Here in the patch, we don't know the meaning of life, or even why the Pittsburgh Penguins got bounced from the NHL playoffs by the Philadelphia Flyers. But we do know that if you are sick, you should listen to the doctor, and that the sudden clunking sound from your car's transmission is best diagnosed by a good mechanic.
So we took great interest when Fayette County controller Sean Lally threw a big monkey wrench into the plan of Fayette County commissioners Vince Zapotosky and Al Ambrosini to give a $2,600 pay raise to the new county chief clerk-in-waiting before she even works one day on the job.
The job is already on the books with a $32,064 starting salary, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Zapotosky and Ambrosini, who voted April 17 to hire Herald-Standard.com reporter Amy Revak for the job, would like to throw some extra cash her way before she accepts the position.
Revak, you will recall, has absolutely zero experience in accounting or finance, which are key skills for anyone who would be expected to help devise and manage the county's multi-million-dollar budget.
Zapotosky and Ambrosini may be willing to gloss over the big gaps in Revak's resume when it comes to the job they wish to put her in. But Lally, who knows a thing or three about accouting and budgets, clearly isn't afraid to point them out, as he did in Wednesday's Tribune-Review story, "Fayette OKs public works post, unofficially":
http://triblive.com/news/fayette/1163924-74/salary-meeting-revak-board-ambrosini-commissioners-position-zapotosky-zimmerlink-accounting
Lally wanted to keep the starting salary at $32,064 because Revak, who has a bachelor's degree in English, lacks accounting education and experience. He said the $34,600 figure is slightly less than the salary of an employee in his office who has four years' experience and a degree in accounting.
Lally said his employee, who would provide Revak with the figures needed to prepare the budget, would then be "making a whopping $1,300 a year more, with four years' experience and a four-year degree in accounting.
Every resident of Fayette County should read those two paragraphs very closely. Then they should ask themselves two questions:
1. Why would Zaptosky and Ambrosini want to hire someone to manage the county budget if that person lacks accounting education and experience?
2. Why would a chief clerk with no accounting background (who would basically serve as a fiscal figurehead) deserve $2,600 more if an employee already working in the conroller's office is simply going to provide all the figures needed to prepare the budget?
That raise didn't happen at this week's salary board meeting, because Lally wouldn't play ball.
But there is another paragraph in the Trib story that should also be digested by all residents:
(Commissioner Angela) Zimmerlink said that leaves commissioners with two ways to set Revak's salary - via a memo signed by at least two commissioners and then ratified during a commissioners' meeting, she said, or by waiting until the next commissioners' meeting in May to allow all three commissioners to vote on it before it is approved.
Either of those moves would appear, on face value, to remove controller Lally from the equation. These two methods would let Zapotosky and Ambrosini outvote (or out-sign) only Zimmerlink.
Does anyone besides us get the gnawing feeling that all those election-time promises about "running the county like a business" are starting to ring very, very hollow?
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
And the best job candidate is ...
Fayette County is looking for a new chief clerk, and the overall objective of the job, as posted on the county's website is: To perform a variety of complex financial and administrative duties to assist the County Commissioners in the management of the County, its programs and expenses.
The listed education/training requirement for this job? Bachelor's degree, preferably in Accounting, Public Administration, Business and/or related field.
The listed work experience? At least 4 years experience in Accounting, Public Administration, Business and/or any equivalent combination of experience, education and training which provides the required knowledge, skills and abilities.
You can view the entire job description here: http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/JobPost/Documents/Chief_Clerk.pdf
So it makes perfect sense that Commissioners Vince Zapotosky and Al Ambrosini are hiring Herald-Standard.com reporter Amy Revak, who:
1. Has zero work experience performing a variety of complex financial and administrative duties.
2. Has a bachelor's degree in English (which doesn't sound to us like a field related to accounting, public administration or business).
3. Has zero work experience in accounting, public administration or business.
Forget about this being an obvious political hire, which it is. The larger issue, and it's a big one, is Revak's nonexistant resume when it comes to fulfilling the obligations of this very important job. As a beat reporter for the Herald-Standard, and before that the Washington Observer-Reporter, she has not one visible shred of administrative or management experience.
The only financial experience she probably has is balancing her check book, which is not exactly the type of skill that qualifies you to help develop the county's multi-million-dollar budget.
Only Zapotosky and Ambrosini know why they favor Revak over a candidate who holds a master's of business administration degree. But that didn't stop Zapotosky from saying this to the Tribune-Review :
Zapotosky said he favors Revak over the candidate with accounting experience because of her knowledge of county government while working as a reporter.
"She brought that to the table, plus her writing skills and media background," Zapotosky said. "Another candidate had accounting skills, but the overall, well-rounded skills from one candidate exceeded those of the other."http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_791777.html
If Revak's "knowledge of county government while working as a reporter" qualifies her to be the county's chief clerk, then any of the gaggle of other reporters who have done a far superior job are qualified to be U.S. Secretary of State. (And that list includes the Tribune-Review's Liz Zemba, who unlike Revak at least deemed it newsworthy that the county district attorney was convening a grand jury.)
As far as Revak's "writing skills," we will wait to see the list of journalism awards she has won. And we will wait a very long time to see that list.
With Revak officially hired on Tuesday (sorry for the typo that originally said Thursday), her stories about letter to the editor writer Ruth Thompson and disaffected Marcellus Shale Task Force member Karen Jensen are coming into clearer focus.
Zapotosky and Ambrosini could still back out of this potential mess, but that is highly unlikely. What is certain is that Revak's days covering county government should be over. It even appears that at next Wednesday's Salary Board meeting, she will be getting a raise. The job has a starting salary of $32,064, but Zapotosky told the Trib that.the figure could be adjusted higher when the salary board meets. .Why would he even be mentioning that if it weren't already in the works?
We are eagerly waiting to see Sunday's issue of Herald-Standard.com, to see how editor Mark O'Keefe weighs in on this hire. He used to cover county government, so he is intimately familiar with the demands of this job. And he is certainly familiar with Revak's work background and abilities.
Revak is now fair game for editorial commentary. Let's see what is said.
The listed education/training requirement for this job? Bachelor's degree, preferably in Accounting, Public Administration, Business and/or related field.
The listed work experience? At least 4 years experience in Accounting, Public Administration, Business and/or any equivalent combination of experience, education and training which provides the required knowledge, skills and abilities.
You can view the entire job description here: http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/JobPost/Documents/Chief_Clerk.pdf
So it makes perfect sense that Commissioners Vince Zapotosky and Al Ambrosini are hiring Herald-Standard.com reporter Amy Revak, who:
1. Has zero work experience performing a variety of complex financial and administrative duties.
2. Has a bachelor's degree in English (which doesn't sound to us like a field related to accounting, public administration or business).
3. Has zero work experience in accounting, public administration or business.
Forget about this being an obvious political hire, which it is. The larger issue, and it's a big one, is Revak's nonexistant resume when it comes to fulfilling the obligations of this very important job. As a beat reporter for the Herald-Standard, and before that the Washington Observer-Reporter, she has not one visible shred of administrative or management experience.
The only financial experience she probably has is balancing her check book, which is not exactly the type of skill that qualifies you to help develop the county's multi-million-dollar budget.
Only Zapotosky and Ambrosini know why they favor Revak over a candidate who holds a master's of business administration degree. But that didn't stop Zapotosky from saying this to the Tribune-Review :
Zapotosky said he favors Revak over the candidate with accounting experience because of her knowledge of county government while working as a reporter.
"She brought that to the table, plus her writing skills and media background," Zapotosky said. "Another candidate had accounting skills, but the overall, well-rounded skills from one candidate exceeded those of the other."http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_791777.html
If Revak's "knowledge of county government while working as a reporter" qualifies her to be the county's chief clerk, then any of the gaggle of other reporters who have done a far superior job are qualified to be U.S. Secretary of State. (And that list includes the Tribune-Review's Liz Zemba, who unlike Revak at least deemed it newsworthy that the county district attorney was convening a grand jury.)
As far as Revak's "writing skills," we will wait to see the list of journalism awards she has won. And we will wait a very long time to see that list.
With Revak officially hired on Tuesday (sorry for the typo that originally said Thursday), her stories about letter to the editor writer Ruth Thompson and disaffected Marcellus Shale Task Force member Karen Jensen are coming into clearer focus.
Zapotosky and Ambrosini could still back out of this potential mess, but that is highly unlikely. What is certain is that Revak's days covering county government should be over. It even appears that at next Wednesday's Salary Board meeting, she will be getting a raise. The job has a starting salary of $32,064, but Zapotosky told the Trib that.the figure could be adjusted higher when the salary board meets. .Why would he even be mentioning that if it weren't already in the works?
We are eagerly waiting to see Sunday's issue of Herald-Standard.com, to see how editor Mark O'Keefe weighs in on this hire. He used to cover county government, so he is intimately familiar with the demands of this job. And he is certainly familiar with Revak's work background and abilities.
Revak is now fair game for editorial commentary. Let's see what is said.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Extra! Extra! Read all about it ... in the Tribune-Review!
Here in the patch, we think Herald-Standard.com editor Mark O'Keefe needs to expand his plea for new tips. It clearly isn't enough that he has implored the public to please let him know what's going on in the news. He now needs to make a direct appeal to Liz Zemba, the Tribune-Review reporter who works for his chief competition.
It was Zemba who skunked Herald-Standard.com a couple of weeks ago, by reporting that during a meeting of the Fayette County Salary Board, District Attorney Jack Heneks revealed that staffing changes he asked for would facilitiate creation of a grand jury he plans to convene a in the near future. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_788886.html
Amazingly, Herald-Standard reporter Amy Revak, who attended the same March 28 meeting as Zemba, did not mention anything about a grand jury in her story. Nor did Revak follow up the next day, as did Zemba, who on March 29 got further explanation from Heneks in the story, "Fayette DA seeks to empanel grand jury." http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_789079.html
It is not every day that the district attorney seeks to put together a grand jury. (And here in the patch, even we know that one of the likely matters headed for this particular grand jury concerns voting in Bullskin Township.)
In any county, the news of an impending grand jury is certainly a newsworthy event. And by mentioning it at a public meeting, Heneks was certainly not trying to make a secret of the fact. He was pretty much opening the door and inviting any inquiring mind to ask.
After Zemba pretty much covered all the bases with her Thursday story, O'Keefe's charges finally got into the act. On Sunday, April 1 -- four days after the salary board meeting -- the Herald-Standard's Jennifer Harr finally did a story that basically mirrored what Zemba had put in print two days earlier. We have little doubt Harr was given mop-up duty on this one.
The question O'Keefe should be asking himself -- and that readers as well as upper management should be asking themselves -- is why any of his reporters could have been so asleep at the switch. Does anyone besides Amy Revak really think that the reclassification of four sheriff's deputies and the resulting pay raises of $2,500 each is more important and newsworthy than the convening of a grand jury?
It was Zemba who skunked Herald-Standard.com a couple of weeks ago, by reporting that during a meeting of the Fayette County Salary Board, District Attorney Jack Heneks revealed that staffing changes he asked for would facilitiate creation of a grand jury he plans to convene a in the near future. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_788886.html
Amazingly, Herald-Standard reporter Amy Revak, who attended the same March 28 meeting as Zemba, did not mention anything about a grand jury in her story. Nor did Revak follow up the next day, as did Zemba, who on March 29 got further explanation from Heneks in the story, "Fayette DA seeks to empanel grand jury." http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_789079.html
It is not every day that the district attorney seeks to put together a grand jury. (And here in the patch, even we know that one of the likely matters headed for this particular grand jury concerns voting in Bullskin Township.)
In any county, the news of an impending grand jury is certainly a newsworthy event. And by mentioning it at a public meeting, Heneks was certainly not trying to make a secret of the fact. He was pretty much opening the door and inviting any inquiring mind to ask.
After Zemba pretty much covered all the bases with her Thursday story, O'Keefe's charges finally got into the act. On Sunday, April 1 -- four days after the salary board meeting -- the Herald-Standard's Jennifer Harr finally did a story that basically mirrored what Zemba had put in print two days earlier. We have little doubt Harr was given mop-up duty on this one.
The question O'Keefe should be asking himself -- and that readers as well as upper management should be asking themselves -- is why any of his reporters could have been so asleep at the switch. Does anyone besides Amy Revak really think that the reclassification of four sheriff's deputies and the resulting pay raises of $2,500 each is more important and newsworthy than the convening of a grand jury?
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Missing the Mark
Here in the patch, everyone knows the hallmark of good journalism is accuracy. People have to believe that what they read in a news story is actually what happened, or is really what the quoted source said. Without accuracy, everything unravels.
Thus, when everyone at the fire hall gathered to hear the inaugural words of wisdom from HeraldStandard.com's editor Mark O'Keefe -- promoting his weekly Web-based feature "On the Mark" -- they were flabbergasted to hear this plea from the newsroom's Grand Puba:
"If you see a story and you think, 'Well, gee, that really wasn't accurate' or whatever, please give me a call."
http://www.heraldstandard.com/multimedia/videos/on-the-mark/youtube_82e59a06-5c26-11e1-86e8-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=multimedia
Really, you can't make this stuff up. Things must be really, really bad at a newspaper if its editor is willing to go online and serve as an apologist. How else can you better describe O'Keefe basically making excuses for missed stories, and saying things like, "Please give us a call. We need to know (what's going on)."
Note to Mr. O'Keefe: It is the JOB of your reporters and editors to know what's going on in the community you claim to serve. If that's not happening, it's not the public's fault for not telling you; it's your fault for not having a staff that's in-the-know.
When O'Keefe makes an admission that his news operation is going to make a mistake here and there, and that it "isn't perfect" and isn't going to be "100 percent," he is basically asking readers to accept less of a professional standard than they deserve. Perhaps their motto shoud be, "We aren't perfect," or "We get it right most (or some) of the time."
That said, we take heart in knowing that O'Keefe wants readers to contact him directly, be it to tell him what's going on, or to point out inaccuracies, or to help in the effort to "report on the good things" that are happening. (His number is 724 439 7569 and his email is mokeefe@heradstandard.com)
By mistake, some of your questions intended for O'Keefe were sent to our email account. Feel free to forward any these questions to O'Keefe, who should be more than eager to answer them in next week's episode of "On the Mark."
Dear Mark,
I saw where you said, "We have no real bias here. We have no real agenda here." How do you square that with the reporter who was caught on film campaigning for a certain county commissioner candidate in last November's election? And can you please explain how that story on the Fayette County Conservation District, which cast another candidate in a bad light, got into print right before election day, right under your nose?
Sign me,
Ain't buyin' what your sellin'
Dear Mark,
I have read the Herald-Standard for many years, and I am confused. Do you not endorse candidates for magisterial district judge as a consistent policy, or do you only not endorse in those races when your wife is a candidate?
Sign me,
Magisterial district judge candidate not named O'Keefe
Dear Mark,
I saw where you said you would answer questions about school boards. I read recently where one school board was touting its food service program as the best, and saying it should be used as the model for all school districts in the county. My question is: Can anybody order food for their wedding reception under a school district's food procurement contract, and have it delivered to and stored on school property? Or do you have to know someone? Pease ask around your office and get back to us.
Sign me,
Hungry for Knowledge
Dear Mark,
I read where you wrote an editorial that was highly critical of District Judge Michael Metros for closing a proceeding to the public. His reason, I think, was that the case involved a young girl who was emotionally and mentally fragile. I think you are right on this one, in that the law doesn't give him the right to pick and choose which cases to hear in public. But I would like to know if your reporter objected, and if so how strenuously, when Metros announced he was barring the press from the hearing. Shouldn't that be something your reporters are taught to do? Are you taking any steps to make sure they know to stand their ground in the future?
Sign me,
Silence Isn't Always Golden
Dear Mark,
In the past year, did you ever personally get a report from a borough council member that one of your reporters who covered that borough was calling council members, lobbying them to vote a certain way on a big issue? If you did get such a call, what immediate action or actions did you take?
Sign me,
Ethics in Action, or Ethics Inaction?
Dear Mark,
I read where you praised Uniontown City counciman Gary Gearing for questioning the expenditure of $80 a month by Mayor Ed Fike, so he could go on WMBS radio once a month and give a State-of-the-City address. At the same time, you criticized Fike for this plan.
But not long ago, you fully supported the county's use of $60,000 in tourism tax money to launch a tourism channel on a cable TV system that only serves half the county. What's the difference? At least the radio station's signal reaches everyone in the city. And could you please tell us what the broadcasting of the Fayette County commissioner meetings has to do with tourism?
Sign me,
Looking for Consistency
Thus, when everyone at the fire hall gathered to hear the inaugural words of wisdom from HeraldStandard.com's editor Mark O'Keefe -- promoting his weekly Web-based feature "On the Mark" -- they were flabbergasted to hear this plea from the newsroom's Grand Puba:
"If you see a story and you think, 'Well, gee, that really wasn't accurate' or whatever, please give me a call."
http://www.heraldstandard.com/multimedia/videos/on-the-mark/youtube_82e59a06-5c26-11e1-86e8-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=multimedia
Really, you can't make this stuff up. Things must be really, really bad at a newspaper if its editor is willing to go online and serve as an apologist. How else can you better describe O'Keefe basically making excuses for missed stories, and saying things like, "Please give us a call. We need to know (what's going on)."
Note to Mr. O'Keefe: It is the JOB of your reporters and editors to know what's going on in the community you claim to serve. If that's not happening, it's not the public's fault for not telling you; it's your fault for not having a staff that's in-the-know.
When O'Keefe makes an admission that his news operation is going to make a mistake here and there, and that it "isn't perfect" and isn't going to be "100 percent," he is basically asking readers to accept less of a professional standard than they deserve. Perhaps their motto shoud be, "We aren't perfect," or "We get it right most (or some) of the time."
That said, we take heart in knowing that O'Keefe wants readers to contact him directly, be it to tell him what's going on, or to point out inaccuracies, or to help in the effort to "report on the good things" that are happening. (His number is 724 439 7569 and his email is mokeefe@heradstandard.com)
By mistake, some of your questions intended for O'Keefe were sent to our email account. Feel free to forward any these questions to O'Keefe, who should be more than eager to answer them in next week's episode of "On the Mark."
Dear Mark,
I saw where you said, "We have no real bias here. We have no real agenda here." How do you square that with the reporter who was caught on film campaigning for a certain county commissioner candidate in last November's election? And can you please explain how that story on the Fayette County Conservation District, which cast another candidate in a bad light, got into print right before election day, right under your nose?
Sign me,
Ain't buyin' what your sellin'
Dear Mark,
I have read the Herald-Standard for many years, and I am confused. Do you not endorse candidates for magisterial district judge as a consistent policy, or do you only not endorse in those races when your wife is a candidate?
Sign me,
Magisterial district judge candidate not named O'Keefe
Dear Mark,
I saw where you said you would answer questions about school boards. I read recently where one school board was touting its food service program as the best, and saying it should be used as the model for all school districts in the county. My question is: Can anybody order food for their wedding reception under a school district's food procurement contract, and have it delivered to and stored on school property? Or do you have to know someone? Pease ask around your office and get back to us.
Sign me,
Hungry for Knowledge
Dear Mark,
I read where you wrote an editorial that was highly critical of District Judge Michael Metros for closing a proceeding to the public. His reason, I think, was that the case involved a young girl who was emotionally and mentally fragile. I think you are right on this one, in that the law doesn't give him the right to pick and choose which cases to hear in public. But I would like to know if your reporter objected, and if so how strenuously, when Metros announced he was barring the press from the hearing. Shouldn't that be something your reporters are taught to do? Are you taking any steps to make sure they know to stand their ground in the future?
Sign me,
Silence Isn't Always Golden
Dear Mark,
In the past year, did you ever personally get a report from a borough council member that one of your reporters who covered that borough was calling council members, lobbying them to vote a certain way on a big issue? If you did get such a call, what immediate action or actions did you take?
Sign me,
Ethics in Action, or Ethics Inaction?
Dear Mark,
I read where you praised Uniontown City counciman Gary Gearing for questioning the expenditure of $80 a month by Mayor Ed Fike, so he could go on WMBS radio once a month and give a State-of-the-City address. At the same time, you criticized Fike for this plan.
But not long ago, you fully supported the county's use of $60,000 in tourism tax money to launch a tourism channel on a cable TV system that only serves half the county. What's the difference? At least the radio station's signal reaches everyone in the city. And could you please tell us what the broadcasting of the Fayette County commissioner meetings has to do with tourism?
Sign me,
Looking for Consistency
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Debunking the feel-good analysis
It should surprise no one that the Herald-Standard newspaper did its level best to put a good face on the failed candidacy of Republican commission candidate Dave Lohr. After all, the newspaper did all it could to hoist Lohr into office over incumbent Republican Angela Zimmerlink.
The newspaper's rooting interest for Lohr shamefully transcended its editorial endorsement of him. On the eve of the November election, it let one reporter publish a story in which a known Zimmerink foe accused her of using a county computer to post things on the Internet, without any attempt at verifying that fact. It then let another reporter -- who wound up working a poll for Lohr -- publish an eight-day-old story about the Fayette County Conservation District board (which the paper never covers) that cast Zimmerlink in a negative light.
The newspaper also ran full-page color ads, "Paid for by Dave Lohr," that showed him shaking hands with former Republican Commissioner Joe Hardy. The text in those ads included the words, "In the past, the sitting Republican commissioner has sought to form committees and slow down the process of welcoming this dynamic (gas) industry to our community."
That sitting Republican commissioner, of course, was and is Zimmerlink. We will leave it to you if that sounds like negative advertising -- but it sure does to us.
Our little analysis of the post-election editorial, "So close: Lohr ends historic race with concession" (Herald-Standard, Dec. 23, 2011) begins with this line: In addition to his gracious concession, he (Lohr) also deserves credit for running a hard but clean campaign, which came so tantalizingly close to victory.
Is the author of that editorial capable of reading? If so, does he think that the full-page Lohr ad that accused Zimmerlink of seeking to "slow down the process of welcoming this dynamic (gas) industry to our community" is evidence of "a hard but clean campaign"?
And the use of the phrase "tantalizingly close" to describe Lohr's 18-vote loss leads us to ask, "For whom?" For Lohr and his supporters, that part is definitely true. And it is probably true for the newspaper that did all it could to help Lohr, even if that meant permiting cheap and unethical shots at Zimmerlink.
Only an intellectual Tom Thumb would make some of the other comments in the Dec. 23 editorial:
We would be remiss if we did not first commend Lohr on graciously conceding defeat and not dragging the process out any futher.
Graciously conceding defeat? Was the Herald-Standard referring to the part of Lohr's concession where he told the Tribune-Review that he will watch for any evidence of retaliation against those who supported him, and said that, "There are elected people in office of a vindictive nature"? In conceding defeat, Lohr was far from gracious; he was still throwing barbs at unnamed opponents.
Not dragging the process out any further? Lohr's attempts to erase Zimmerlink's lead resulted in Fayette County being the last of Pennsylvania's 67 counties to certify the results of the Nov. 8 election. It prevented all school boards in the county from reorganizing in early December. (And the last time we checked, the county's school boards are facing some pretty stiff challenges of their own.)
This oh-so-close election should give Fayette County voters peace of mind ... After challenges and recounts, no real problems were discovered.
Huh? We learned that some absentee ballots were ostensibly left to languish at the Uniontown Post Office, that other absentees were delivered to the election bureau but unopened on Election Day, that at least one voter voted at the polls and by an absentee ballot (which was yanked during the challenge/recount process). And after ALL of this scrutiny, we learned during Lohr's last stand -- a challenge of the paper ballots cast at five of the county's 98 voting precincts -- that Democrat Al Ambrosini picked up two additional votes, while Democrat Vince Zapotosky picked up one.
Pardon us for thinking out loud -- or logically -- but shouldn't the recount numbers for Ambrosini and Zapotosky have remained the same, in order for anyone to promote the concept that Fayette County voters should have "peace of mind"?
The process was conducted out in the open and without any chicanery or cloak-and-dagger mischief.
Does that include any chicanery and cloak-and-dagger mischief in the realm of newspaper coverage of the election and the challenge/recount process?
The newspaper's rooting interest for Lohr shamefully transcended its editorial endorsement of him. On the eve of the November election, it let one reporter publish a story in which a known Zimmerink foe accused her of using a county computer to post things on the Internet, without any attempt at verifying that fact. It then let another reporter -- who wound up working a poll for Lohr -- publish an eight-day-old story about the Fayette County Conservation District board (which the paper never covers) that cast Zimmerlink in a negative light.
The newspaper also ran full-page color ads, "Paid for by Dave Lohr," that showed him shaking hands with former Republican Commissioner Joe Hardy. The text in those ads included the words, "In the past, the sitting Republican commissioner has sought to form committees and slow down the process of welcoming this dynamic (gas) industry to our community."
That sitting Republican commissioner, of course, was and is Zimmerlink. We will leave it to you if that sounds like negative advertising -- but it sure does to us.
Our little analysis of the post-election editorial, "So close: Lohr ends historic race with concession" (Herald-Standard, Dec. 23, 2011) begins with this line: In addition to his gracious concession, he (Lohr) also deserves credit for running a hard but clean campaign, which came so tantalizingly close to victory.
Is the author of that editorial capable of reading? If so, does he think that the full-page Lohr ad that accused Zimmerlink of seeking to "slow down the process of welcoming this dynamic (gas) industry to our community" is evidence of "a hard but clean campaign"?
And the use of the phrase "tantalizingly close" to describe Lohr's 18-vote loss leads us to ask, "For whom?" For Lohr and his supporters, that part is definitely true. And it is probably true for the newspaper that did all it could to help Lohr, even if that meant permiting cheap and unethical shots at Zimmerlink.
Only an intellectual Tom Thumb would make some of the other comments in the Dec. 23 editorial:
We would be remiss if we did not first commend Lohr on graciously conceding defeat and not dragging the process out any futher.
Graciously conceding defeat? Was the Herald-Standard referring to the part of Lohr's concession where he told the Tribune-Review that he will watch for any evidence of retaliation against those who supported him, and said that, "There are elected people in office of a vindictive nature"? In conceding defeat, Lohr was far from gracious; he was still throwing barbs at unnamed opponents.
Not dragging the process out any further? Lohr's attempts to erase Zimmerlink's lead resulted in Fayette County being the last of Pennsylvania's 67 counties to certify the results of the Nov. 8 election. It prevented all school boards in the county from reorganizing in early December. (And the last time we checked, the county's school boards are facing some pretty stiff challenges of their own.)
This oh-so-close election should give Fayette County voters peace of mind ... After challenges and recounts, no real problems were discovered.
Huh? We learned that some absentee ballots were ostensibly left to languish at the Uniontown Post Office, that other absentees were delivered to the election bureau but unopened on Election Day, that at least one voter voted at the polls and by an absentee ballot (which was yanked during the challenge/recount process). And after ALL of this scrutiny, we learned during Lohr's last stand -- a challenge of the paper ballots cast at five of the county's 98 voting precincts -- that Democrat Al Ambrosini picked up two additional votes, while Democrat Vince Zapotosky picked up one.
Pardon us for thinking out loud -- or logically -- but shouldn't the recount numbers for Ambrosini and Zapotosky have remained the same, in order for anyone to promote the concept that Fayette County voters should have "peace of mind"?
The process was conducted out in the open and without any chicanery or cloak-and-dagger mischief.
Does that include any chicanery and cloak-and-dagger mischief in the realm of newspaper coverage of the election and the challenge/recount process?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The guy in the high chair doesn't want to appear childish
Only in Fayette County can the guy sitting in the figurative high chair, wearing a bib and sporting a face smeared with Gerber's, make the claim that, "I don't want to drag this out to where it looks childish in nature."
That quote came from Dave Lohr in Wednesday's Tribune-Review story, "Lohr concedes Fayette County commissioners race to Zimmerlink."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_772905.html
Lohr has spent the past two months making things look childish in nature. Refusing to accept the official count of the Fayette County Election Board, he first challenged in court a bundle of absentee ballots that didn't arrive in that office by the deadline, hoping that they might give him a chance to overcome the 18-vote margin Angela M. Zimmerlink held over him for the third and final commissioner spot.
Rebuffed in that effort by Judge Ralph Warman, an even more desperate Lohr climbed back up in his high chair and threw some food against the wall, in the form of a second challenge to the work of the Fayette County Election Bureau and its Election Board, in the form of a challenge to recount paper ballots cast at five -- and only five -- of the county's 98 voting precincts.
After that effort -- which continued to delay the officical certification of Fayette County's vote count -- did nothing to dent Zimmerlink's 18-vote lead, Lohr climbed out of his high chair, removed his bib, wiped off his face, and proclaimed that did not want to appear childish.
There was more in the Tribune-Review story that left us here in the patch scratching our heads. Like these two paragraphs:
Lohr thanked his supporters and the (election) bureau. The bureau, he said, was unfairly criticized over its handling of the late absentee ballots and the recount process.
"A lot of rumors were around, that it was rigged, or they would do unscrupulous things," Lohr said. "But those people are top-notch. They would never do anything illegal."
Lohr needs only to look in the mirror to see which candidate was most responsible for launching any criticism of the election bureau over its handling of the late absentee ballots and the recount process. It wasn't Zimmerlink or Democrat candidates Al Ambrosini or Vince Zapotosky who twice went to court trying to find a way to change the outcome of this election.
And if Lohr truly believes that the election bureau employees are "top-notch," why was he the one challenging their handling of absentee ballots and veracity of their official vote count that had him losing by 18 ballots?
It gets even better in the Tribune-Review story, which also contains these two paragraphs:
Although he is out of the race, Lohr said he will monitor the commissioners' actions over the next four years. In particular, he said, he will watch for any evidence of retaliation against those who supported him.
"There are things that happened after the election, threats that were made, to businesses and individuals who supported me," said Lohr. "There are elected people in office of a vindictive nature, and these elected officials need to get to the heart of the people, and not their personal goals."
That assessment is, of course, a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. If Lohr wants to find people "of a vindictive nature" who put "their personal goals" first, he might want to start by looking at some of his own backers.
To its credit, the Trib story at least attempted to pin Lohr down a bit. It noted: Lohr declined to go into specifics regarding the allegations.
When making such a serious accusations, Lohr should be willing to state, on the record, exactly which people he was talking about, so that they could be contacted for their comments. Because he refused to name names, we all have to take Lohr's accusation with a huge grain of salt.
Here in the patch, we all have a pretty good idea of whom he was speaking. And yes, his way of casting this accusatory stone seems pretty childish to us.
Since it's Christmas, we have a little reminder to everyone from one of our favorite Top Ten lists (and it's not one from Letterman):
Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.
That quote came from Dave Lohr in Wednesday's Tribune-Review story, "Lohr concedes Fayette County commissioners race to Zimmerlink."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_772905.html
Lohr has spent the past two months making things look childish in nature. Refusing to accept the official count of the Fayette County Election Board, he first challenged in court a bundle of absentee ballots that didn't arrive in that office by the deadline, hoping that they might give him a chance to overcome the 18-vote margin Angela M. Zimmerlink held over him for the third and final commissioner spot.
Rebuffed in that effort by Judge Ralph Warman, an even more desperate Lohr climbed back up in his high chair and threw some food against the wall, in the form of a second challenge to the work of the Fayette County Election Bureau and its Election Board, in the form of a challenge to recount paper ballots cast at five -- and only five -- of the county's 98 voting precincts.
After that effort -- which continued to delay the officical certification of Fayette County's vote count -- did nothing to dent Zimmerlink's 18-vote lead, Lohr climbed out of his high chair, removed his bib, wiped off his face, and proclaimed that did not want to appear childish.
There was more in the Tribune-Review story that left us here in the patch scratching our heads. Like these two paragraphs:
Lohr thanked his supporters and the (election) bureau. The bureau, he said, was unfairly criticized over its handling of the late absentee ballots and the recount process.
"A lot of rumors were around, that it was rigged, or they would do unscrupulous things," Lohr said. "But those people are top-notch. They would never do anything illegal."
Lohr needs only to look in the mirror to see which candidate was most responsible for launching any criticism of the election bureau over its handling of the late absentee ballots and the recount process. It wasn't Zimmerlink or Democrat candidates Al Ambrosini or Vince Zapotosky who twice went to court trying to find a way to change the outcome of this election.
And if Lohr truly believes that the election bureau employees are "top-notch," why was he the one challenging their handling of absentee ballots and veracity of their official vote count that had him losing by 18 ballots?
It gets even better in the Tribune-Review story, which also contains these two paragraphs:
Although he is out of the race, Lohr said he will monitor the commissioners' actions over the next four years. In particular, he said, he will watch for any evidence of retaliation against those who supported him.
"There are things that happened after the election, threats that were made, to businesses and individuals who supported me," said Lohr. "There are elected people in office of a vindictive nature, and these elected officials need to get to the heart of the people, and not their personal goals."
That assessment is, of course, a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. If Lohr wants to find people "of a vindictive nature" who put "their personal goals" first, he might want to start by looking at some of his own backers.
To its credit, the Trib story at least attempted to pin Lohr down a bit. It noted: Lohr declined to go into specifics regarding the allegations.
When making such a serious accusations, Lohr should be willing to state, on the record, exactly which people he was talking about, so that they could be contacted for their comments. Because he refused to name names, we all have to take Lohr's accusation with a huge grain of salt.
Here in the patch, we all have a pretty good idea of whom he was speaking. And yes, his way of casting this accusatory stone seems pretty childish to us.
Since it's Christmas, we have a little reminder to everyone from one of our favorite Top Ten lists (and it's not one from Letterman):
Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Why five, not all 98?
Here in the patch, we find it extremely interesting to watch Dave Lohr's attempt to cherry-pick his way to the third and final spot as Fayette County commissioner. The effort raises some interesting questions that are flying below the radar.
You'll recall that on election night, Lohr's fellow Republican (and incumbent commissioner) Angela M. Zimmerlink was 10, 11 or 12 votes ahead of Lohr, depending on what number the election bureau was using and/or what number the particular media outlet was reporting.
After a painstaking and supposedly thorough process regarding the counting of absentee ballots -- a saga that involved scrutizining postmarks and the post office and a judge's ruling -- Zimmerlink was still the winner, only by then her margin had swelled to 18 votes (that's one-third greater than it was on election night).
Case closed? Not for Lohr, who apparently does not want to go down in the county's political history books as the only person to ever be a four-time loser in the quest to become a comissioner that dates back to his initial run in 1995.
No, Lohr and his attorney sought -- and have won -- a recount in five of the county's voting precincts. Fayette County Judge Ralph Warman has agreed with their argument that votes should be recounted in Bullskin Township 1 and 2, South Union Township 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5.
According to court papers filed by Lohr attorney David Montgomery, as reported by Herald-Standard,com, "It is submitted that the closeness of the race among Ms. Zimmerlink and Mr. Lohr requires a recount and a recanvass of the ballots cast in the Nov. 8, 2011 election, as there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots."
(It is also possible that additional absentee ballots delivered in time by carrier pigeon were deposited in the courthouse clock tower. Although that possibility is miniscule, perhaps someone should check, just in case.)
Here's the problem, as we see it: If Lohr and his attorney believe, and if Warman agrees, that "there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots," wouldn't that possibility exist for all 98 of the county's voting precincts?
Of course it would. But the Lohr camp is only seeking to recount the vote (or more accurately, a partial vote, using only paper ballots and not those registered by machine) in five precincts. The question everyone should be asking is, "Why just those five?"
In his court papers, attorney Montgomery is reported to have said that, "... based on information believed to be reliable, that fraud or error, although not manifest in the general return of votes made from the subject election district, was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots cast in the race for county commissioner."
Really? It seems to us that if attorney Montgomery and/or his client Lohr have "information believed to be reliable" that proves "fraud or error ... was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots," they should be asking for an investigation by Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks or state Attorney General Linda Kelly.
But we digress. Back to those five precincts: What happens, hypothetically, if the recount of Bullskin 1 and 2, South Union 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5, magically erases Zimmerlink's 18-vote lead and puts Lohr up by five votes?
Is that result set in stone, because Lohr and his attorney picked those five before the deadline for filing such a request passed? No one from the media has asked or answered that question, to our knowledge. But it should be asked and answered.
Our little hypothetical scenario poses quite a dilemma for Lohr: If the recount does put him up by five votes -- or 50 or 500 or 1, it really doesn't matter -- will he then ask that five more precints be recounted? Or all 98? (Assuming that the law allows for additional requests to be made.)
Or does Lohr say, "No, it took a while, but I'm finally satisfied with the election results. The people have spoken. Thank you, and good night."
You can bet the farm, including all Marcellus gas rights, that if the recount of only five precincts changes the outcome of this race, and if the opportunity to recount the other 93 precincts has already passed, some judicious cherry-picking did the trick.
You'll recall that on election night, Lohr's fellow Republican (and incumbent commissioner) Angela M. Zimmerlink was 10, 11 or 12 votes ahead of Lohr, depending on what number the election bureau was using and/or what number the particular media outlet was reporting.
After a painstaking and supposedly thorough process regarding the counting of absentee ballots -- a saga that involved scrutizining postmarks and the post office and a judge's ruling -- Zimmerlink was still the winner, only by then her margin had swelled to 18 votes (that's one-third greater than it was on election night).
Case closed? Not for Lohr, who apparently does not want to go down in the county's political history books as the only person to ever be a four-time loser in the quest to become a comissioner that dates back to his initial run in 1995.
No, Lohr and his attorney sought -- and have won -- a recount in five of the county's voting precincts. Fayette County Judge Ralph Warman has agreed with their argument that votes should be recounted in Bullskin Township 1 and 2, South Union Township 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5.
According to court papers filed by Lohr attorney David Montgomery, as reported by Herald-Standard,com, "It is submitted that the closeness of the race among Ms. Zimmerlink and Mr. Lohr requires a recount and a recanvass of the ballots cast in the Nov. 8, 2011 election, as there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots."
(It is also possible that additional absentee ballots delivered in time by carrier pigeon were deposited in the courthouse clock tower. Although that possibility is miniscule, perhaps someone should check, just in case.)
Here's the problem, as we see it: If Lohr and his attorney believe, and if Warman agrees, that "there exists a possibility of human or machine error in the counting of said ballots," wouldn't that possibility exist for all 98 of the county's voting precincts?
Of course it would. But the Lohr camp is only seeking to recount the vote (or more accurately, a partial vote, using only paper ballots and not those registered by machine) in five precincts. The question everyone should be asking is, "Why just those five?"
In his court papers, attorney Montgomery is reported to have said that, "... based on information believed to be reliable, that fraud or error, although not manifest in the general return of votes made from the subject election district, was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots cast in the race for county commissioner."
Really? It seems to us that if attorney Montgomery and/or his client Lohr have "information believed to be reliable" that proves "fraud or error ... was committed in the counting and canvassing of ballots," they should be asking for an investigation by Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks or state Attorney General Linda Kelly.
But we digress. Back to those five precincts: What happens, hypothetically, if the recount of Bullskin 1 and 2, South Union 1, Masontown 2 and Connellsville 5, magically erases Zimmerlink's 18-vote lead and puts Lohr up by five votes?
Is that result set in stone, because Lohr and his attorney picked those five before the deadline for filing such a request passed? No one from the media has asked or answered that question, to our knowledge. But it should be asked and answered.
Our little hypothetical scenario poses quite a dilemma for Lohr: If the recount does put him up by five votes -- or 50 or 500 or 1, it really doesn't matter -- will he then ask that five more precints be recounted? Or all 98? (Assuming that the law allows for additional requests to be made.)
Or does Lohr say, "No, it took a while, but I'm finally satisfied with the election results. The people have spoken. Thank you, and good night."
You can bet the farm, including all Marcellus gas rights, that if the recount of only five precincts changes the outcome of this race, and if the opportunity to recount the other 93 precincts has already passed, some judicious cherry-picking did the trick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)