Tightening the noose

Fresh off their joint decision to annoint Chairman Al Ambrosini as the only one who can give instruction to the county's chief solicitor, Fayette County commissioners Ambrosini and Vince Zapotosky are taking aim at imposing another restriction.

Now they want to attempt to funnel -- and thus restrict -- the flow of official information through newly hired chief clerk Amy Revak, whose ever-evolving job description would be augmented yet again, this time to include the duries of "public relations officer."

If Ambrosini and/or Zapotosky are too lazy or lack the confidence to deal with the press directly, there is nothing that prohibits them from asking Revak to be their mouthpiece. But what they cannot -- and should not be allowed -- to do is force the third commissioner, Angela Zimmerlink, to be party to this abrogation.

Here is the key passage from Wednesday's story on this ("Fayette Co. commissioners table public relations job," HeraldStandard.com, July 18), which was thannkfully read aloud by Zimmerlink and reported by Steve Ferris:

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/fayette-co-commissioners-table-public-relations-job/article_cf6a0d9a-405c-5a4c-b2ad-5863abc1b5f8.html

The parts of the job description she objected to included requiring all departments to report to the officer before any information is released to the public; requiring a majority of the commissioners to sign any information before it is released to the public; a directive that all media inquiries regarding the county’s point of view, direction, policy or intention should be directed to the officer; requiring all printed material bearing the commissioners’ signatures shall be directed to the officer for approval; making the officer responsible for all printed material designed to influence public attitudes toward the county and its officials; making the officer responsible for coordinating the release of the suggestion of any county news story and requiring the officer to approve all news releases written by the commissioners or department heads.

There are plenty of reasons why Zimmerlink is justified in saying, "There is absolutely no way I’m approving this" -- starting with the fact that she voted against hiring Revak. But the larger issue concerns how this change, like the one involving making Ambrosini the only one in charge of the county solicitor, serves to restrict the flow of information.

"Requiring a majority of the commissioners to sign any information before it is released to the public." So if there is a report, or a letter, or a request for comment from the media or a citizen, Ambrosini and Zapotosky want two at least two of the three commissioners to sign off on that? Exactly where to they expect Zimmerlink to get a second vote?

"All media inquiries regarding the county’s point of view, direction, policy or intention should be directed to the officer." So what happens if there is a difference in the point of view? If one of the three commissioners disagrees with the other two, which "point of view" will Revak disseminate to the media? Would it be that of her benefactors, Ambrosini and Zapotosky; or that of Zimmerlink, who did not want to hire her? Beyond that, reporters are free to call anyone they want for comment. Shouldn't Revak, the former HeraldStandard.com reporter hired partly for her media knowledge, be telling Ambrosini and Zapotosky that?

Making the officer responsible for all printed material designed to influence public attitudes toward the county and its officials. This is a good one. Does it mean that the county's PR machine will create printed material designed to influence public attitudes? If not, does it mean that someone says, "This (report, letter, etc.) will make us look awful bad. Let's pretend it does not exist"?

Requiring the officer to approve all news releases written by the commissioners or department heads. This one may actually have some merit as concerns releases from department heads, who may or may not have the skills or background to write them effectively. But if a single commissioner has the confidence and desire to pen and distribute a news release, there is no logical reason to require Revak to approve it. The concept is called Freedom of Speech.

We see this as a further attempt to marginalize the opposition, in this case Zimmerink, by laying down a set of rules that really aren't needed. If Ambrosini and Zapotosky want to utilize Revak as a public relations officer, they can do that without passing a resolution.

Ask around

Here's the question that needs answered: If it's a good idea for the Fayette County commissioners to designate chairman Al Ambrosini as the only one of them who can issue directives to the county's chief solicitor, how many other counties have deployed this strategy?

Do the neighboring counties of Greene, Washington and Westmoreland find it necessary to grant one -- and only one -- of their three county commissioners the power to tell the solicitor what to do?

The answer is, "Probably not." And it's a pretty fair bet that if anyone in those counties tried to do such a thing, the other two commissioners probably wouldn't stand for it.

Why? Because three commissioners are elected to run the county. Not just one. They may have different vote totals on Election Day, but in the eye of the law, once they take office they are equals, entrusted with the same job responsibilities and the same powers.

You can read more about this debate here: http://triblive.com/news/fayette/2189470-74/county-burkley-ambrosini-solicitor-zimmerlink-motion-interim-chief-commissioners-directives

We find it interesting that the rationale (some would call it excuse) being given to support this restriction of involvement is that interim solicitor Ken Burkley of Greensburg needs to be able to focus on devising the litigation-avoidance strategy he was hired to develop.

According to HeraldStandard.com's Friday story, Burkley was hired in March to work three to six months, with this task being his focus.

It is now July. He has worked for the county four months. Can we expect to see the fruits of his labor within the next eight weeks? If his plate needs cleared of clutter, why is that necessary now? Shouldn't that have been the case right after he was hired?

Here are a couple of interesting paragraphs from the HeraldStandard.com story, regarding Burkley's job duties:

Those preparations include interviews with job candidates.

Ambrosini said any new solicitor the commissioners would hire would come from the pool of "exceptionally good" attorneys in the county and Burkley won’t be considered.

So as the time grows near for Burkley to apparently help choose his successor, it becomes necessary to give Ambrosini -- and only Ambrosini -- the power to instruct the solicitor?

When county commissioner Angela Zimmerlink says, "I have that right and authority as a commissioner" to assign work to Burkley if she wishes, she is correct.

Only in Fayette County would such an idea fly. But don't take it from us. Ask the commissioners in the surrounding counties. If it's such a good idea, they would be doing it, too.

Fike versus the Office of Open Records

Who ya gonna believe?

In this corner, responding to fellow board member Beverly Beal's written request for public information, is Harry Fike, chairman of the Fayette County Housing Authority, who writes that she must "provide the authority with a written statement clarifying the purpose for which you seek the requested information." ("Beal seeks to review authority documents," HeraldStandard.com, July 8)

And in this corner, straight from the website of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, the definitive authority on the state's Right-to-Know Law, comes this question and answer:

Can a public body ask why a person wants (to) obtain the information? [Section 1308]
No. The law prohibits a public body from requiring a person "to disclose the purpose or motive in requesting access to records."

http://openrecords.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=4434&&PageID=462051&level=2&css=L2&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true#ques6

"No" sounds like a pretty clear answer to us, when it comes to whether or not a public agency in Pennsylvania can ask a person what they intend to do with the public information they are requesting.

It doesn't matter what Beal (or anyone else) wants to do with such information. They can laminate it for posterity, make copies to distribute as gifts for Christmas, or use it for toilet paper in a pinch.

We wonder why HeraldStandard.com reporter Patty Yauger didn't take three seconds to search the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records website, under "FAQs" to find the answer we got. It certainly would have added an interesting -- and important -- perspective to her story. (She can still call Terry Mutchler, the executive director of the Office of Open Records, to verify if Fike is right or full of you-know-what.)

Instead, readers were treated to a verbal regurgitation of the circumstances behind the other four board members' "censure" of Beal arising from a packet discovered in a restaurant, one that Fike says contained some "scary" stuff.

That was May 30. It has now early July. It has been five weeks, which seems plenty of time for state police to either charge Beal with a crime, thus supporting the need to censure her and initiate action to remove her from the board, or exonerate her, thus exposing all this hulabaloo as the political witch hunt she says it is.

This isn't exactly the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, so it shouldn't take too long to wrap up the case.

None of that, however, has anything to do with Beal's request to see all the payments made to Cohen and Grigsby, the Pittsburgh law firm that the housing authority retains in addition to its regular solicitor. It is also the firm that the FCHA reportedly instructed to hire a private investigator to snoop into Packetgate.

Beal, as a citizen or a board member, is entitled to see those financial records and to get copies if she wishes. That is the law in Pennsylvania -- and the law says you don't have to state the reason for asking for public information.

We would love to see everyone in Fayette County who cares about open government make a formal written request to the housing authority, asking to see all of the Cohen and Grigsby payment vouchers for the past year. Would Fike send each of them a reply, asking them to state the reason?

And If he did, how could anyone even remotely construe that as openness?

As an aside, you may remember the last time the Fayette County Housing Authority had one of its critics investigated, and how that one turned out.

New publisher takes helm

Newly christened HeraldStandard.com publisher Robert Pinarski says one of his goals is to "make this organization the premiere information resource for our readers with all our platforms." (HeraldStandard.com, July 1).

If this is true, he might want to start by linking his website to several blogs, including the one operated by Fayette County Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink.

http://blog.votezimmerlink.com/

That's where inquiring minds can find news such as the fact that Dave Madison, the long-time head of Fayette County Children and Youth Services, is resigning next month. And that Jim Hercik, the county's long-time Tax Assessment Office director, is also resigning next month.

Two key department heads submit their resignations weeks ago, that seems like a pretty good story. Or at least something worth mentioning. The search for their replacements is also newsworthy, as Zimmerlink points out in her latest blog post:

So how is it that no action has been taken on the recent resignation notices of CYS Director and Tax Assessment Director and how is it that yet again, Dominic Carnicella, Felice Associates, ignores my inquiry?
Case In Point: Dave Madison via an email on June 4th submitted his resignation with an effective date of August 3rd. Jim Hercik via a memo on June 18th submitted his resignation with an effective date of August 17th. Despite my direction to our HR Department to begin the recruitment process, here it is July 5th and nothing..not even a response from Dominic Carnicella to me. Well perhaps their replacements are quietly being made within the selected political circles.

Astute readers will recall that the recent news of county judge Ralph Warman's announced retirement did not go without notice. It was greeted with a news story and a highly complimentary editorial. Hercik (for sure) Madison (probably) have served in their current capacities at least as long as Warman has been a judge. So what's the difference?

Pinarski might also want to ask if he defines a "premiere information resource for our readers" as one that runs a story on his hiring on page 1, but relegates the story that U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, who one day after providing the swing vote that upheld the constitutionality of the national health care law appeared at a legal conference at Nemacolin Woodlands, to page 3 of the same edition. ("Chief Justice appears at conference," HeraldStandard.com, July 1)

And it was an Associated Press story, to boot!

If the Associated Press knew ahead of time that Roberts was coming to Nemacolin Woodlands the day after what is widely held as the most important decision of the current Supreme Court term, and had the wherewithal to send a reporter, why didn't the local newspaper?

Which is the scarier stuff?

Thirteen days after voting to "censure" fellow board member Beverly Beal, in a flap over a packet allegedly left behind in a restaurant, the other four board members of the Fayette County Housing Authority took an interesting action.

Harry Fike, Robert Onesko, Mary Wertz and Harry "Bo" Joseph yesterday approved a settlement agreement with former housing authority finance director Steve Middleton, who was fired in April 2011.

And, they agreed to keep the terms of this agreement secret, according to the HeraldStandard.com story, "Housing authority settles lawsuit," June 27.

Here's a quote from that story, from housing authority executive director Tom Harkless, that should have everyone falling out of their seats: "Part of the agreement is to keep everything confidential. Both sides agreed that there would be no further discussion."

There's just one small problem for Harkless and those four board members: The law doesn't allow such things. (Quick, somebody call Cohen and Grigsby! We need to find an investigator, pronto!)

Those same four board members centered their motion to censure Beal around this theme: "Her conduct has been improper and unprofessional and her actions are detrimental to the authority and the residents it serves. She has violated our trust and violated her fudiciary responsibility by improperly discussing ongoing litigation on behalf of a litigant opposing the authority, as well as discussion an ongoing federal case." ("FCHA censures member over docuements," HeraldStandard.com, June 15).

Improper and unprofessional? Here's what Pennsylvania Newspaper Association attorney Melissa Melewsky had to say about the Middleton agreement, according to HeraldStandard.com: "Pennsylvania law is clear. Settlement agreements involving a public agency are public and confidentiality clauses in such settlements are not legally enforceable."

Violated trust and fudiciary responsbility? Again, from Melewsky: "It is also worth noting that courts have penalized government agencies that deny access of settlement agreements." (Can you say, "Fines"?)

The bigwigs at the Fayette County Housing Authority should know better. They can't keep this agreement secret, so why even try? But your right to know the terms will depend on someone: 1. Asking for a copy; and 2. Taking the matter to court, if turned down.

Fike previously said that some of the stuff in the packet allegedly left behind by Beal was "scary."

We don't know about you, but an old newspaper photo of Harkless working at K-Mart as a teen-ager is a lot less scary than a public agency that, in 2012, is trying to keep secrets.

Wipe away the tears

It's perfectly understandable why Fayette County commission chairman Vincent Zapotosky would get teary-eyed over the alleged beating death of a child, as he reportedly did at Tuesday's commissioner meeting.

"I'm so sorry for you," Zapotosky is reported as telling Sharon Smitley of Lake Lynn, a grandmother who came to the meeting as part of her awreness crusade. Her 4-year-old grandson, Trenton St. Clair of Point Marion, died in September despite numerous complaints being made to Fayette County Children and Youth Services.

You can read more about the case here: "Grandmother takes up cause against Fayette CYS," (Tribune-Review, April 12)

http://triblive.com/news/fayette/1061052-85/trenton-haney-forsythe-caseworker-report-cys-smitley-fayette-march-july

As we have pointed out before, this was the second death of a child in Fayette County in 2011. The first occurred in January of that year -- and prompted Zapotosky to shed tears before the cameras of WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh.

Here is a transcript of that 17-month-old news segment, from WTAE's website:

Fayette County Official Vows 'Accountability' In Toddler's Death

Parents Charged With Criminal Homicide In Death Of 15-Month-Old
POSTED: 3:53 pm EST January 6, 2011
UPDATED: 6:08 pm EST January 7, 2011

POINT MARION, Pa. -- Fayette County‘s highest elected official told Channel 4 Action News that he’s determined to find out what could have been done to prevent the death of a 15-month-old girl in need of special care.

"I will assure the people of Fayette County there will be accountability," said Fayette County Commissioners Chairman Vincent Zapotosky. "I will work on it and I will find out what went wrong, and we will do everything we can to hopefully prevent future incidents of this kind."

Police charged the parents of Madison Violet Dodson with criminal homicide after she was found unresponsive by her father at about 5:30 a.m. Thursday in the family's home on Morgantown Street in Point Marion.

A year-and-a-half after making that pledge, which was made eight months before the death of Trenton St. Clair, one would think that by now Zapotosky would be able to answer three very basic questions:

1. Did CYS in any way, shape or form screw up, in the cases involving Madison Violet Dodson or Trenton St. Clair?

2. Is CYS so under-staffed that it could not handle the complaints in a timely enough fashion?

3. If CYS needs more manpower, what is his plan for the COUNTY to address this?

After all, it was Zapotosky who vowed to work on it and find out what went wrong. If CYS did all that it could, but was hamstrung by current law, then by all means it is appropriate for him to pledge his support to Smitley to get those laws changed.

That's what he reportedly did according to the June 21 HeraldStandard.com story, "Zapotosky offers help to grandmother."

But here is an interesting line from that story: Zapotosky explained that CYS is sometimes limited in its ability to immediately respond to reports, but perhaps Smitley's initiative will make a difference.

IF CYS is sometimes limited in its ability to respond to reports, that seems to us a matter of not having enough manpower to do the job. It does not seem to be a matter of inadequate state or federal laws to empower the agency to do that job.

Before anyone goes writing letters to Gov. Tom Corbett, they should be able to state with specificity what law needs changed, and how current law hampered CYS in preventing the deaths of two children in these instances.

That hasn't been done. If so, it hasn't been reported.

Controversy for lunch

Here in the patch, we're having a field day over the "discovery" of a "packet" by a "restaurant employee" that led to the Fayette County Housing Authority's "censure" of board member Beverly Beal and a "state police investigation," as well as the authority's hiring of a "private investigator" and its appointment of a two-man "committee" to check things out.

It's all being made out to be pretty serious stuff, except for one problem: It isn't.

Not unless Beal having lunch with Sonya Over, the housing authority's former controller/finance director, and Angela Zimmerlink, a former housing authority board member and current county commissioner, is a crime.

Besides liking to meet for lunch once in a while, there is one thing in the public record that Beal, Over and Zimmerlink have in common: They are not huge fans of Tom Harkless, the housing authority's executive director.

Beal is in her second stint on the board. During the first, she made a constant theme of trying to reign in high administrative salaries while boosting the salaries of lower-paid workers, and of getting rid of Harkless' $650-a-month vehicle allowance. As board treasurer, she also went over expenditures with a fine-tooth comb.

Little wonder that after last spring's election, where Democrat Al Amrosini defeated incumbent Vince Vicites and Beal's return looked very likely, that the same housing authority board now censuring Beal attempted to change its rules concerning board membership -- a change that reportedly could have been invoked to keep Beal from getting back on the five-person board of directors.

That didn't work out, because the rules of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development trump those concocted by local housing authorities.

Before anyone goes all ga-ga over the motion to censure Beal, which states "her conduct has been improper and unprofessional and her actions are detrimental to the authority and the residents it serves," they should ask themselves if the attempt to change board membership rules was not also improper and unprofessional, and detrimental to the authority and the residents it serves.

The same could be asked about what transpired with Over, who as a key housing authority department head was suspended for one day (a punishment later rescinded by the State Civil Service Commission) and then for 30 days (which resulted in Over filing and prevailing in a civil lawsuit against the authority in which she was awarded monetary damages).

It may have escaped us, but we don't recall any board members being hot to trot to have Cohen & Grigsby, a Pittsburgh law firm contracted by the authority, help find an investigator to put on either of those cases.

In our view, Zimmerlink is ensnared in this, well, for just being Zimmerlink. She's a big political target, and those who aren't happy with the 18-vote margin of victory that kept her in office last November aren't going to go away any time soon. So if they can play a little "guilt by association," they will. And even if there is no guilt on her part, they will go with association.

If you want to read a comprehensive view of this story, you can do so here:

"Fayette housing authority board OKs censure, "Tribune-Review, June 14. http://triblive.com/news/fayette/2001695-74/authority-beal-board-harkless-joseph-packet-housing-motion-censure-director


We'll ask our questions, one at a time, in chronological order as presented in that news story:

1. What legal statute gives four members of the Fayette County Housing Authority the power to censure the board's fifth member? We really wish someone would have asked that question of the authority solicitor at the meeting -- or would ask it of HUD now.

2. If there's an ongoing federal investigation of the Fayette County Housing Authority, why doesn't the weak-kneed local media know and report more about it? Why haven't any of them followed up on this important revelation?

3. If there's an ongoing federal investigation of the Fayette County Housing Authority, why are Harkless and the board apparently more focused on and worried about a packet allegedly left behind in a restaurant?

4. Of all the things allegedly in this packet, the thing that most disturbs housing authority board president Harry Fike is an old photograph of Harkless, taken when he was 18 years old and working at the Altoona K-Mart? Really?

5. What legal statute gives Fike the power to appoint fellow board members Harry Joseph and Robert Onekso to sit on a committee that "will deal exclusively with the authority's legal matters"? Is that even permitted by state law and HUD?

6. And how will the local media, HUD and the public react to the explanation in Joseph's motion that this two-man team is necessary "to eliminate the leaking of legal information" to outside sources? Doesn't a move like this deprive three of the five board members of any input or knowledge concerning matters that are very important to them performing their job of authority oversight? Could that not be considered "censorship"?

7. If the packet was left and found in a restaurant, how many people there (patrons or employees) had the opportunity to put stuff in, or take stuff out? If it was then forwarded to the housing authority offices, how many people there had the chance to put stuff in, or take stuff out? These are chain-of-evidence questions that any good investigator or attorney would have to ask.

We understand why the other four members of the board would want to censure Beal. She is a one-person minority, and she just might be someone they suspect of "leaking information" to outside sources. Perhaps, just perhaps, one of those outside sources might be HUD. Perhaps one of them might be the media.

At least in doing its story, the Trib attempted to contact Over and Zimmerlink for comment. Not so in HeraldStandard.com's coverage. We scoured their story, "FCHA censures board member over documents," June 14, and saw nothing to indicate that their reporter even tried to get a rebuttal comment from Over or Zimmerlink.

They did print, however, this allegation that mentioned their names:

Board chairman Harry Fike said restaurant employees found the folder at a table where Beal, Fayette County Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink and former housing authority finance director Sonya Over had been sitting.

Lest you think that HeraldStandard.com did not have time to make any phone calls, they did manage to place one to Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks Jr., and they printed his comment that state police are still investigating.

We challenge HeraldStandard.com editor Mark O'Keefe to explain this latest but noteworthy example of shoddy reporting. There is no excuse for it, really.

As for us, we suspect that the real reason for censuring Beal -- a move we hope she appeals to HUD, by the way -- lies in this line from the censure motion: "She has violated our trust and violated her fiduciary responsibility by improperly discussing ongoing litigation on behalf of a litigant opposing the authority, as well as discussing an ongoing federal case."

Someone must think the best way to keep Beal in the dark is to keep her out of the loop.