial that pays homage to Warman -- who by all accounts has been a pretty good judge -- we found one line in "Big shoes to fill," (Herald-Standard.com, May 20) that was a little over the top.
Here it is:
While some judges have served longer, few, if any, have worked harder than Warman during his 16-year tenure on the Fayette County bench.
There is, of course, no objective basis for making such a claim. Can or has it been documented, for example, that Warman's case load is greater than the other Fayette County judges?
During court week, does he preside over more trials than the other judges?
Has he written more opinions?
Fact is, there has been absolutely no real basis to crown Warman with the title of "hardest-working judge," other than an assessment that probably germinated and then rattled around inside O'Keefe's head.
Chances are pretty good that if you talked to someone who is a close associate -- or pal -- of Judges Gerald Solomon, Steve Leskinen, John F. Wagner Jr. or Nancy D. Vernon, they would probably think that "their" judge was the hardest-working.
The difference is, they do not have the same level of access to the newspaper's pages as O'Keefe. So they cannot broadcast their personal opinion and preferences to a wider audience as fact.
We won't bore you with the details of everything that was said in this particular editorial. If you want to pay to get on the newspaper's website, you can read it for yourself.
Among the things there you will find there is this comment:
There was no such thing as a shortcut or doing something the easy way. To Warman, there was only one way to do things and that was the right way.
That may have been indisputable during Warman's years on the bench, but his 32 years of service included time as Fayette County district attorney and as a prosecutor in that office. And in that capacity, Warman's name is inexorably tied to that of one David Munchinski.
Munchinski is the convicted murderer who was set free last year. We won't go into all those details, but you can read a pretty comprehensive overview here:
"After 25 years in prison in the 'Bear Rocks Murders,' Former Latrobe Man Released Pending Outcome of Appeal," (Innocence Institue of Point Park University, Oct. 6, 2011)
http://innocenceinstitute.org/blog/munchinski%E2%80%99s-free/
Three paragraphs from that story are as follows:
During questioning at one hearing by (Noah) Geary, Munchinski’s most recent lawyer, the lead prosecutor who is now Fayette County Common Pleas Judge Ralph Warman admitted he removed two paragraphs from the original Bowen police report which stated a tape was made.
Judge Warman said he did it with the approval of District Attorney Gerald Solomon, now President Judge of Fayette County. While he said he removed the paragraphs and cut and pasted the paperwork to disguise his actions because no tape was made, other reports and testimony suggested that critical interview was recorded. The tape has never surfaced.
All of that misconduct became the basis for a visiting judge’s scathing opinion in October 2004, where citing intentional prosecutorial misconduct, he reversed the convictions against Munchinski and ordered the tape of Bowen turned over within 10 days or he would dismiss the case. He also referred the Fayette prosecutors for criminal prosecution. No one has been charged.
The Munchinski case is complicated, convoluted and controversial. But there is no way that anyone can accurately recap Warman's long legal career, as a prosecutor and judge, without at least some mention of it.
Wonder why that wasn't done? Selective memory? Or just not enough space?
Friday, May 18, 2012
Five months late and $3,200 short
Blogger Julie Toye has published an interesting and newsworthy take on Fayette County Commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky's continued and apparent failure to file his last required campaign election expense report.
http://www.julietoye.com/zapotoskyexpensereports.html
According to Toye, Zapotosky has accumulated around $3,200 in fines for failing to file the report, which is due to the fact that his campaign is "broke."
And, according to Toye, the state campaign finance reporting law makes no exceptions for those candidates who claim to be "broke."
What amazes us here in the patch is why Toye has done a better job of trying to hold Zapotosky accountable than has HeraldStandard.com
We don't recall former county beat reporter Amy Revak asking Zapotosky for any updates on why he hadn't filed a report that was due in December, 30 days after the November election. (Some might see a correlation between that deriliction of duty and the fact that Revak ended up taking a job as the county's chief clerk, as Zapotosky's favored candidate.)
Does anyone doubt for one minute that if it were Republican Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink who had filed to file her report in a timely fashion, that Revak and HeraldStandard.com woud have been all over that issue? We're guessing there would have been at least a half-dozen stories by now, and perhaps that many damning editorials, raking Zimmerlink over the coals.
Instead, the public has no idea who might have contributed to Zapotosky's campaign in the weeks leading up to last November's election. They have no idea how much money might have flowed into the coffers of a campaign that is now reportedly "broke." The longer this is allowed to go on without Zapotosky making these disclosures, the more we wonder if there is something that someone is trying to hide.
Where is HeraldStandard.com editor Mark O'Keefe in all of this? He had the power to order Revak to do her job. He has the power to order her replacement, whomever that may be, to walk across the street to the Fayette County Election Bureau, corroborate or dispute what Toye is saying, and bring this same information to his readers.
Again, we ask you: If it were Zimmerlink who was five months late in filing a report mandated by state law, had accumulated a $20-per-day fine for not meeting the deadline, and was still tap-dancing around the issue, do you think the newspaper would make no mention of this? We suspect they might have dispatched a platoon of reporters and editors to the election bureau by now.
Since O'Keefe, in the ultimate act of professional lameness, has publicly appealed for someone to let him know what's going on the community, news-wise, here's our step-by-step instructions, so he has no excuses:
1. Send a reporter to the Election Bureau. (Use Mapquest if you don't know the location.)
2. Have this reporter ask Larry Bosser, the bureau director, "Can I see Vince Zapotosky's December expense report?"
3. If Blosser produces it, have the reporter write down who conributed money to Zapotosky's campaign, and how much. (Pay particular attention to any large amounts, or contributions from important or influential people -- just as was done for all other candidates.)
4. If Blosser says the report has yet to be filed, have the reporter ask him, "Does Zapotosky owe any fines for failing to meet the deadline?" And if Blosser says, "Yes," have the reporter ask, "How much in fines?"
5. Inform the public, by having the reporter sit down at a desk, log onto a computer and write a story on his or her findings. (This step would include a phone call to Zapotosky, to get his explanation, and to ask when he intends to file the report and pay the full amount of fines.)
O'Keefe can make this happen today, if he chooses. If he doesn't, he is continuing to provide Zapotosky with a favoritism that no one else has gotten.
http://www.julietoye.com/zapotoskyexpensereports.html
According to Toye, Zapotosky has accumulated around $3,200 in fines for failing to file the report, which is due to the fact that his campaign is "broke."
And, according to Toye, the state campaign finance reporting law makes no exceptions for those candidates who claim to be "broke."
What amazes us here in the patch is why Toye has done a better job of trying to hold Zapotosky accountable than has HeraldStandard.com
We don't recall former county beat reporter Amy Revak asking Zapotosky for any updates on why he hadn't filed a report that was due in December, 30 days after the November election. (Some might see a correlation between that deriliction of duty and the fact that Revak ended up taking a job as the county's chief clerk, as Zapotosky's favored candidate.)
Does anyone doubt for one minute that if it were Republican Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink who had filed to file her report in a timely fashion, that Revak and HeraldStandard.com woud have been all over that issue? We're guessing there would have been at least a half-dozen stories by now, and perhaps that many damning editorials, raking Zimmerlink over the coals.
Instead, the public has no idea who might have contributed to Zapotosky's campaign in the weeks leading up to last November's election. They have no idea how much money might have flowed into the coffers of a campaign that is now reportedly "broke." The longer this is allowed to go on without Zapotosky making these disclosures, the more we wonder if there is something that someone is trying to hide.
Where is HeraldStandard.com editor Mark O'Keefe in all of this? He had the power to order Revak to do her job. He has the power to order her replacement, whomever that may be, to walk across the street to the Fayette County Election Bureau, corroborate or dispute what Toye is saying, and bring this same information to his readers.
Again, we ask you: If it were Zimmerlink who was five months late in filing a report mandated by state law, had accumulated a $20-per-day fine for not meeting the deadline, and was still tap-dancing around the issue, do you think the newspaper would make no mention of this? We suspect they might have dispatched a platoon of reporters and editors to the election bureau by now.
Since O'Keefe, in the ultimate act of professional lameness, has publicly appealed for someone to let him know what's going on the community, news-wise, here's our step-by-step instructions, so he has no excuses:
1. Send a reporter to the Election Bureau. (Use Mapquest if you don't know the location.)
2. Have this reporter ask Larry Bosser, the bureau director, "Can I see Vince Zapotosky's December expense report?"
3. If Blosser produces it, have the reporter write down who conributed money to Zapotosky's campaign, and how much. (Pay particular attention to any large amounts, or contributions from important or influential people -- just as was done for all other candidates.)
4. If Blosser says the report has yet to be filed, have the reporter ask him, "Does Zapotosky owe any fines for failing to meet the deadline?" And if Blosser says, "Yes," have the reporter ask, "How much in fines?"
5. Inform the public, by having the reporter sit down at a desk, log onto a computer and write a story on his or her findings. (This step would include a phone call to Zapotosky, to get his explanation, and to ask when he intends to file the report and pay the full amount of fines.)
O'Keefe can make this happen today, if he chooses. If he doesn't, he is continuing to provide Zapotosky with a favoritism that no one else has gotten.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
And today's starting salary is ...
We are not sure how much the Fayette County commissioners (or at least two of them) are paying Felice Associates of Greensburg for the work done by Dominick Carnicella as the county's director of human resources.
But we are sure that it is either way too much, or not quite enough, based on the ever-changing salaries of the county's two most recent hires.
In a saga that officially dates back to April 17, and includes at least two commission meetings and two salary board meetings, the salary for the new county chief clerk has changed three times, and the salary for the new public works director will apparently change at least once.
For the chief clerk's job, which went to former HeraldStandard.com county government reporter Amy Revak, the starting salary was initially stated as $32,064. Then, with Carnicella in the lead, an attempt was made to raise it to $34,600, a hike of $2,537, based on the budget-related duties of the job.
When public scrutiny over English major Revak's qualifications was applied to the situation, Carnicella stepped up in defense of the hire, saying that the budget-related component of the job was only about 20 percent of its overall duties.
Fair enough. But Carnicella had just gotten done supporting a big increase in the starting salary, on the grounds that the very skills that he ended up downgrading were a key component of the job.
Then, at yesteday's commission meeting, Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Al Ambrosini approved a $667 raise for Revak anyway. Here is a paragraph from the Tribune-Review story http://triblive.com/news/fayette/1804065-74/revak-commissioners-approved-county-job-carson-public-salary-board-hire :
There was a discrepancy in the salaries of Revak and Carson. A $32,063 salary for Revak, previously approved by the salary board, was incorrect, and commissioners revised it to $32,740.
Carson is the new public works director. Carnicella seems to have fumbled the ball on this one, too, based on this paragraph from the aforementioned story:
The salary board approved Carson's salary at $40,331. County Controller Sean Lally said that could change to $41,145, because the salary board did not take into account that Carson will work a 40-hour week, rather than 37 hours.
Carson could end up getting $814 more because of this error.
Shouldn't a competent human resources director know right off the bat whether a job requires 37 or 40 hours of work per week? Isn't it reasonable to think that he or she should find that out and make that clear to decision-makers, such as the county commissioners or the salary board, in the course of 30 days?
Shouldn't the same professional know what the starting salary of the chief clerk should be, based on the duties of the job when the job notice was officially posted? Should it really be changing three times if someone really knows what they are doing?
Instead of inspiring confidence in the process, we are left with the impression that starting salaries in Fayette County are being picked out of someone's hat.
But we are sure that it is either way too much, or not quite enough, based on the ever-changing salaries of the county's two most recent hires.
In a saga that officially dates back to April 17, and includes at least two commission meetings and two salary board meetings, the salary for the new county chief clerk has changed three times, and the salary for the new public works director will apparently change at least once.
For the chief clerk's job, which went to former HeraldStandard.com county government reporter Amy Revak, the starting salary was initially stated as $32,064. Then, with Carnicella in the lead, an attempt was made to raise it to $34,600, a hike of $2,537, based on the budget-related duties of the job.
When public scrutiny over English major Revak's qualifications was applied to the situation, Carnicella stepped up in defense of the hire, saying that the budget-related component of the job was only about 20 percent of its overall duties.
Fair enough. But Carnicella had just gotten done supporting a big increase in the starting salary, on the grounds that the very skills that he ended up downgrading were a key component of the job.
Then, at yesteday's commission meeting, Commissioners Vincent Zapotosky and Al Ambrosini approved a $667 raise for Revak anyway. Here is a paragraph from the Tribune-Review story http://triblive.com/news/fayette/1804065-74/revak-commissioners-approved-county-job-carson-public-salary-board-hire :
There was a discrepancy in the salaries of Revak and Carson. A $32,063 salary for Revak, previously approved by the salary board, was incorrect, and commissioners revised it to $32,740.
Carson is the new public works director. Carnicella seems to have fumbled the ball on this one, too, based on this paragraph from the aforementioned story:
The salary board approved Carson's salary at $40,331. County Controller Sean Lally said that could change to $41,145, because the salary board did not take into account that Carson will work a 40-hour week, rather than 37 hours.
Carson could end up getting $814 more because of this error.
Shouldn't a competent human resources director know right off the bat whether a job requires 37 or 40 hours of work per week? Isn't it reasonable to think that he or she should find that out and make that clear to decision-makers, such as the county commissioners or the salary board, in the course of 30 days?
Shouldn't the same professional know what the starting salary of the chief clerk should be, based on the duties of the job when the job notice was officially posted? Should it really be changing three times if someone really knows what they are doing?
Instead of inspiring confidence in the process, we are left with the impression that starting salaries in Fayette County are being picked out of someone's hat.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Now we know who is the best
Congratulations to columnist Brandon Szuminsky, who accomplished something in his well written column, "Writer has moving experience," (HeraldStandard.com, May 4) that probaby made history.
The column detailed his move from one home to another, and all the accompanying frustrations. But what caught our eye was this line:
Thankfully, we had the best real estate agents in the business on our side (Bill and Betsy West of Northwood -- seriously, call them), and they were able to find us a moving company on short, short, short notice to get our furniture moved.
We had no idea that "the best real estate agents in the business" were those who moved Szuminsky. But we will make sure to take his advice and "call them" if we ever need such services.
But we are wondering how all the other real estate agents feel about this ringing endorsement. Especially the ones that advertise with HeraldStandard.com. Especially the ones that may just think, crazy as it seems, that they just might be "the best real estate agents in the business."
Other than one man's assessment based on one move, we really have no empirical evidence that these particular realtors are better than any others, let alone that they are the best at what they do.
Szuminsky accomplished the impossible, getting a big plug in for a private business.
Because of this we can't wait to read the editorial page. Maybe next, we will find out who the best car dealer is, or the best furnace repairman, or the best place to eat out.
Unless someone higher up the food chain decides that this isn't good for business.
The column detailed his move from one home to another, and all the accompanying frustrations. But what caught our eye was this line:
Thankfully, we had the best real estate agents in the business on our side (Bill and Betsy West of Northwood -- seriously, call them), and they were able to find us a moving company on short, short, short notice to get our furniture moved.
We had no idea that "the best real estate agents in the business" were those who moved Szuminsky. But we will make sure to take his advice and "call them" if we ever need such services.
But we are wondering how all the other real estate agents feel about this ringing endorsement. Especially the ones that advertise with HeraldStandard.com. Especially the ones that may just think, crazy as it seems, that they just might be "the best real estate agents in the business."
Other than one man's assessment based on one move, we really have no empirical evidence that these particular realtors are better than any others, let alone that they are the best at what they do.
Szuminsky accomplished the impossible, getting a big plug in for a private business.
Because of this we can't wait to read the editorial page. Maybe next, we will find out who the best car dealer is, or the best furnace repairman, or the best place to eat out.
Unless someone higher up the food chain decides that this isn't good for business.
Monday, May 14, 2012
The track record on ethics
In the 17 months since Herald-Standard editor Mark O'Keefe took to his soap box and thumped his chest with his December 2010 column, "Ethics issues taken seriously," a lot has happened to demonstrate the opposite.
He's had one reporter who openly worked the polls for a county commission candidate.
He's had another reporter who was just hired as the county's chief clerk, as the favored candidate of Chairman Vincent Zapotosky, a person she was supposed to be objectively covering. (Props to blogger Julie Toye, for providing an interesting perspective on this hire, at http://www.julietoye.com/Amy.html )
And he has another reporter who is reportedly dating a prominent source on that reporter's beat -- a source whose name and comments have appeared in stories that the reporter has written for HeraldStandard.com
Nothing personal, but all three of these situations serve to seriously undermine the credibility of the publication that O'Keefe leads. And with each new revelation, his bold claims assuring us about ethics from two years ago ring hollower and hollower.
You can bet that O'Keefe doesn't want to address how reporter number one was able to do a hatchet job on Republican Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink in the week leading up to last November's election, in a story about the Fayette County Conservation District. (That same reporter was the one campaigning for the other Republican candidate.)
Was ethics taken seriously under O'Keefe's watch in that instance?
You can also bet that O'Keefe doesn't want too much scrutiny on reporter number two. But as Toye adeptly points out in her blog post, now it makes sense why that reporter failed to do any basic follow-up when a citizen assailed Zimmerlink at a commission meeting, again just before the election. As we pointed out then, it would have been fairly simple -- and in adherence to ethical journalistic principles -- for that reporter to follow up and prove or disprove that citizen's claims about Zimmerink's use of her work computer. But not a finger was lifted to do basic and fair reporting.
Was ethics taken seriously that time?
And in the case of reporter number three, there are just some things you have to give up when you are a newspaper reporter. Most places, you would not be allowed to date someone that you cover for the news. In those places where you would be permitted, it would mean that you never get to cover anything involving that person. Another reporter would be assigned in those instances.
If O'Keefe was not informed of this situation ahead of time, it certainly wasn't ethical on the reporter's part. If he was informed but allowed the coverage to continue as though nothing needed to change, it definitely was not ethical on O'Keefe's part.
We take no particular joy in pointing these situations out. But each of them stands diametrically opposed to O'Keefe's bold claims of December 2010. We will leave it to you to decide if the track record on ethics under O'Keefe is good or bad.
He's had one reporter who openly worked the polls for a county commission candidate.
He's had another reporter who was just hired as the county's chief clerk, as the favored candidate of Chairman Vincent Zapotosky, a person she was supposed to be objectively covering. (Props to blogger Julie Toye, for providing an interesting perspective on this hire, at http://www.julietoye.com/Amy.html )
And he has another reporter who is reportedly dating a prominent source on that reporter's beat -- a source whose name and comments have appeared in stories that the reporter has written for HeraldStandard.com
Nothing personal, but all three of these situations serve to seriously undermine the credibility of the publication that O'Keefe leads. And with each new revelation, his bold claims assuring us about ethics from two years ago ring hollower and hollower.
You can bet that O'Keefe doesn't want to address how reporter number one was able to do a hatchet job on Republican Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink in the week leading up to last November's election, in a story about the Fayette County Conservation District. (That same reporter was the one campaigning for the other Republican candidate.)
Was ethics taken seriously under O'Keefe's watch in that instance?
You can also bet that O'Keefe doesn't want too much scrutiny on reporter number two. But as Toye adeptly points out in her blog post, now it makes sense why that reporter failed to do any basic follow-up when a citizen assailed Zimmerlink at a commission meeting, again just before the election. As we pointed out then, it would have been fairly simple -- and in adherence to ethical journalistic principles -- for that reporter to follow up and prove or disprove that citizen's claims about Zimmerink's use of her work computer. But not a finger was lifted to do basic and fair reporting.
Was ethics taken seriously that time?
And in the case of reporter number three, there are just some things you have to give up when you are a newspaper reporter. Most places, you would not be allowed to date someone that you cover for the news. In those places where you would be permitted, it would mean that you never get to cover anything involving that person. Another reporter would be assigned in those instances.
If O'Keefe was not informed of this situation ahead of time, it certainly wasn't ethical on the reporter's part. If he was informed but allowed the coverage to continue as though nothing needed to change, it definitely was not ethical on O'Keefe's part.
We take no particular joy in pointing these situations out. But each of them stands diametrically opposed to O'Keefe's bold claims of December 2010. We will leave it to you to decide if the track record on ethics under O'Keefe is good or bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)