For the information of anyone who has missed my regular blogging, please be advised that I'm increasingly preoccupied with seasonal activities with little time left for posting new items. It's likely there'll be little action on this blog at least through the holidays, although serious issues with the unsavory editorial and journalistic practices of the Erie Times-News continue to pile up. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Joe LaRocca
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Much ado about nothing
Remember the anguished wail the Erie Times-News sounded over Summit Township's refusal to give one of its reporter's, on the spot, a copy of its voluminous application for a $14 million grant from the Presque Isle Casino's gaming revenues to cover new infrastructure costs in the township arising from casino activities?
Well there's been a resounding silence from the Times-News since. Seems like its complaint, to quote the Avon bard, was "Much ado about nothing."
Acording to a township spokesperson, a response from the county is expected by year's end. As a reminder, here's my post on the contretemps from Oct 12, 2007, entitled "A lachrymose epistle."
The Erie Times-News mounted its sanctimonious high horse again today with yet another whiny editorial complaining about the Summit Township development authority’s entirely appropriate method of handling one of the newspaper’s reporter’s request for a copy of a voluminous application by the Presque Isle Casino in Summit Township.
The application was for a $14 million county grant to help pay for infrastructure improvements such as roadways, utilities and others necessitated by the installation of the Downs horse racetrack there. At the recent night meeting, the authority voted to forward the completed application to county officials, whose approval of the grant would be required, for their consideration and action.
Despite the newspaper’s lachrymose epistle, its highhanded approach to seeking public information from a public agency at a nighttime meeting of the agency violated all the rules of civil conduct, justifying the low esteem in which newsfolk in general, and those at the Times-News in particular, are held nowadays.[1] The prevailing news and editorial practices of the Erie Times-News indicate why.
As a newspaperman with more than 40 years experience at several newspapers in four states including, among them, The New York Times and, many years ago, The Erie Morning News, I’ve dissected today’s sophomoric Times-News editorial to demonstrate its vacuity.
Editorial: “But when Erie Times-News reporter John Guerriero, acting in the newspaper's role as public watchdog, asked to see the application, the authority said no. It refused a request to allow the public immediate access to a public document.”
Response: This is incorrect.The state law on public records, applicable to municipal subdivisions like Summit Township, provides that public agencies must allow citizens access to public records “during regular business hours.” The meeting in question was held after regular business hours. Nevertheless, the authority did not refuse the reporter’s request to see the application, In fact, the authority’s secretary offered to let him look at it. But he unreasonably insisted on having a copy given to him on the spot. In order to obtain a hard copy, he was told, he would have to submit a request in writing and, if its release were determined to be legal, he would be given a copy after paying reasonable administrative and copying costs, as provided by state law.
Editorial: “This ultimately cost the Erie Times-News $65.50 to get a copy of the document. This would cost you the same, but you can stop by the newspaper to review the document. No charge.”
Response: This is exactly what the authority did, though it wasn’t required to do so by law. It offered to allow the reporter to see the application free of charge at the night meeting. It went above and beyond the legal requirement to accommodate him.
Editorial: “It (what the the authority did) also arrogantly violates the spirit of the law.”
Response: In fact the authority’s action upheld the letter of the law and exceeded its spirit by offering to allow the reporter to see the application without charge at the night meeting, even though it wasn’t required to do so, and its staff and members were fully preoccupied with the urgent business of the meeting. Editorial: “You would no longer have to justify to a public official or bureaucrat why you wanted a public document.”
Response: In fact, existing state law prohibits an agency from asking anyone why he or she wants a copy of any public document. The authority did not ask the Times-News reporter why he wanted a copy of the application.
Editorial: “The new law would begin with the presumption that records held by public agencies are public records.”
Response: The law already ascribes to that presumption, and clearly states what the legal exceptions are to that presumption.
As a multiple award-winning investigative journalist for more than 40 years, I’ve had my battles with public agencies over the release of public information and documents. Despite legal strictures, agency personnel usually have the discretion to waive some or all of them, and can often honor a reasonable request on the spot.
I’ve found that 99 percent of the time, if a reporter approaches agency personnel in a civil manner, they will be more likely to accommodate a request without requiring one to jump through all the legal hoops.
I’ve also tussled with legislative bodies over reforms of freedom of information legislation, and have learned the hard way that it’s a losing battle. The tension between government and those seeking information in its hands will always be with us, with government always holding the upper hand. Reporters and other players seeking access to information in the hands of government and its faceless minions must learn to play by the rules as they are, because the prospects of every changing them are remote or nil.
[1] For example, a new survey from We Media and Zooby Interactive found that 72 percent of survey respondents indicated they were dissatisfied with the quality of American journalism today, primarily because of lack of trustworthiness.
Well there's been a resounding silence from the Times-News since. Seems like its complaint, to quote the Avon bard, was "Much ado about nothing."
Acording to a township spokesperson, a response from the county is expected by year's end. As a reminder, here's my post on the contretemps from Oct 12, 2007, entitled "A lachrymose epistle."
The Erie Times-News mounted its sanctimonious high horse again today with yet another whiny editorial complaining about the Summit Township development authority’s entirely appropriate method of handling one of the newspaper’s reporter’s request for a copy of a voluminous application by the Presque Isle Casino in Summit Township.
The application was for a $14 million county grant to help pay for infrastructure improvements such as roadways, utilities and others necessitated by the installation of the Downs horse racetrack there. At the recent night meeting, the authority voted to forward the completed application to county officials, whose approval of the grant would be required, for their consideration and action.
Despite the newspaper’s lachrymose epistle, its highhanded approach to seeking public information from a public agency at a nighttime meeting of the agency violated all the rules of civil conduct, justifying the low esteem in which newsfolk in general, and those at the Times-News in particular, are held nowadays.[1] The prevailing news and editorial practices of the Erie Times-News indicate why.
As a newspaperman with more than 40 years experience at several newspapers in four states including, among them, The New York Times and, many years ago, The Erie Morning News, I’ve dissected today’s sophomoric Times-News editorial to demonstrate its vacuity.
Editorial: “But when Erie Times-News reporter John Guerriero, acting in the newspaper's role as public watchdog, asked to see the application, the authority said no. It refused a request to allow the public immediate access to a public document.”
Response: This is incorrect.The state law on public records, applicable to municipal subdivisions like Summit Township, provides that public agencies must allow citizens access to public records “during regular business hours.” The meeting in question was held after regular business hours. Nevertheless, the authority did not refuse the reporter’s request to see the application, In fact, the authority’s secretary offered to let him look at it. But he unreasonably insisted on having a copy given to him on the spot. In order to obtain a hard copy, he was told, he would have to submit a request in writing and, if its release were determined to be legal, he would be given a copy after paying reasonable administrative and copying costs, as provided by state law.
Editorial: “This ultimately cost the Erie Times-News $65.50 to get a copy of the document. This would cost you the same, but you can stop by the newspaper to review the document. No charge.”
Response: This is exactly what the authority did, though it wasn’t required to do so by law. It offered to allow the reporter to see the application free of charge at the night meeting. It went above and beyond the legal requirement to accommodate him.
Editorial: “It (what the the authority did) also arrogantly violates the spirit of the law.”
Response: In fact the authority’s action upheld the letter of the law and exceeded its spirit by offering to allow the reporter to see the application without charge at the night meeting, even though it wasn’t required to do so, and its staff and members were fully preoccupied with the urgent business of the meeting. Editorial: “You would no longer have to justify to a public official or bureaucrat why you wanted a public document.”
Response: In fact, existing state law prohibits an agency from asking anyone why he or she wants a copy of any public document. The authority did not ask the Times-News reporter why he wanted a copy of the application.
Editorial: “The new law would begin with the presumption that records held by public agencies are public records.”
Response: The law already ascribes to that presumption, and clearly states what the legal exceptions are to that presumption.
As a multiple award-winning investigative journalist for more than 40 years, I’ve had my battles with public agencies over the release of public information and documents. Despite legal strictures, agency personnel usually have the discretion to waive some or all of them, and can often honor a reasonable request on the spot.
I’ve found that 99 percent of the time, if a reporter approaches agency personnel in a civil manner, they will be more likely to accommodate a request without requiring one to jump through all the legal hoops.
I’ve also tussled with legislative bodies over reforms of freedom of information legislation, and have learned the hard way that it’s a losing battle. The tension between government and those seeking information in its hands will always be with us, with government always holding the upper hand. Reporters and other players seeking access to information in the hands of government and its faceless minions must learn to play by the rules as they are, because the prospects of every changing them are remote or nil.
[1] For example, a new survey from We Media and Zooby Interactive found that 72 percent of survey respondents indicated they were dissatisfied with the quality of American journalism today, primarily because of lack of trustworthiness.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
STILL WANTED: A real public editor
In the guise of a "public editor's" column in today's Erie Times-News, Kevin Cuneo gives us yet another house advertisement heralding the makeover of the paper's weekly Showcase tabloid insert. In retaliation, here's a reprint of my Oct. 21, 2007 post on the subject.
In a recent column, writing as the Erie Times-News’s “public editor,” so-called, Kevin Cuneo introduced by name the “people who represent newspaper’s readers" (Sept. 16, 2007) by serving as volunteers on the Reader Advisory Board. He wrote that they are “the kind of people…who love their daily newspaper, consider it an important part of the community and are never shy about suggesting ways to make it better."
It’s hard for me to believe the board members, who supposedly advise, consult with, discuss and help the editors guide the newspaper's news and editorial content, had anything to do with today’s farcical offering by Cuneo (Sunday, Oct. 21, 2007).Once again, in the guise of the paper’s public editor, Kevin donned his cap as promotions and public relations director to outline a desperation gimmick to increase the company’s declining advertising lineage and readership.
Kevin calls it the “know all about it” program designed to “deliver the details faster and easier than ever before,” (conceding for the first time ever I’m aware of, that the newspaper is less than perfect), apparently a play on the newsboy cry of old, "read all about it." More resembling an in-house ad than a column, today’s “public editor” offering gobbles up about 30 column inches of precious space on the op-ed page which should have been devoted to a serious discussion of public affairs, not to huckstering.
With one broad stroke, Cuneo not only corrupted the position of public editor, but the integrity of the newspaper’s op-ed page as well.If the Times-News reader advisory board is going to serve any useful public service,it could start by urging the newspaper to replace Cuneo with a real public editor who takes the position seriously.
In a recent column, writing as the Erie Times-News’s “public editor,” so-called, Kevin Cuneo introduced by name the “people who represent newspaper’s readers" (Sept. 16, 2007) by serving as volunteers on the Reader Advisory Board. He wrote that they are “the kind of people…who love their daily newspaper, consider it an important part of the community and are never shy about suggesting ways to make it better."
It’s hard for me to believe the board members, who supposedly advise, consult with, discuss and help the editors guide the newspaper's news and editorial content, had anything to do with today’s farcical offering by Cuneo (Sunday, Oct. 21, 2007).Once again, in the guise of the paper’s public editor, Kevin donned his cap as promotions and public relations director to outline a desperation gimmick to increase the company’s declining advertising lineage and readership.
Kevin calls it the “know all about it” program designed to “deliver the details faster and easier than ever before,” (conceding for the first time ever I’m aware of, that the newspaper is less than perfect), apparently a play on the newsboy cry of old, "read all about it." More resembling an in-house ad than a column, today’s “public editor” offering gobbles up about 30 column inches of precious space on the op-ed page which should have been devoted to a serious discussion of public affairs, not to huckstering.
With one broad stroke, Cuneo not only corrupted the position of public editor, but the integrity of the newspaper’s op-ed page as well.If the Times-News reader advisory board is going to serve any useful public service,it could start by urging the newspaper to replace Cuneo with a real public editor who takes the position seriously.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wrong hed, wrong lede, wrong story
Newspapers are infamous for often writing headlines which don’t match or contradict the ensuing article. The Erie Times-News and the Associated Press trumped that anomaly today by putting together both a headline and a lede paragraph which said just the opposite of the rest of the story.
It exemplifies the folly I discussed in my Nov. 15 post entitled "The news media and gas prices: a self-fulling prophecy" which dealt with news media's attempts to predict the news, rather than simply reporting it.
The headline written by a Times-News rim rat over the AP story reads: “Gas prices fall in Erie, but another rise may be ahead.” The head was virtually echoed by the lede paragraph, written by the AP, which reads: “Gas prices in Erie fell to as (sic) low as $3.09 yesterday, but the low cost may be short-lived.” ( I sicced the preceding sentence because the bizarre syntactical construction “to as” is, to say the least, a superfluous redundancy.” Either “fell to $3.09,” or “as low as $3.09” would suffice).
The article then went on to say: “The Associated Press is reporting a surge in oil prices after a fire broke out late Wednesday at a pipeline carrying crude oil from Canada to the Midwest. The fire in northern Minnesota killed two workers and resulted in the shutdown of five pipelines, sparking concerns that supplies could be interrupted.”
The preceding paragraph would appear to be heading in the direction of the sense of the headline and the lede. But the very next paragraph clearly limns the inherent contradiction. It reads:
"A spokeswoman for owner Enbridge Energy told the AP that (sloppy writing here: “that” is redundant) the company has oil stored along the line and at refineries, the pipelines could be closed for several days without disrupting the flow of supply (my emphasis).
Hence, it's illogical to assume, as the Times-News and the AP falsely did, that lower prices would rise again based upon the information provided. Just the facts, please.
It exemplifies the folly I discussed in my Nov. 15 post entitled "The news media and gas prices: a self-fulling prophecy" which dealt with news media's attempts to predict the news, rather than simply reporting it.
The headline written by a Times-News rim rat over the AP story reads: “Gas prices fall in Erie, but another rise may be ahead.” The head was virtually echoed by the lede paragraph, written by the AP, which reads: “Gas prices in Erie fell to as (sic) low as $3.09 yesterday, but the low cost may be short-lived.” ( I sicced the preceding sentence because the bizarre syntactical construction “to as” is, to say the least, a superfluous redundancy.” Either “fell to $3.09,” or “as low as $3.09” would suffice).
The article then went on to say: “The Associated Press is reporting a surge in oil prices after a fire broke out late Wednesday at a pipeline carrying crude oil from Canada to the Midwest. The fire in northern Minnesota killed two workers and resulted in the shutdown of five pipelines, sparking concerns that supplies could be interrupted.”
The preceding paragraph would appear to be heading in the direction of the sense of the headline and the lede. But the very next paragraph clearly limns the inherent contradiction. It reads:
"A spokeswoman for owner Enbridge Energy told the AP that (sloppy writing here: “that” is redundant) the company has oil stored along the line and at refineries, the pipelines could be closed for several days without disrupting the flow of supply (my emphasis).
Hence, it's illogical to assume, as the Times-News and the AP falsely did, that lower prices would rise again based upon the information provided. Just the facts, please.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Mob hysteria fuels runway project
A contagious mob hysteria has overtaken Erie county council and executive Mark DiVecchio, egged on by the development-at-any cost crowd and its mouthpiece, the Times Publishing Co., as they bind taxpayers to superfluous runway expansion at the Erie airport to expand services already underutilized by Erie’s anemic air passenger market,which should be directed towards more traditional and critical county needs.
All county residents must pay one way or another for the runway project, despite the fact that nearly half the county’s residents outside city and Millcreek/Summit boundaries will derive little or no benefit from it. Most of the relatively few who use air passenger services at all, prefer to drive to Buffalo, Cleveland or Pittsburgh where a more convenient and timely array of flights await to serve them.
Any benefit to them from this wasteful expenditure is negligible or non-existent.While all council members share in the political depravity inherent in the airport runway scheme, the principal culprit is the county executive who is pandering to Times-News editorialists and their sycophants.
Proponents claim the runway project is needed to fuel future economic growth which will enhance the entire county. But no one has produced a single credible survey or study to support their contention, nor anything resembling a cost-benefit analysis. Rather, county officials are flying, so to speak, by the seat of their pants
All county residents must pay one way or another for the runway project, despite the fact that nearly half the county’s residents outside city and Millcreek/Summit boundaries will derive little or no benefit from it. Most of the relatively few who use air passenger services at all, prefer to drive to Buffalo, Cleveland or Pittsburgh where a more convenient and timely array of flights await to serve them.
Any benefit to them from this wasteful expenditure is negligible or non-existent.While all council members share in the political depravity inherent in the airport runway scheme, the principal culprit is the county executive who is pandering to Times-News editorialists and their sycophants.
Proponents claim the runway project is needed to fuel future economic growth which will enhance the entire county. But no one has produced a single credible survey or study to support their contention, nor anything resembling a cost-benefit analysis. Rather, county officials are flying, so to speak, by the seat of their pants
Monday, November 26, 2007
Unmitigated hogwash
This is a reprint from October 12, 2007
I want to thank Kevin Cuneo, the Erie Times-News’s alleged “public editor,” for making it so easy for a self-appointed critic like yours truly to do my job. Cuneo’s weekly dissertations in his Sunday column purporting to exercise his role in that regard are sitting ducks.The traditional role of public editors is to represent and advocate for the readers’ points of view, not the newspaper’s. Cuneo consistently does just the opposite. Today’s column is a classic example.
Entitled “Keeping secrets almost always the worst policy,” it represents the newspaper’s point of view, not the reader’s, and should have appeared, if at all, as an editorial in the left-hand column of the editorial page, not as a personal column on the op-ed page. It underscores Cuneo’s failure to adhere to the basic tenet which should guide a public editor, namely that he or she’s supposed to be an advocate for the reader, not the newspaper. In that regard, Cuneo’s column gets an F today.
His opening sentence is equally spurious: “It's a point of pride at the Erie Times-News that the newspaper always stands in the center of the arena and fights for citizens' rights.” Unmitigated hogwash. From that self-serving and readily rebuttable statement, Cuneo segues into a petulant ad hominem attack on the Summit Township Industrial & Economic Development Authority (STIEDA).
One of the authority’s members had submitted a Letter to the Editor published last week justifiably chastising the Times-News for distorting the facts in a story and editorial on the authority’s handling of the Presque Isle Casino’s application to the township for $13.8 million from the county’s share of the casino’s multi-million dollar take.John Guerriero, the reporter who wrote the story, had erroneously reported that the authority had denied his request for a copy of the casino’s application.
In fact, in strict accordance with state law, a member of the authority told Guerriero he would have to submit the request for a copy of the application in writing.If, upon review by counsel, it were determined to be a “public record” not protected by law for proprietary or other legal reasons, a copy would be provided to the Times-News upon payment of a fee to cover reasonable administrative and copying costs. That’s exactly what ultimately happened. All on the up and up.
Among other things, the policy protects the authority and township in borderline cases against the possibility of being sued should the confidentiality of the documents sought to be released be required by law.Nevertheless, the Times-News editorialist, in a puerile hissy fit, called the authority’s behavior “outrageous (twice), wrong, galling, arrogant, exasperating,” epithets which more accurately describe the newspaper’s behavior.
The errant editorial also complained that at a previous meeting “the authority unanimously approved a policy against doing such a thing” (releasing public records without legal review).That was, in fact, a plus. It put the news media and others on notice that the authority might sometime in the future invoke what is already allowable under state law, so observers may be prepared for just such an eventuality.
The fact that the Times-News reporter was caught unawares simply demonstrates he hadn’t done his homework.Enter “public editor” Cuneo. In the Letter to the Editor of the Times-News from the chairman of the STIEDA explaining why the authority required a written request for the casino’s application, and chastising the Times-News for misrepresenting the facts, Board Chairman Brian McGowan wrote: “The written request helps STIEDA know exactly what documents are being requested, and it benefits the requester in the case of denial, so he or she can seek the remedies under the act if desired."
“Denial?” Cuneo wrote. “These are public records. How on earth could they be denied to anybody who requests them?” What Cuneo and his cohorts at the Times-News need is a seminar on the state’s public records law. They would learn, among other things, that not all “public records” meet the criteria for release to the press or anyone else. There are many which do not.
The law states, for example, that public records:
(1)“shall not mean any report, communication or other paper, the publication of which would disclose the institution, progress or result of an investigation undertaken by an agency in the performance of its official duties, except those reports filed by agencies pertaining to safety and health in industrial plants (this is known as the investigatory exception);
(2 ) it shall not include any record, document, material, exhibit, pleading, report, memorandum or other paper, access to or the publication of which is prohibited, restricted or forbidden by statute law or order or decree of court (this is known as the statutory and judicial exception);
(3) or which would operate to the prejudice or impairment of a person's reputation or personal security (this is known as the personal reputation and security exception,)
(4) or which would result in the loss by the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions or commissions or State or municipal authorities of Federal funds (the jeopardy to public funds exception).Whether the state’s public records law is inadequate (It is), or whether the casino should get the requested $13.8 million (No) are not the issues here; merely whether the authority was right or wrong in acting the way it did, and whether the Times-News’s reaction and Cuneo’s broadside were inappropriate.
Clearly, under the law as it exists, the authority did exactly what it should have done. And the Times-News did what no newspaper should do: abuse the power of the press to castigate blameless public officials who were merely doing what state law authorizes them to do.In a burst of feckless magnanimity, Cuneo wrote in his column today: “The Times-News has a copy of the application document. Anyone wishing to review it can call me. It cost the newspaper $65.50, but you can see it for free.”
So there, STIEDA! I guess he told you! Guerierro’s article, Brian Oberle’s editorial (assuming he wrote it as editor of the editorial page), and Cuneo’s column symbolize the culture of arrogance and expectation of special privilege that has prevailed for decades at the Times Publishing Co. from the top down, even when I worked there more than 40 years ago.
Their wishes, however arbitrary, are not to be opposed, they are to be readily gratified, or one risks being trampled in a virtual stampede of published invective.One minor point about the letter the authority wrote to the editor pointing out the errors in both the reporter's story and the editorial. Normally, letters to the editor which are posted on the online edition of the Times-News remain on the electronic Opinion Page for several days.
But this one was removed after only one day. Petty, petty, petty. Furthermore, there's no doubt in my mind that the authority's letter would have been one of, if not the best read item in the paper that day, and should have appeared on the next day's "Most read Stories" list. But it was deliberately omitted therefrom to spare the Times-News news and editorial staff further embarrassment.
I want to thank Kevin Cuneo, the Erie Times-News’s alleged “public editor,” for making it so easy for a self-appointed critic like yours truly to do my job. Cuneo’s weekly dissertations in his Sunday column purporting to exercise his role in that regard are sitting ducks.The traditional role of public editors is to represent and advocate for the readers’ points of view, not the newspaper’s. Cuneo consistently does just the opposite. Today’s column is a classic example.
Entitled “Keeping secrets almost always the worst policy,” it represents the newspaper’s point of view, not the reader’s, and should have appeared, if at all, as an editorial in the left-hand column of the editorial page, not as a personal column on the op-ed page. It underscores Cuneo’s failure to adhere to the basic tenet which should guide a public editor, namely that he or she’s supposed to be an advocate for the reader, not the newspaper. In that regard, Cuneo’s column gets an F today.
His opening sentence is equally spurious: “It's a point of pride at the Erie Times-News that the newspaper always stands in the center of the arena and fights for citizens' rights.” Unmitigated hogwash. From that self-serving and readily rebuttable statement, Cuneo segues into a petulant ad hominem attack on the Summit Township Industrial & Economic Development Authority (STIEDA).
One of the authority’s members had submitted a Letter to the Editor published last week justifiably chastising the Times-News for distorting the facts in a story and editorial on the authority’s handling of the Presque Isle Casino’s application to the township for $13.8 million from the county’s share of the casino’s multi-million dollar take.John Guerriero, the reporter who wrote the story, had erroneously reported that the authority had denied his request for a copy of the casino’s application.
In fact, in strict accordance with state law, a member of the authority told Guerriero he would have to submit the request for a copy of the application in writing.If, upon review by counsel, it were determined to be a “public record” not protected by law for proprietary or other legal reasons, a copy would be provided to the Times-News upon payment of a fee to cover reasonable administrative and copying costs. That’s exactly what ultimately happened. All on the up and up.
Among other things, the policy protects the authority and township in borderline cases against the possibility of being sued should the confidentiality of the documents sought to be released be required by law.Nevertheless, the Times-News editorialist, in a puerile hissy fit, called the authority’s behavior “outrageous (twice), wrong, galling, arrogant, exasperating,” epithets which more accurately describe the newspaper’s behavior.
The errant editorial also complained that at a previous meeting “the authority unanimously approved a policy against doing such a thing” (releasing public records without legal review).That was, in fact, a plus. It put the news media and others on notice that the authority might sometime in the future invoke what is already allowable under state law, so observers may be prepared for just such an eventuality.
The fact that the Times-News reporter was caught unawares simply demonstrates he hadn’t done his homework.Enter “public editor” Cuneo. In the Letter to the Editor of the Times-News from the chairman of the STIEDA explaining why the authority required a written request for the casino’s application, and chastising the Times-News for misrepresenting the facts, Board Chairman Brian McGowan wrote: “The written request helps STIEDA know exactly what documents are being requested, and it benefits the requester in the case of denial, so he or she can seek the remedies under the act if desired."
“Denial?” Cuneo wrote. “These are public records. How on earth could they be denied to anybody who requests them?” What Cuneo and his cohorts at the Times-News need is a seminar on the state’s public records law. They would learn, among other things, that not all “public records” meet the criteria for release to the press or anyone else. There are many which do not.
The law states, for example, that public records:
(1)“shall not mean any report, communication or other paper, the publication of which would disclose the institution, progress or result of an investigation undertaken by an agency in the performance of its official duties, except those reports filed by agencies pertaining to safety and health in industrial plants (this is known as the investigatory exception);
(2 ) it shall not include any record, document, material, exhibit, pleading, report, memorandum or other paper, access to or the publication of which is prohibited, restricted or forbidden by statute law or order or decree of court (this is known as the statutory and judicial exception);
(3) or which would operate to the prejudice or impairment of a person's reputation or personal security (this is known as the personal reputation and security exception,)
(4) or which would result in the loss by the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions or commissions or State or municipal authorities of Federal funds (the jeopardy to public funds exception).Whether the state’s public records law is inadequate (It is), or whether the casino should get the requested $13.8 million (No) are not the issues here; merely whether the authority was right or wrong in acting the way it did, and whether the Times-News’s reaction and Cuneo’s broadside were inappropriate.
Clearly, under the law as it exists, the authority did exactly what it should have done. And the Times-News did what no newspaper should do: abuse the power of the press to castigate blameless public officials who were merely doing what state law authorizes them to do.In a burst of feckless magnanimity, Cuneo wrote in his column today: “The Times-News has a copy of the application document. Anyone wishing to review it can call me. It cost the newspaper $65.50, but you can see it for free.”
So there, STIEDA! I guess he told you! Guerierro’s article, Brian Oberle’s editorial (assuming he wrote it as editor of the editorial page), and Cuneo’s column symbolize the culture of arrogance and expectation of special privilege that has prevailed for decades at the Times Publishing Co. from the top down, even when I worked there more than 40 years ago.
Their wishes, however arbitrary, are not to be opposed, they are to be readily gratified, or one risks being trampled in a virtual stampede of published invective.One minor point about the letter the authority wrote to the editor pointing out the errors in both the reporter's story and the editorial. Normally, letters to the editor which are posted on the online edition of the Times-News remain on the electronic Opinion Page for several days.
But this one was removed after only one day. Petty, petty, petty. Furthermore, there's no doubt in my mind that the authority's letter would have been one of, if not the best read item in the paper that day, and should have appeared on the next day's "Most read Stories" list. But it was deliberately omitted therefrom to spare the Times-News news and editorial staff further embarrassment.
A brilliant idea
Today's reprint is from Oct. 12, 2007.
A special interest group called the Pennsylvania Winery Assn. has advanced a proposal for the state to contribute $500,000 a year to it for the next four years, or $2 million, from the general fund, to subsidize a research and marketing campaign so that its member wineries can thrive, according to an article in the Erie Times-News.
The state already contributes $100,000 to the PWA. But that’s not enough, says North East grape grower and vintner Mario Mazza. “We are asking for something we actually can do something with.”Besides Mazza, the article quotes a spokesperson for the PWA, and two other affluent local winemakers and/or sellers, Doug Morehead and Tim Burch.
The spokesperson, Jennifer Eckinger told a local reporter the number of wineries in Pennsylvania has doubled in the past five years, and could double again with “improved grapes” and a “bigger market.” If the statewide industry doubled between 2002 and 2007 without a $2 million handout, the obvious question is, why can’t it double again without one?
Morehead, a second generation grape grower and vintner, told the reporter: "New York state's investment in the grape and wine industry has provided a return that would make Wall Street green with envv. Research is critical," Morehead said. The $2 million state grant “ would improve our wines and it would definitely speed up the growth we are seeing right now.”And, of course, further enrich them.
If a $2 million research and marketing effort is, as Morehead put it, “critical” to the growth of the state’s wine industry, why shouldn’t the winery owners themselves shell out what they say would equate to 10 cents for every gallon of wine produced, rather than seek a state subsidy?That way, if they like, the wineries could pass on the cost to wine consumers, rather than to the general population, most of whom don’t drink wine, Pennsylvania’s or any other’s.
Burch is quoted as saying: "It would be great if we could get this through. It would do us all a lot of good." Sounds like General Motors talking. Both my grandparents struggled through the Great Depression here in North East before their grape farms prospered during the 1940s and beyond.
The main reason they prospered stemmed not from any state government handout, but from a novel and brilliant idea a shrewd fellow by the name of Jack Kaplan hatched in the early 1950s when he haltingly organized grape farmers into an entity called the National Grape Cooperative.
It enabled them to control their own crop prices and destinies through a marketing arm known as the Welch Grape Juice Co., now Welch Foods, wowing the city slickers down on Wall Street. Doug Morehead’s father was a towering figure in that effort.
If the wineries deserve a state subsidy, why not the men’s store down the street, or the barber shop on the corner, or the hardware store down in the valley, or the restaurant off I-90, or the women’s boutique on Main Street, or the antique shop in the alley, or the book dealer in the strip mall, etc., etc?The Pennsylvania Winery Assn. doesn’t need a $2 million state subsidy to grow its industry. What it needs is a brilliant idea.
A special interest group called the Pennsylvania Winery Assn. has advanced a proposal for the state to contribute $500,000 a year to it for the next four years, or $2 million, from the general fund, to subsidize a research and marketing campaign so that its member wineries can thrive, according to an article in the Erie Times-News.
The state already contributes $100,000 to the PWA. But that’s not enough, says North East grape grower and vintner Mario Mazza. “We are asking for something we actually can do something with.”Besides Mazza, the article quotes a spokesperson for the PWA, and two other affluent local winemakers and/or sellers, Doug Morehead and Tim Burch.
The spokesperson, Jennifer Eckinger told a local reporter the number of wineries in Pennsylvania has doubled in the past five years, and could double again with “improved grapes” and a “bigger market.” If the statewide industry doubled between 2002 and 2007 without a $2 million handout, the obvious question is, why can’t it double again without one?
Morehead, a second generation grape grower and vintner, told the reporter: "New York state's investment in the grape and wine industry has provided a return that would make Wall Street green with envv. Research is critical," Morehead said. The $2 million state grant “ would improve our wines and it would definitely speed up the growth we are seeing right now.”And, of course, further enrich them.
If a $2 million research and marketing effort is, as Morehead put it, “critical” to the growth of the state’s wine industry, why shouldn’t the winery owners themselves shell out what they say would equate to 10 cents for every gallon of wine produced, rather than seek a state subsidy?That way, if they like, the wineries could pass on the cost to wine consumers, rather than to the general population, most of whom don’t drink wine, Pennsylvania’s or any other’s.
Burch is quoted as saying: "It would be great if we could get this through. It would do us all a lot of good." Sounds like General Motors talking. Both my grandparents struggled through the Great Depression here in North East before their grape farms prospered during the 1940s and beyond.
The main reason they prospered stemmed not from any state government handout, but from a novel and brilliant idea a shrewd fellow by the name of Jack Kaplan hatched in the early 1950s when he haltingly organized grape farmers into an entity called the National Grape Cooperative.
It enabled them to control their own crop prices and destinies through a marketing arm known as the Welch Grape Juice Co., now Welch Foods, wowing the city slickers down on Wall Street. Doug Morehead’s father was a towering figure in that effort.
If the wineries deserve a state subsidy, why not the men’s store down the street, or the barber shop on the corner, or the hardware store down in the valley, or the restaurant off I-90, or the women’s boutique on Main Street, or the antique shop in the alley, or the book dealer in the strip mall, etc., etc?The Pennsylvania Winery Assn. doesn’t need a $2 million state subsidy to grow its industry. What it needs is a brilliant idea.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Pennsylvania's "farmland preservation" boondoggle
To relieve somewhat the chore of blogging over the holidays, I plan to re-run some of my more labored posts previously published which may be of interest to those who may not have seen the earlier ones. Today's is a re-print of one that ran back on Oct. 12, 2007.
___________________________________________________
Like an Autumn rite, each fall as the exquisite aroma of ripening Concord grapes permeates the eastern Erie County countryside, the Erie news media hone in on the usual suspects for quotes and sound bites on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the grape crop, including estimated tonnage per acre and sugar content.
Together those factors determine the gross value of the harvest.One or two prominent grape farmers are briefly interviewed for their take on the condition of and prospects for the year’s crop, while an expert over at the regional agricultural experiment station is consulted on more technical aspects, and a manager of the Welch Grape Juice plant in North East, the largest of its kind in the world, lends his expertise on the subject from the perspective of the global marketer.
Occasionally an agronomist is called in to add academia’s glossy imprimatur to the process.These formulaic media reports are relentlessly simplistic, predictable and invariably misleading or worse because the print and broadcast reporters who produce them know little or nothing about the subject, often drowning in arcana and missing the big story.
Today, for example, the Erie Times-News ran an editorial commenting upon the prospective economic impact of the grape crop on Erie County and beyond, summing it up with the headline “Grape industry rebounds” and concluding that “Agriculture is a roller coaster business, as growers know all too well. But right now, these purple, golden and green vineyards are producing plenty of green.”
But only a week or so ago, The Times-News ran an article which said just the opposite. A grape farmer the newspaper’s reporter talked to said - despite what looks like an excellent crop - growers expect little more than a break-even year, with a harvest of six to seven tons of grapes per acre. At this year’s expected prices, the grower said, income from that level of production will barely cover production costs.
Apparently whoever writes and edits the editorials at the Times-News doesn’t bother to read the articles the reporters write.But the Times-News and other Erie media can’t see the vineyard for the grapes. The real story which the Erie news media have missed and ignored for years has nothing to do with cyclical crop and harvest dynamics.
Rather it’s a gradual trend over the past two decades which represents a paradigmatic shift in the grape farming culture, and has quietly transformed the grape growing corps in eastern Erie County with a long tradition of self-reliance from hardy independent folks of yore to government hand-out recipients of hundreds of thousands of dollars, subsidized by taxpayers at all levels of government.
This transformation is the regrettable but unintended consequence (at least for the mindless masses who supported it) of something euphemistically known as the state Farmland Preservation program, enacted into law in 1987 by the Pennsylvania general assembly under the most false of pretenses, yet enthusiastically heralded by the Times-News and other Erie news media as the salvation of Farmland Pennsylvania.
Back about two years ago, The Times-News published an article bearing the garish headline: “Dying on the vine, Concord grape growers struggle to hang on.” A reality check indicated otherwise.While one could sympathize with a few who were hurting, the greater majority of grape vineyard owners in Erie County, especially in the east county, have done very well, thanks to enormous state subsidies many of them have received under the so-called farmland preservation program. It's a get-rich scheme for a select few at the expense of millions of Pennsylvania taxpayers.
In 2005, that ill-advised scheme got a healthy multi-million dollar boost with the passage of the so-called “Growing Green II” ballot proposition by Pennsylvania voters which provided an unspecified but massive amount of funding for the program.During the past 18 years since the program's inception in 1989, more than 50 Erie County farmers within seven municipalities have collectively received more than $7 million from state and local taxpayers for selling development rights on their farms to the county or state under the program.
By selling the development rights to the state for a negotiated sum the farmers agree to continue that acreage in farming activity in perpetuity and never use or sell it for non-farming development purposes.Statewide, about $1 billion has been poured into the program, which was launched with a $100 million statewide general obligation bond issue approved by Pennsylvania's voters in 1987.
The massive subsequent funding - ten times the original amount approved by the voters - however was not subjected to a vote of the people, but has been surreptitiously approved incrementally by the legislature and successive governors, both Republican and Democrat.The awards to individual farmers in Erie County since they began participating in the program in 1994 range from a high of $832,000 for 595 acres committed to the program to a low of $30,000 for 20 acres. Total acreage committed to non-development of farmlands in Erie County since the program began is upwards of 2,500.
Guess what virtually all of them have used some of the windfall they collected from the state for : to develop their non-preserved farmland!The Farmland Preservation Program, a huge financial boondoogle on behalf of participating farmers, real estate developers, land speculators, money changers and other promoters throughout the state, is jointly administered and funded by the state and county governments, with some funds available from township and federal sources as well.
The Erie County Planning Department administers the program locally under state- mandated procedures.One of the program's more insidious features is that it contains no disclaimers prohibiting state or local legislators or officials who have used their public offices to create and administer the program from exploiting and profiting from it by participating, a clear violation of ethical precepts.
While there is no evidence that this has occurred in Erie County, there is no guarantee that it won't. It has occurred frequently in other parts of the state where the program is being implemented far more extensively.While local and state officials and bureaucrats repeatedly claim the program has widespread public and farmer support, in the case of the public, it's unlikely the general public would be supportive if it knew what is really going on behind the extravagant claims of its supporters.
But it doesn't because of the failure of the news media to expose it.At the same time, prospectively eligible farmers who hope to participate in this giveaway program would be foolish not to support it, given the enormous subsidies it makes available to them with no real commitment on their part. Whoever said there’s no free lunch, never heard of Pennsylvania’s farmland preservation program.
The program’s purported goal is to assure permanent preservation of viable agricultural lands in order to protect the state's agricultural economy and culture. Its objective is "to slow the loss of prime farmland to non-agricultural uses," according to the state Bureau of Farmland Preservation in Harrisburg, which administers the program at the state level.
But since its idealized inception nearly two decades ago, the program has taken a sharp turn to the right. Elsewhere in the state, for example in Lancaster County, the largest agricultural county in the state - compared to which the Erie County program is a mere drop in the bucket - it has had the diametrically opposite effect of opening more farmlands to development at much higher prices, putting them out of reach of all but the most affluent.
In a smaller way, it has had the same effect in eastern Erie County and will continue to expand here. In one notable instance in southeastern Pa., the state paid a Montgomery County farmer $3.7 million for the property rights to his 70 acre farm, an average of about $53,000 per acre. Another farmer there was paid $48,000 per acre.
Inevitably, this will happen in Erie and other participating counties as well, albeit on a lesser but munificent scale.While farmers who participate in the program sell the development rights to their land, they can continue to raise, harvest, market and utilize any livestock, crops or products grown or derived from them for their own benefit, in effect, double dipping into the state and local taxpayers' pockets.
They also retain sub-surface rights to any mineral deposits, such as oil and/or gas. The commercial reality which enables the so-called preservation program to gobble up more land than it preserves derives from the fact that the portion of the farmers' land not preserved which adjoins reserved land, over time becomes much more valuable on the real estate housing and commercial market.
That's because private purchasers can be assured the non-preserved farmland they buy on which to build their homes or businesses won't be blighted by unsightly housing, business or industrial developments on adjoining land owing to its preserved farmland status. Their back and front yards will remain forever open to scenic farmland vistas.
This hastens and expands development on non-preserved farmland, as participating farmers jump at the opportunity to exploit rising market prices precipitated by the diminishing amount of land available for development. It also gives them a windfall with which to launch housing and other developments on their non-preserved farmland, thus removing that acreage from farming, an alarming trend which has already begun in east Erie CountyHow the “farmland preservation” boondoggle works.
The monetary amount participating farmers or owners of farmland receive for their land sought to be preserved, called "easements," is derived from the difference for which their land would sell for farming purposes compared to how much it would fetch for development purposes. As a hypothetical if somewhat simplistic example, if Farmer A offered to buy 500 acres from Farmer B for its market value of half a million dollars for farming purposes, and a real estate developer offered Farmer B $750,000 for the same acreage for residential, commercial or industrial development, the state/county would pay Farmer B the half million dollars plus the $250,000 difference to place his acreage in the farmland preservation program instead and retain its farming function.
North East grape farmers outnumber by far those from other parts of Erie County who have been awarded funds under the program since its inception. Plans have been initiated to slow down participation of North East farmers in the program in an effort to spread its limited funding around to other parts of the county previously less favored.
There are four possible funding sources for the farmland preservation program: the county, state and, rarely, federal and township governments. The program was initially funded by a $100 million general obligation bond approved by the voters in 1987, which was heavily lobbied by certain farming, real estate interests, banks, land developers, well-organized land trusts in the nation and others.
The bond issue, though controversial, was readily passed by more than 2 to 1, with 1,172,483 voting for it, 575,330 against. Pennsylvania voters naively supported the bond issue because of its superficially attractive features and deceptive patina which over the years continue to over-ride the program's hidden mercenary realities which defeat the purported goal of farmland preservtion.
Over the years, more than half as much has been expended on the program annually as was provided by the initial $100 million bond issue, although no voter approval has been obtained for the additional funding.Since its inception in 1989 through Sept., 2003, the state and 57 of Pennsylvania's 66 counties have paid about one billion dollars to preserve about 300,000 acres of farmland, according to state figures.
In some southeastern Pennsylvania farming areas, county and municipal bonds have been floated to expand the farmland preservation program because of limitations on government funding.Authorization of these bonds has been fueled by special interest groups having nothing to do with farmland preservation except to profit from it by exploiting the development it is supposed to curb, but which in fact it generates, such as realtors, banks, land developers, general and sub-contractors, and others.
Meanwhile, rank and file voters, duped by the program's duplicitous promoters and the news media's failure to expose them, continue to be led down a merry path. Amortization of these bonds shifts the burden for their repayment onto future generations who have no say in whether they want to assume this burden of debt for a program that has more to do with profiteering and accelerated development of rural landscapes than with farmland preservation.
Pennsylvania owns the dubious distinction of leading the nation in the number of farms and acres of farmland protected, about 300,000. But this distinction is double-edged, because the longer range effect, as noted earlier, has been to open up more farming land to development faster than would otherwise have occurred, but at much higher prices than lower income folks most in need of affordable housing can pay for it.
Back in 1987, when the $100 million general obligation bond proposal was placed before the state's voters, it was aggressively lobbied by farming and other special interests which would benefit from it. But there was one exception.
In Lancaster County, Donald L. Ranck, a prominent and influential farmer in Paradise Twp., along with a handful of devoted supporters, launched a vigorous campaign opposing the bond issue and the program on grounds that, as formulated, its long-range effects would adversely impact both farmland preservation efforts and the interest of taxpayers throughout the state, without commensurate benefits.
Today, Ranck still actively opposes the relentless expansion of the program, while advocating reforms which would sustain the preservation of Pennsylvania's farmland without the deleterious effects he and others claim it promotes in its present form, but so far with limited success in the face of politically powerful development interests.
His proposed reforms would also significantly reduce its exploitation of taxpayer dollars. Says Ranck: "The best prevention for farmland development is allowing landowners to keep their development rights, keep their building rights, keep their management rights. The worst loss of farmland occurs next to 'preserved' farms. This is so obvious you may wonder why the preservation gang can't see it. "We believe they can, but continue their charade for their own personal profit. Future generations will curse them for it!" Rank predicts.
Currently, portions of 2,618 farms and 301,120 acres have been preserved statewide through the program. But the Commonwealth is not keeping track of how much non-preserved farmland has been lost to development as a result of the program since its inception nearly two decades ago. Nor is it letting it be widely known how much it has and will continue to cost blindsided taxpayers statewide for the disproportionate benefit of a very few.
___________________________________________________
Like an Autumn rite, each fall as the exquisite aroma of ripening Concord grapes permeates the eastern Erie County countryside, the Erie news media hone in on the usual suspects for quotes and sound bites on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the grape crop, including estimated tonnage per acre and sugar content.
Together those factors determine the gross value of the harvest.One or two prominent grape farmers are briefly interviewed for their take on the condition of and prospects for the year’s crop, while an expert over at the regional agricultural experiment station is consulted on more technical aspects, and a manager of the Welch Grape Juice plant in North East, the largest of its kind in the world, lends his expertise on the subject from the perspective of the global marketer.
Occasionally an agronomist is called in to add academia’s glossy imprimatur to the process.These formulaic media reports are relentlessly simplistic, predictable and invariably misleading or worse because the print and broadcast reporters who produce them know little or nothing about the subject, often drowning in arcana and missing the big story.
Today, for example, the Erie Times-News ran an editorial commenting upon the prospective economic impact of the grape crop on Erie County and beyond, summing it up with the headline “Grape industry rebounds” and concluding that “Agriculture is a roller coaster business, as growers know all too well. But right now, these purple, golden and green vineyards are producing plenty of green.”
But only a week or so ago, The Times-News ran an article which said just the opposite. A grape farmer the newspaper’s reporter talked to said - despite what looks like an excellent crop - growers expect little more than a break-even year, with a harvest of six to seven tons of grapes per acre. At this year’s expected prices, the grower said, income from that level of production will barely cover production costs.
Apparently whoever writes and edits the editorials at the Times-News doesn’t bother to read the articles the reporters write.But the Times-News and other Erie media can’t see the vineyard for the grapes. The real story which the Erie news media have missed and ignored for years has nothing to do with cyclical crop and harvest dynamics.
Rather it’s a gradual trend over the past two decades which represents a paradigmatic shift in the grape farming culture, and has quietly transformed the grape growing corps in eastern Erie County with a long tradition of self-reliance from hardy independent folks of yore to government hand-out recipients of hundreds of thousands of dollars, subsidized by taxpayers at all levels of government.
This transformation is the regrettable but unintended consequence (at least for the mindless masses who supported it) of something euphemistically known as the state Farmland Preservation program, enacted into law in 1987 by the Pennsylvania general assembly under the most false of pretenses, yet enthusiastically heralded by the Times-News and other Erie news media as the salvation of Farmland Pennsylvania.
Back about two years ago, The Times-News published an article bearing the garish headline: “Dying on the vine, Concord grape growers struggle to hang on.” A reality check indicated otherwise.While one could sympathize with a few who were hurting, the greater majority of grape vineyard owners in Erie County, especially in the east county, have done very well, thanks to enormous state subsidies many of them have received under the so-called farmland preservation program. It's a get-rich scheme for a select few at the expense of millions of Pennsylvania taxpayers.
In 2005, that ill-advised scheme got a healthy multi-million dollar boost with the passage of the so-called “Growing Green II” ballot proposition by Pennsylvania voters which provided an unspecified but massive amount of funding for the program.During the past 18 years since the program's inception in 1989, more than 50 Erie County farmers within seven municipalities have collectively received more than $7 million from state and local taxpayers for selling development rights on their farms to the county or state under the program.
By selling the development rights to the state for a negotiated sum the farmers agree to continue that acreage in farming activity in perpetuity and never use or sell it for non-farming development purposes.Statewide, about $1 billion has been poured into the program, which was launched with a $100 million statewide general obligation bond issue approved by Pennsylvania's voters in 1987.
The massive subsequent funding - ten times the original amount approved by the voters - however was not subjected to a vote of the people, but has been surreptitiously approved incrementally by the legislature and successive governors, both Republican and Democrat.The awards to individual farmers in Erie County since they began participating in the program in 1994 range from a high of $832,000 for 595 acres committed to the program to a low of $30,000 for 20 acres. Total acreage committed to non-development of farmlands in Erie County since the program began is upwards of 2,500.
Guess what virtually all of them have used some of the windfall they collected from the state for : to develop their non-preserved farmland!The Farmland Preservation Program, a huge financial boondoogle on behalf of participating farmers, real estate developers, land speculators, money changers and other promoters throughout the state, is jointly administered and funded by the state and county governments, with some funds available from township and federal sources as well.
The Erie County Planning Department administers the program locally under state- mandated procedures.One of the program's more insidious features is that it contains no disclaimers prohibiting state or local legislators or officials who have used their public offices to create and administer the program from exploiting and profiting from it by participating, a clear violation of ethical precepts.
While there is no evidence that this has occurred in Erie County, there is no guarantee that it won't. It has occurred frequently in other parts of the state where the program is being implemented far more extensively.While local and state officials and bureaucrats repeatedly claim the program has widespread public and farmer support, in the case of the public, it's unlikely the general public would be supportive if it knew what is really going on behind the extravagant claims of its supporters.
But it doesn't because of the failure of the news media to expose it.At the same time, prospectively eligible farmers who hope to participate in this giveaway program would be foolish not to support it, given the enormous subsidies it makes available to them with no real commitment on their part. Whoever said there’s no free lunch, never heard of Pennsylvania’s farmland preservation program.
The program’s purported goal is to assure permanent preservation of viable agricultural lands in order to protect the state's agricultural economy and culture. Its objective is "to slow the loss of prime farmland to non-agricultural uses," according to the state Bureau of Farmland Preservation in Harrisburg, which administers the program at the state level.
But since its idealized inception nearly two decades ago, the program has taken a sharp turn to the right. Elsewhere in the state, for example in Lancaster County, the largest agricultural county in the state - compared to which the Erie County program is a mere drop in the bucket - it has had the diametrically opposite effect of opening more farmlands to development at much higher prices, putting them out of reach of all but the most affluent.
In a smaller way, it has had the same effect in eastern Erie County and will continue to expand here. In one notable instance in southeastern Pa., the state paid a Montgomery County farmer $3.7 million for the property rights to his 70 acre farm, an average of about $53,000 per acre. Another farmer there was paid $48,000 per acre.
Inevitably, this will happen in Erie and other participating counties as well, albeit on a lesser but munificent scale.While farmers who participate in the program sell the development rights to their land, they can continue to raise, harvest, market and utilize any livestock, crops or products grown or derived from them for their own benefit, in effect, double dipping into the state and local taxpayers' pockets.
They also retain sub-surface rights to any mineral deposits, such as oil and/or gas. The commercial reality which enables the so-called preservation program to gobble up more land than it preserves derives from the fact that the portion of the farmers' land not preserved which adjoins reserved land, over time becomes much more valuable on the real estate housing and commercial market.
That's because private purchasers can be assured the non-preserved farmland they buy on which to build their homes or businesses won't be blighted by unsightly housing, business or industrial developments on adjoining land owing to its preserved farmland status. Their back and front yards will remain forever open to scenic farmland vistas.
This hastens and expands development on non-preserved farmland, as participating farmers jump at the opportunity to exploit rising market prices precipitated by the diminishing amount of land available for development. It also gives them a windfall with which to launch housing and other developments on their non-preserved farmland, thus removing that acreage from farming, an alarming trend which has already begun in east Erie CountyHow the “farmland preservation” boondoggle works.
The monetary amount participating farmers or owners of farmland receive for their land sought to be preserved, called "easements," is derived from the difference for which their land would sell for farming purposes compared to how much it would fetch for development purposes. As a hypothetical if somewhat simplistic example, if Farmer A offered to buy 500 acres from Farmer B for its market value of half a million dollars for farming purposes, and a real estate developer offered Farmer B $750,000 for the same acreage for residential, commercial or industrial development, the state/county would pay Farmer B the half million dollars plus the $250,000 difference to place his acreage in the farmland preservation program instead and retain its farming function.
North East grape farmers outnumber by far those from other parts of Erie County who have been awarded funds under the program since its inception. Plans have been initiated to slow down participation of North East farmers in the program in an effort to spread its limited funding around to other parts of the county previously less favored.
There are four possible funding sources for the farmland preservation program: the county, state and, rarely, federal and township governments. The program was initially funded by a $100 million general obligation bond approved by the voters in 1987, which was heavily lobbied by certain farming, real estate interests, banks, land developers, well-organized land trusts in the nation and others.
The bond issue, though controversial, was readily passed by more than 2 to 1, with 1,172,483 voting for it, 575,330 against. Pennsylvania voters naively supported the bond issue because of its superficially attractive features and deceptive patina which over the years continue to over-ride the program's hidden mercenary realities which defeat the purported goal of farmland preservtion.
Over the years, more than half as much has been expended on the program annually as was provided by the initial $100 million bond issue, although no voter approval has been obtained for the additional funding.Since its inception in 1989 through Sept., 2003, the state and 57 of Pennsylvania's 66 counties have paid about one billion dollars to preserve about 300,000 acres of farmland, according to state figures.
In some southeastern Pennsylvania farming areas, county and municipal bonds have been floated to expand the farmland preservation program because of limitations on government funding.Authorization of these bonds has been fueled by special interest groups having nothing to do with farmland preservation except to profit from it by exploiting the development it is supposed to curb, but which in fact it generates, such as realtors, banks, land developers, general and sub-contractors, and others.
Meanwhile, rank and file voters, duped by the program's duplicitous promoters and the news media's failure to expose them, continue to be led down a merry path. Amortization of these bonds shifts the burden for their repayment onto future generations who have no say in whether they want to assume this burden of debt for a program that has more to do with profiteering and accelerated development of rural landscapes than with farmland preservation.
Pennsylvania owns the dubious distinction of leading the nation in the number of farms and acres of farmland protected, about 300,000. But this distinction is double-edged, because the longer range effect, as noted earlier, has been to open up more farming land to development faster than would otherwise have occurred, but at much higher prices than lower income folks most in need of affordable housing can pay for it.
Back in 1987, when the $100 million general obligation bond proposal was placed before the state's voters, it was aggressively lobbied by farming and other special interests which would benefit from it. But there was one exception.
In Lancaster County, Donald L. Ranck, a prominent and influential farmer in Paradise Twp., along with a handful of devoted supporters, launched a vigorous campaign opposing the bond issue and the program on grounds that, as formulated, its long-range effects would adversely impact both farmland preservation efforts and the interest of taxpayers throughout the state, without commensurate benefits.
Today, Ranck still actively opposes the relentless expansion of the program, while advocating reforms which would sustain the preservation of Pennsylvania's farmland without the deleterious effects he and others claim it promotes in its present form, but so far with limited success in the face of politically powerful development interests.
His proposed reforms would also significantly reduce its exploitation of taxpayer dollars. Says Ranck: "The best prevention for farmland development is allowing landowners to keep their development rights, keep their building rights, keep their management rights. The worst loss of farmland occurs next to 'preserved' farms. This is so obvious you may wonder why the preservation gang can't see it. "We believe they can, but continue their charade for their own personal profit. Future generations will curse them for it!" Rank predicts.
Currently, portions of 2,618 farms and 301,120 acres have been preserved statewide through the program. But the Commonwealth is not keeping track of how much non-preserved farmland has been lost to development as a result of the program since its inception nearly two decades ago. Nor is it letting it be widely known how much it has and will continue to cost blindsided taxpayers statewide for the disproportionate benefit of a very few.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
From the Post-Gazette: State bonus investigation a step ahead of shredders
Here's another blockbuster from Dennis Roddy and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette you won't find in your friendly local newspaper because it doesn't staff the state capital. Nor will you find any comment there from local legislators who are once again given a free pass by the local news media.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
By Dennis B. Roddy and Tracie Mauriello, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- State investigators rushed to seize 20 boxes of records from House Democratic offices after a tip that they were about to be destroyed, and now the state attorney general is weighing possible obstruction-of-justice charges in an ongoing probe into the use of state employees for political work.
The boxes, some of which contained political materials, including extensive opposition research into possible Republican opponents, were taken during a surgically executed raid on the Democratic Office of Legislative Research in August.
At the time, according to records in the case, investigators told Judge Barry Feudale Jr. that they had received indications from a confidential informant that employees had been instructed to destroy the records, some of which dated to the early 1990s.
So concerned were agents of the attorney general that they met with Judge Feudale at 7:30 a.m. at the Northumberland County Airport to press their case for an expedited decision on a warrant.
Judge Feudale granted the warrant for the search and seizure. Agents, tipped off to the precise location of the boxes in a bottom-floor room at the K. Leroy Irvis Office Building adjacent to the Capitol, quickly seized the evidence.
Some of the details were in a decision Judge Feudale rendered this month, declaring the records were subject to seizure as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into the use of state employees for political campaigns.
An affidavit attached to the search warrant request indicated that state investigators had been sent a picture of the boxes in the office, where they awaited shredding.
Sources close to the investigation said the order to destroy the records came from inside the
House Democratic caucus, and that agents believed the action was imminent when they arranged the early-morning conference with Judge Feudale, who was en route to a hearing in Wayne County when they obtained the expedited order.
The same sources said Attorney General Tom Corbett now is deciding whether to pursue obstruction charges against those thought to be responsible for the order. Investigators do not believe the destruction would have been routine because some of the files in the boxes appear to have been placed there from outside the legislative research office.
More than a half-dozen employees of the research office have appeared before a statewide grand jury, and last week seven House caucus employees -- including several senior staff members -- were forced out of their jobs.
Investigators have yet to pin down who gave the order to destroy the records, which had been removed from the office files and gathered into cardboard boxes.
Investigators believe that some of the materials found inside the boxes had been transferred to the legislative research office from somewhere else inside the Capitol, and that the files were mixed in with other records slated for routine destruction.
One employee said an order went out from a supervisor to have the boxes removed from legislative research even as state investigators were issuing subpoenas for various documents.
Some documents, sources said, did not find their way into the legislative research files and were destroyed separately. Among items destroyed were computer hard drives as well as various records keeping track of employee hours, employees who worked in the office said.
A source close to Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, said that last week's dismissal of seven caucus employees followed an internal report that said at least one and possibly two of the employees had been involved in the destruction of documents.
A spokesman for Mr. Corbett declined to comment on the matter.
Mr. Corbett is investigating all four legislative caucuses to determine if public funds were used to subsidize campaigns, which would be illegal. So far, though, the investigation appears focused on the House Democratic caucus, which last year distributed $1.9 million in bonuses, more than the other three caucuses combined.
Many of the largest bonuses went to employees who were extensively involved in Democratic leaders' re-election campaigns last year. Some were away from their state jobs for months working on campaigns and received bonuses of as much as $25,065.
Dennis Roddy can be reached at droddy@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1965. Tracie Mauriello can be reached at tmauriello@post-gazette.com or 717-787-2141.
First published on November 22, 2007 at 12:00 am
Thursday, November 22, 2007
By Dennis B. Roddy and Tracie Mauriello, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- State investigators rushed to seize 20 boxes of records from House Democratic offices after a tip that they were about to be destroyed, and now the state attorney general is weighing possible obstruction-of-justice charges in an ongoing probe into the use of state employees for political work.
The boxes, some of which contained political materials, including extensive opposition research into possible Republican opponents, were taken during a surgically executed raid on the Democratic Office of Legislative Research in August.
At the time, according to records in the case, investigators told Judge Barry Feudale Jr. that they had received indications from a confidential informant that employees had been instructed to destroy the records, some of which dated to the early 1990s.
So concerned were agents of the attorney general that they met with Judge Feudale at 7:30 a.m. at the Northumberland County Airport to press their case for an expedited decision on a warrant.
Judge Feudale granted the warrant for the search and seizure. Agents, tipped off to the precise location of the boxes in a bottom-floor room at the K. Leroy Irvis Office Building adjacent to the Capitol, quickly seized the evidence.
Some of the details were in a decision Judge Feudale rendered this month, declaring the records were subject to seizure as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into the use of state employees for political campaigns.
An affidavit attached to the search warrant request indicated that state investigators had been sent a picture of the boxes in the office, where they awaited shredding.
Sources close to the investigation said the order to destroy the records came from inside the
House Democratic caucus, and that agents believed the action was imminent when they arranged the early-morning conference with Judge Feudale, who was en route to a hearing in Wayne County when they obtained the expedited order.
The same sources said Attorney General Tom Corbett now is deciding whether to pursue obstruction charges against those thought to be responsible for the order. Investigators do not believe the destruction would have been routine because some of the files in the boxes appear to have been placed there from outside the legislative research office.
More than a half-dozen employees of the research office have appeared before a statewide grand jury, and last week seven House caucus employees -- including several senior staff members -- were forced out of their jobs.
Investigators have yet to pin down who gave the order to destroy the records, which had been removed from the office files and gathered into cardboard boxes.
Investigators believe that some of the materials found inside the boxes had been transferred to the legislative research office from somewhere else inside the Capitol, and that the files were mixed in with other records slated for routine destruction.
One employee said an order went out from a supervisor to have the boxes removed from legislative research even as state investigators were issuing subpoenas for various documents.
Some documents, sources said, did not find their way into the legislative research files and were destroyed separately. Among items destroyed were computer hard drives as well as various records keeping track of employee hours, employees who worked in the office said.
A source close to Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, said that last week's dismissal of seven caucus employees followed an internal report that said at least one and possibly two of the employees had been involved in the destruction of documents.
A spokesman for Mr. Corbett declined to comment on the matter.
Mr. Corbett is investigating all four legislative caucuses to determine if public funds were used to subsidize campaigns, which would be illegal. So far, though, the investigation appears focused on the House Democratic caucus, which last year distributed $1.9 million in bonuses, more than the other three caucuses combined.
Many of the largest bonuses went to employees who were extensively involved in Democratic leaders' re-election campaigns last year. Some were away from their state jobs for months working on campaigns and received bonuses of as much as $25,065.
Dennis Roddy can be reached at droddy@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1965. Tracie Mauriello can be reached at tmauriello@post-gazette.com or 717-787-2141.
First published on November 22, 2007 at 12:00 am
This decision is wrong for dairy farmers and consumers
Here's a letter to the editor in today's Pittsburgh Post Gazette I thought worthy of attention:
"It's hard to think of a more wrongheaded approach to food labeling or one that is worse for Pennsylvania farmers and for concerned consumers than the standards for labeling of milk recently advanced by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture ("State Clamps Down on Dairy Labeling," Nov. 14).
"They would ban milk labeled as produced by cows without the use of rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) unless the bottler can prove it through laboratory analysis. Though the claim be true, it is not possible to prove via an analysis of the milk.
"Sold by Monsanto Co., rBGH greatly enhances the milk production of an animal and is the country's largest-selling dairy pharmaceutical. Cows given rBGH have higher rates of mastitis and much shorter lives. Thus, it's banned in Canada, the European Union, Australia and Japan. Consumers in the United States who are aware of this fact seek sources of milk that don't involve its use.
Farmers who don't use the drug are stuck in the middle. They cannot compete with the flood of milk produced by those who do. Consumers are left wondering why it's wrong to use performance-enhancing drugs in sports and wrong to drug racehorses and greyhounds, yet OK to drug Bessie.
"Today's consumers are eager to know what they are eating and drinking. And the quality of both is enhanced by the distinctions. A generation ago wine was just wine, and bread was just bread, but today we are long past that. We're in the era of varietal wines, handcrafted breads and artisanal cheeses. So what's with the archaic notion that milk is just milk? Why hamper us with a regulation that can only devalue our product?
"It's the consumer's right to know if milk is produced with hormones or not. What harm is done? Isn't it a fundamental American right to have the freedom to make truthful claims on labels?
Allow the dairy farmers of Pennsylvania to distinguish themselves and make the livings they deserve!"
Don Kretscham
Rochester, PA
"It's hard to think of a more wrongheaded approach to food labeling or one that is worse for Pennsylvania farmers and for concerned consumers than the standards for labeling of milk recently advanced by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture ("State Clamps Down on Dairy Labeling," Nov. 14).
"They would ban milk labeled as produced by cows without the use of rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) unless the bottler can prove it through laboratory analysis. Though the claim be true, it is not possible to prove via an analysis of the milk.
"Sold by Monsanto Co., rBGH greatly enhances the milk production of an animal and is the country's largest-selling dairy pharmaceutical. Cows given rBGH have higher rates of mastitis and much shorter lives. Thus, it's banned in Canada, the European Union, Australia and Japan. Consumers in the United States who are aware of this fact seek sources of milk that don't involve its use.
Farmers who don't use the drug are stuck in the middle. They cannot compete with the flood of milk produced by those who do. Consumers are left wondering why it's wrong to use performance-enhancing drugs in sports and wrong to drug racehorses and greyhounds, yet OK to drug Bessie.
"Today's consumers are eager to know what they are eating and drinking. And the quality of both is enhanced by the distinctions. A generation ago wine was just wine, and bread was just bread, but today we are long past that. We're in the era of varietal wines, handcrafted breads and artisanal cheeses. So what's with the archaic notion that milk is just milk? Why hamper us with a regulation that can only devalue our product?
"It's the consumer's right to know if milk is produced with hormones or not. What harm is done? Isn't it a fundamental American right to have the freedom to make truthful claims on labels?
Allow the dairy farmers of Pennsylvania to distinguish themselves and make the livings they deserve!"
Don Kretscham
Rochester, PA
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Vacation
Unless something extraordinary comes up, I'l be off line through the holidays. Happy holidays to all.
Joe LaRocca
Joe LaRocca
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Scandal in Harrisburg: Where are the Erie news media, legislators?
What role, if any, have the five Erie County state legislators played in allegations that a number of legislative aides, mostly Democrats, received millions of taxpayer dollars in bonuses while campaigning for Democratic candidates in 2005 and 2006? The allegations are under investigation by State Attorney General Tom Corbett, a Republican.
If the county’s three Democrats – Reps. Patrick J. Harkins, John Hornaman and Florindo J. Fabrizi - aren’t directly involved in the investigation or allegations, what do they know and what have they been told by their legislative leaders – who are known to be involved - about this widening scandal?
Why aren’t the Erie Times-News and other local news media trying to get answers to these and other pertinent questions from the three district Democrats? And why aren’t the two local Republican state legislators, Curtis G. Sonney and John Evans, the loyal opposition, volunteering their insights into the Harrisburg mess, or being pursued by the news media for their take on these questionable developments? At least one of the more than $4 million in bonus payoffs was by a Republican legislator.
Does the Times-News perceive its only journalistic responsibility within the legislative realm is to publish wire stories on state capital shenanigans, or collar legislative candidates in editorial board meetings just before an election to justify its dubious electoral endorsements?
According to news reports out of Harrisburg, the House majority leader, Rep. Bill DeWeese (D-Greene), called all House Democrats into a closed door caucus this week to tell them he had decided to fire seven high-paid legislative aides, some of them earnng more than $150,000 in salaries, plus tens of thousands of dollars in suspect bonuses. But DeWeese reportedly didn’t explain to his fellow Democrats why he was taking that action, and either none of them asked why or they aren’t talking.
To whom do local House Democrats owe their loyalty, DeWeese or their constituents?
The firings by DeWeese are widely believed to be a ploy intended to distance the House leadership and other House Democrats linked to the extravagant bonuses from the investigation. Three legislative reform activist groups in the state are calling for DeWeese’s removal as House majority leader.
If the county’s three Democrats – Reps. Patrick J. Harkins, John Hornaman and Florindo J. Fabrizi - aren’t directly involved in the investigation or allegations, what do they know and what have they been told by their legislative leaders – who are known to be involved - about this widening scandal?
Why aren’t the Erie Times-News and other local news media trying to get answers to these and other pertinent questions from the three district Democrats? And why aren’t the two local Republican state legislators, Curtis G. Sonney and John Evans, the loyal opposition, volunteering their insights into the Harrisburg mess, or being pursued by the news media for their take on these questionable developments? At least one of the more than $4 million in bonus payoffs was by a Republican legislator.
Does the Times-News perceive its only journalistic responsibility within the legislative realm is to publish wire stories on state capital shenanigans, or collar legislative candidates in editorial board meetings just before an election to justify its dubious electoral endorsements?
According to news reports out of Harrisburg, the House majority leader, Rep. Bill DeWeese (D-Greene), called all House Democrats into a closed door caucus this week to tell them he had decided to fire seven high-paid legislative aides, some of them earnng more than $150,000 in salaries, plus tens of thousands of dollars in suspect bonuses. But DeWeese reportedly didn’t explain to his fellow Democrats why he was taking that action, and either none of them asked why or they aren’t talking.
To whom do local House Democrats owe their loyalty, DeWeese or their constituents?
The firings by DeWeese are widely believed to be a ploy intended to distance the House leadership and other House Democrats linked to the extravagant bonuses from the investigation. Three legislative reform activist groups in the state are calling for DeWeese’s removal as House majority leader.
Friday, November 16, 2007
State House Dems fired the wrong guys
The state’s largest and most influential newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, in an editorial today, called for the removal of House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, (D-Green). He fired seven high-paid legislative aides this week, including his chief of staff, in an effort to shift the focus from himself and other legislative leaders of the scandal on state bonuses allegedly paid to the aides for political campaigning rather than doing state work.
DeWeese, one of the most corrupt and self-serving legislators in the commonwealth’s history, was instrumental in arranging the controversial legislative and judicial pay raises in the middle of the night without public notice or hearings last year. Here’s the editorial:
Legislative Largesse - The other shoe
The wrong folks lost their jobs in Harrisburg this week.
House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D., Greene) forced out seven Democratic aides, including his chief of staff. DeWeese's desperate move comes amid allegations that party leaders illegally rewarded some aides with taxpayer-funded bonuses for campaign work.
House Democrats appear to be the probe's focus. They awarded about $1.9 million in bonuses in 2006, far more than the House GOP or either party in the Senate.
DeWeese's Tuesday-morning massacre of staffers implies they are the ones responsible for the bonus embarrassment. And perhaps the investigation will show that some aides did abuse bonuses, or tried to hinder the probe. But if anyone needs to go, it's DeWeese.
The sooner House Democrats face up to that reality and choose a new majority leader, the better.Legislators have spent most of this year trying to clean up the pay-raise mess made by DeWeese and other party leaders in 2005. A bipartisan House commission has worked long hours on reform proposals, including an open-records law and changes that discourage back-room deals by legislative leaders.
But all that good work has been undermined by unflattering news about the disgraceful bonuses that came out of DeWeese's shop. Further, the indictment yesterday of a former representative indicated that DeWeese had a role in allowing a relative of that legislator to be paid for work she never did.
DeWeese managed to hang on to his job when most of the old-guard party chiefs responsible for the pay raise were voted out last year. Since then, he has tried to clothe himself as a reformer. But the suit is a poor fit. Not only did DeWeese help to engineer the midnight pay raise, he punished Democrats who voted against it by stripping them of committee posts.
DeWeese has allowed the House version of the open-records proposal this year to become a watered-down sham. No surprise, many of the exceptions added to the bill would shield or exempt the legislature. The House didn't vote as expected on the measure Tuesday - perhaps because the majority leader was too busy axing staffers.
The bonus probe raises two possible scenarios, neither of them good for DeWeese: Either the cash was intended as an illegal reward for campaign work, or it was a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars to encourage loyalty among staffers.
If DeWeese authorized these secret bonuses, he's guilty of arrogance and horrible judgment. If he allowed staffers to run amok, then he is a failure as a leader.
And it's difficult not to keep asking who benefitted from those bonuses. Yes, staffers who received $20,000 or more certainly did. But the lopsided expense by House Democrats in 2006 coincides with their party winning control of the House. And that made DeWeese majority leader.
As long as House Democrats keep DeWeese as their leader, they won't convince anyone that a new day has dawned in Harrisburg.
DeWeese, one of the most corrupt and self-serving legislators in the commonwealth’s history, was instrumental in arranging the controversial legislative and judicial pay raises in the middle of the night without public notice or hearings last year. Here’s the editorial:
Legislative Largesse - The other shoe
The wrong folks lost their jobs in Harrisburg this week.
House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D., Greene) forced out seven Democratic aides, including his chief of staff. DeWeese's desperate move comes amid allegations that party leaders illegally rewarded some aides with taxpayer-funded bonuses for campaign work.
House Democrats appear to be the probe's focus. They awarded about $1.9 million in bonuses in 2006, far more than the House GOP or either party in the Senate.
DeWeese's Tuesday-morning massacre of staffers implies they are the ones responsible for the bonus embarrassment. And perhaps the investigation will show that some aides did abuse bonuses, or tried to hinder the probe. But if anyone needs to go, it's DeWeese.
The sooner House Democrats face up to that reality and choose a new majority leader, the better.Legislators have spent most of this year trying to clean up the pay-raise mess made by DeWeese and other party leaders in 2005. A bipartisan House commission has worked long hours on reform proposals, including an open-records law and changes that discourage back-room deals by legislative leaders.
But all that good work has been undermined by unflattering news about the disgraceful bonuses that came out of DeWeese's shop. Further, the indictment yesterday of a former representative indicated that DeWeese had a role in allowing a relative of that legislator to be paid for work she never did.
DeWeese managed to hang on to his job when most of the old-guard party chiefs responsible for the pay raise were voted out last year. Since then, he has tried to clothe himself as a reformer. But the suit is a poor fit. Not only did DeWeese help to engineer the midnight pay raise, he punished Democrats who voted against it by stripping them of committee posts.
DeWeese has allowed the House version of the open-records proposal this year to become a watered-down sham. No surprise, many of the exceptions added to the bill would shield or exempt the legislature. The House didn't vote as expected on the measure Tuesday - perhaps because the majority leader was too busy axing staffers.
The bonus probe raises two possible scenarios, neither of them good for DeWeese: Either the cash was intended as an illegal reward for campaign work, or it was a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars to encourage loyalty among staffers.
If DeWeese authorized these secret bonuses, he's guilty of arrogance and horrible judgment. If he allowed staffers to run amok, then he is a failure as a leader.
And it's difficult not to keep asking who benefitted from those bonuses. Yes, staffers who received $20,000 or more certainly did. But the lopsided expense by House Democrats in 2006 coincides with their party winning control of the House. And that made DeWeese majority leader.
As long as House Democrats keep DeWeese as their leader, they won't convince anyone that a new day has dawned in Harrisburg.
Specter denies stripping I-80 toll ban amendment
In a Nov. 9 post, I picked up an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporting that Pennsylvania Republican U.S. Senator Arlen Specter had joined Senate Democrats in removing from pending legislation an amendment sponsored by two northwestern Pa. Republican congressmen banning tolls on interstate highways in an effort to defeat a plan to impose tolls on Interstate 80.
U.S. Representatives Phil English of Erie and John Peterson of Venango County have led the fight against the tolls, successfully amending a transportation appropriations bill last summer to ban tolls on all interstate highways. But last week, according to the Post Gazette article by Reporter Ed Blazina, Specter and Senate Democrats, at the request of Governor Ed Rendell, removed their amendment.
But in a letter to the editor published in the Post Gazette today, Senator Specter’s chief of staff in Washington, D.C., Scott Hoeflich, flatly denied Specter helped remove the amendment. Here’s a verbatim copy of his letter:
“The Nov. 10 article 'I-80 Backers Outmaneuver Foes in Congress' wrongly accuses Sen. Arlen Specter of stripping language out of an appropriations bill, thereby enabling tolling of I-80. To the contrary, Sen. Specter did not strip anything out of the bill because the bill contained no provision to prevent tolling I-80.
“This inaccurate description of events was started by a comment by U.S. Rep. John Peterson. Travis Windle, Rep. Peterson's communications director, retracted that assertion when he told The Associated Press that Sen. Specter was not responsible for removal of the language. Additionally, Mr. Windle told the Centre Daily Times that House Democrats prevailed on the House leadership to remove the amendment before moving the bill to the subcommittee. In short, the congressman's assertion is unfounded.
“Sen. Specter has consistently stated that the tolling of I-80 is a matter that should be left up to the states and not people in Washington who do not represent Pennsylvania," Hoeflich said.
At the urging of Governor Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania's General Assembly recently adopted legislation authorizing the collection of tolls on I-80. However, it cannot go into effect without the concurrence of Congress and the Federal Highway Administration.
U.S. Representatives Phil English of Erie and John Peterson of Venango County have led the fight against the tolls, successfully amending a transportation appropriations bill last summer to ban tolls on all interstate highways. But last week, according to the Post Gazette article by Reporter Ed Blazina, Specter and Senate Democrats, at the request of Governor Ed Rendell, removed their amendment.
But in a letter to the editor published in the Post Gazette today, Senator Specter’s chief of staff in Washington, D.C., Scott Hoeflich, flatly denied Specter helped remove the amendment. Here’s a verbatim copy of his letter:
“The Nov. 10 article 'I-80 Backers Outmaneuver Foes in Congress' wrongly accuses Sen. Arlen Specter of stripping language out of an appropriations bill, thereby enabling tolling of I-80. To the contrary, Sen. Specter did not strip anything out of the bill because the bill contained no provision to prevent tolling I-80.
“This inaccurate description of events was started by a comment by U.S. Rep. John Peterson. Travis Windle, Rep. Peterson's communications director, retracted that assertion when he told The Associated Press that Sen. Specter was not responsible for removal of the language. Additionally, Mr. Windle told the Centre Daily Times that House Democrats prevailed on the House leadership to remove the amendment before moving the bill to the subcommittee. In short, the congressman's assertion is unfounded.
“Sen. Specter has consistently stated that the tolling of I-80 is a matter that should be left up to the states and not people in Washington who do not represent Pennsylvania," Hoeflich said.
At the urging of Governor Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania's General Assembly recently adopted legislation authorizing the collection of tolls on I-80. However, it cannot go into effect without the concurrence of Congress and the Federal Highway Administration.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The news media and gas prices: A self-fulfilling prophecy
It's unfortunate when the news media descend from reporting the news to making it by speculating that the price of gasoline is expected to rise substantially, thus transforming the speculation into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Pittburgh Post Gazette, among others, set the stage for the next gas hike with its article today bearing the headline "Record-setting gas prices likely to get worse."
The news media unwittingly pave the way for the price increases on behalf of gasoline producers, refiners and marketers by battering down consumer outrage in advance, so that by the time the price increase actually strikes, consumers are glumly conditioned to the reality which was triggered by the media's uncritical publication of mere suppositions.
News reports like these also erroneously link the rising price of gasoline to the rising price of a barrel of oil, now approaching a record $100 per barrel, implying a cause/effect relationship, when in fact none exists.
The vast bulk of gasoline is produced and sold into wholesale and retail markets by vertically integrated major conglommerates like Exxon Mobil, Shell, Conoco Phillips, BP and others.
They control the price of petroleum products from the wellhead where they produce the oil, downstream to the pipeline and shipping tarrifs they charge themselves to transport it, to the refineries where they process it, to the gas pump where they sell it, earning a profit at every step along the way.
Hence, the rising price of oil does not mean these major producers must raise the price of gasoline due to the higher cost of oil, since they both produce and own the oil, and profit from the higher prices for both the crude oil they produce and the gasoline they sell. In a rational economy, they should be lowering gas prices as the per barrel cost of oil rises.
The Pittburgh Post Gazette, among others, set the stage for the next gas hike with its article today bearing the headline "Record-setting gas prices likely to get worse."
The news media unwittingly pave the way for the price increases on behalf of gasoline producers, refiners and marketers by battering down consumer outrage in advance, so that by the time the price increase actually strikes, consumers are glumly conditioned to the reality which was triggered by the media's uncritical publication of mere suppositions.
News reports like these also erroneously link the rising price of gasoline to the rising price of a barrel of oil, now approaching a record $100 per barrel, implying a cause/effect relationship, when in fact none exists.
The vast bulk of gasoline is produced and sold into wholesale and retail markets by vertically integrated major conglommerates like Exxon Mobil, Shell, Conoco Phillips, BP and others.
They control the price of petroleum products from the wellhead where they produce the oil, downstream to the pipeline and shipping tarrifs they charge themselves to transport it, to the refineries where they process it, to the gas pump where they sell it, earning a profit at every step along the way.
Hence, the rising price of oil does not mean these major producers must raise the price of gasoline due to the higher cost of oil, since they both produce and own the oil, and profit from the higher prices for both the crude oil they produce and the gasoline they sell. In a rational economy, they should be lowering gas prices as the per barrel cost of oil rises.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Judicious editing or crass censorship?
In my Nov. 11 post, “Times-News untruths,” I demonstrated how the newspaper’s so-called public editor, Kevin Cuneo, grossly dissembled in describing how letters to the editor are treated by contrasting a letter I submitted for publication several months ago which was not published with Cuneo’s purported letter-editing criteria. Those which are published, I said, are usually butchered beyond recognition.
Then in my Nov. 13 post, “And now, a word from the captain…,” I quoted copiously from a letter to the editor published Nov. 12 submitted by a local pilot who flies passenger aircraft for Continental Airlines, Captain Dennis Kudlak.In it, he sharply criticized management of Erie International Airport by the current director and airport authority.
I then called Capt. Kudlak on the phone to ask him whether the letter he submitted for publication had been changed in any way. He said it had been drastically cut and revised in a way that seriously detracted from the message he had attempted to convey.
So I asked him to e-mail a copy of his original letter to me as submitted to the Times-News for comparative purposes. Immediately below is the edited copy of his letter. Below that is a copy of the original letter as he submitted it. Does the comparison reflect judicious editing or crass censorship? You be the judge.
First, the edited letter:
Airport needs better direction
In the past, Erie International Airport was well-served by talented people like Mike Mashyna, Chuck Trabold, Vance McBryde (all pilots) and then-Airport Director Ralph DuVze. Those were some of the best minds and sharpest leaders in the Erie aviation community. Airport Director Kelly Fredericks is no Ralph DuVze.
In my opinion, the Erie Municipal Airport Authority members are weak. They are not pilots and have very little knowledge of aviation, if any. During his tenure as airport director, Fredericks has made a negative impact.
The operative term in the 21st century airline industry is "true passenger potential" for a local airport, not simply determining the total traffic generated for this region. Fredericks misleads the community by trying to make us believe that Erie, with a rural airport currently served by regional aircraft (30 to 40 passengers), has a real chance of attracting more numbers of passengers than in previous years. But most of this traffic is at larger airports, by virtue of the current and potential levels of air service available.
We need an airport director and an authority that are a team working together.
Capt. Dennis M. Kudlak
Continental Airlines
Now, Captain Kudlak’s letter as originally submitted to the Timees-News:
In the past, the Erie Airport was well served by talented individuals like Mike Mashyna, Chuck Trabold, Vance McBryde, (all pilots) and Airport Director Ralph DuVze, who comprised some of the best minds and sharpest leaders in the Aviation industry.Kelly Fredericks is no Ralph DuVze.
The current Airport Authority are basically stooges for Mr. Porreco who are not pilots and have very little knowledge of Aviation, if any . During his tenure as Airport Director, I believe that Mr. Fredericks has made a negative impact at the Erie Airport; the loss of Delta Airlines, loss of the German project, the cut-back of US Air flights ,and has done little, if anything, to promote General & Corporate Aviation at the airport.
Mr. Fredericks and his Master Plan for the Erie Airport are accessorized with forecasts that are essentially throw-away data and which have little relationship to the real airline and traffic trends of the future. Erie does not have a realistic approach for growth at the Erie Airport. Mr. Fredericks seems more interested in the growth of his paycheck then the growth of the Airport.
Airlines are now moving aggressively toward bypassing traditional CRS/GDS system and are gaining huge savings by encouraging direct-to-airline bookings via the internet channels. As a result, the internet will increasingly marginalize GDS channels and in the process render inaccurate and distort the traffic data called MIDT – which is used to identify consumer trends.The Operative term in the new, 21st Century Airline industry environment is “true passenger potential” for a local airport, not simply determining the total traffic generated for this region.
Mr.Fredericks misleads the community by trying to make us believe that Erie ,a small rural airport currently served by regional aircraft (30-40 passengers) has a true catchment area of generating more presposterous numbers of passengers then previous years, when most of this traffic really belongs to other larger airports, by virtue of the current and potential levels of air service available.
We need an Airport Director and Authority that are a team working together and that has the expertise to provide assistance that goes beyond expecies.
Captain Dennis M. Kudlak
Continental Airlines
Looks like censorship to me.
Then in my Nov. 13 post, “And now, a word from the captain…,” I quoted copiously from a letter to the editor published Nov. 12 submitted by a local pilot who flies passenger aircraft for Continental Airlines, Captain Dennis Kudlak.In it, he sharply criticized management of Erie International Airport by the current director and airport authority.
I then called Capt. Kudlak on the phone to ask him whether the letter he submitted for publication had been changed in any way. He said it had been drastically cut and revised in a way that seriously detracted from the message he had attempted to convey.
So I asked him to e-mail a copy of his original letter to me as submitted to the Times-News for comparative purposes. Immediately below is the edited copy of his letter. Below that is a copy of the original letter as he submitted it. Does the comparison reflect judicious editing or crass censorship? You be the judge.
First, the edited letter:
Airport needs better direction
In the past, Erie International Airport was well-served by talented people like Mike Mashyna, Chuck Trabold, Vance McBryde (all pilots) and then-Airport Director Ralph DuVze. Those were some of the best minds and sharpest leaders in the Erie aviation community. Airport Director Kelly Fredericks is no Ralph DuVze.
In my opinion, the Erie Municipal Airport Authority members are weak. They are not pilots and have very little knowledge of aviation, if any. During his tenure as airport director, Fredericks has made a negative impact.
The operative term in the 21st century airline industry is "true passenger potential" for a local airport, not simply determining the total traffic generated for this region. Fredericks misleads the community by trying to make us believe that Erie, with a rural airport currently served by regional aircraft (30 to 40 passengers), has a real chance of attracting more numbers of passengers than in previous years. But most of this traffic is at larger airports, by virtue of the current and potential levels of air service available.
We need an airport director and an authority that are a team working together.
Capt. Dennis M. Kudlak
Continental Airlines
Now, Captain Kudlak’s letter as originally submitted to the Timees-News:
In the past, the Erie Airport was well served by talented individuals like Mike Mashyna, Chuck Trabold, Vance McBryde, (all pilots) and Airport Director Ralph DuVze, who comprised some of the best minds and sharpest leaders in the Aviation industry.Kelly Fredericks is no Ralph DuVze.
The current Airport Authority are basically stooges for Mr. Porreco who are not pilots and have very little knowledge of Aviation, if any . During his tenure as Airport Director, I believe that Mr. Fredericks has made a negative impact at the Erie Airport; the loss of Delta Airlines, loss of the German project, the cut-back of US Air flights ,and has done little, if anything, to promote General & Corporate Aviation at the airport.
Mr. Fredericks and his Master Plan for the Erie Airport are accessorized with forecasts that are essentially throw-away data and which have little relationship to the real airline and traffic trends of the future. Erie does not have a realistic approach for growth at the Erie Airport. Mr. Fredericks seems more interested in the growth of his paycheck then the growth of the Airport.
Airlines are now moving aggressively toward bypassing traditional CRS/GDS system and are gaining huge savings by encouraging direct-to-airline bookings via the internet channels. As a result, the internet will increasingly marginalize GDS channels and in the process render inaccurate and distort the traffic data called MIDT – which is used to identify consumer trends.The Operative term in the new, 21st Century Airline industry environment is “true passenger potential” for a local airport, not simply determining the total traffic generated for this region.
Mr.Fredericks misleads the community by trying to make us believe that Erie ,a small rural airport currently served by regional aircraft (30-40 passengers) has a true catchment area of generating more presposterous numbers of passengers then previous years, when most of this traffic really belongs to other larger airports, by virtue of the current and potential levels of air service available.
We need an Airport Director and Authority that are a team working together and that has the expertise to provide assistance that goes beyond expecies.
Captain Dennis M. Kudlak
Continental Airlines
Looks like censorship to me.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
And now, a word from the Captain...
The letter published in the Erie Times-News today submitted by Captain Dennis M. Kudlak of Continental Airlines is a devastating indictment of both the management of Erie’s so-called “international airport,” and management proposals to spend $80 million on the runway extension there in the futile expectation that it would generate enough large aircraft traffic to justify it. These are false expectations which have been swallowed by local politicians and Times-News editorialists hook, line and sinker.
The letter is especially pertinent coming from an airline expert and professional who pilots passenger aircraft to dozens of airports throughout the country, unlike the airport manager and authority, who, as Kudlak notes, have no hands-on field experience. It places a huge question mark over the hasty and rash $26 million dollar deal reached among the city, county and Millcreek of which the runway expansion is a major component.
Especially damning is Kudlak’s comment that airport manager “Fredericks misleads the community by trying to make us believe that Erie, with a rural airport currently served by regional aircraft (30 to 40 passengers), has a real chance of attracting more numbers of passengers than in previous years. But most of this traffic is at larger airports, by virtue of the current and potential levels of air service available.”
Captain Kudlak’s sentiments more or less echo those I wrote in my post here on Nov. 10, to wit: “A viral mob hysteria has overtaken Erie county council and executive Mark DiVecchio, egged on by the development-at-any cost crowd and its mouthpiece, the Times Publishing Co., as they prepare to spend nearly half the $26 million on runway expansion at the Erie airport to expand services already underutilized by Erie’s anemic air passenger market, which should be directed towards more traditional and critical county needs.”
In response to a comment on that post, I replied, in part, that the estimated $80 milion cost of the extension will be a lot more than that if and when the project is completed. There will inevitably be huge cost overruns the county will have to help defray in order to protect its original investment. But in the end, it will likely tank anyway, or require substantial public subsidies to pay off its amortized and operational life cycle costs, or both.
The unsupported assumption behind the proposed runway extension is that a longer runway would create more direct flights in and out of Erie. That’s the same unwarranted assumption and rationale on which Pittsburgh’s “world class” airport was built a decade or so ago.
But look at it now. Dozens of gates designed for big jumbo jets are now closed or servicing small commuter aircraft, with many more to close soon. Since 1997, air passenger traffic at Pittsburgh International has dropped from 21 million to ten million per year. It’s a fiscal disaster area on the way to becoming a ghost town, still in an uncontrolled descent.
It’s the same befuddled mentality which produced the new bayfront convention center destined to become the county’s next white elephant. The runway project is the convention center writ small. Though spectacular, the convention center is a house built of cards – pyramiding assumptions on top of pyramiding assumptions. It too was launched without benefit of credible market surveys and studies, justified by mock projections fabricated by "consultants" with a vested interest in the outcome, and riding on a hope and a prayer.
The letter is especially pertinent coming from an airline expert and professional who pilots passenger aircraft to dozens of airports throughout the country, unlike the airport manager and authority, who, as Kudlak notes, have no hands-on field experience. It places a huge question mark over the hasty and rash $26 million dollar deal reached among the city, county and Millcreek of which the runway expansion is a major component.
Especially damning is Kudlak’s comment that airport manager “Fredericks misleads the community by trying to make us believe that Erie, with a rural airport currently served by regional aircraft (30 to 40 passengers), has a real chance of attracting more numbers of passengers than in previous years. But most of this traffic is at larger airports, by virtue of the current and potential levels of air service available.”
Captain Kudlak’s sentiments more or less echo those I wrote in my post here on Nov. 10, to wit: “A viral mob hysteria has overtaken Erie county council and executive Mark DiVecchio, egged on by the development-at-any cost crowd and its mouthpiece, the Times Publishing Co., as they prepare to spend nearly half the $26 million on runway expansion at the Erie airport to expand services already underutilized by Erie’s anemic air passenger market, which should be directed towards more traditional and critical county needs.”
In response to a comment on that post, I replied, in part, that the estimated $80 milion cost of the extension will be a lot more than that if and when the project is completed. There will inevitably be huge cost overruns the county will have to help defray in order to protect its original investment. But in the end, it will likely tank anyway, or require substantial public subsidies to pay off its amortized and operational life cycle costs, or both.
The unsupported assumption behind the proposed runway extension is that a longer runway would create more direct flights in and out of Erie. That’s the same unwarranted assumption and rationale on which Pittsburgh’s “world class” airport was built a decade or so ago.
But look at it now. Dozens of gates designed for big jumbo jets are now closed or servicing small commuter aircraft, with many more to close soon. Since 1997, air passenger traffic at Pittsburgh International has dropped from 21 million to ten million per year. It’s a fiscal disaster area on the way to becoming a ghost town, still in an uncontrolled descent.
It’s the same befuddled mentality which produced the new bayfront convention center destined to become the county’s next white elephant. The runway project is the convention center writ small. Though spectacular, the convention center is a house built of cards – pyramiding assumptions on top of pyramiding assumptions. It too was launched without benefit of credible market surveys and studies, justified by mock projections fabricated by "consultants" with a vested interest in the outcome, and riding on a hope and a prayer.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
The untruthful Times-News
There’s a truism often heard around courtrooms where Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is practiced which goes like this: “Untruthful in one, untruthful in all.” In other words, if a litigant who asserts a number of points under oath is found to have lied on one of the points, it’s logical to assume the litigant lied on all points, thus discrediting the pleading in its entirety.
And so it is with Sunday’s column in the Erie Times-News by its so-called public editor, Kevin Cuneo. In response to this question from a reader: “Why did you change some of the wording in my letter to the editor? You also shortened it and took some of the "punch" out of it,” Cuneo replied:
“Letters are edited so they conform to newspaper style, which is the same standard for all news stories and columns. “
That's a lie: I’ve written letters to the editors of many newspapers and other publications such as the New York Times, TIME Magazine, USA ToDay and others without knowing what writing styles they use. I’ve never had one edited “for style” except by the Erie Times-News. There are as many styles as there are newspapers and magazines. Most of them have their own writing style manuals.
Cuneo went on to say: “It's a policy shared by many newspapers. In some cases, that means correcting grammar and style, such as making sure the formal names of businesses, groups, people, etc., are listed properly. Letters must also pass the rigors of fact checking, libel law and basic principles of journalism.
Cuneo continued, ad nauseum: “We make every effort to retain the author's writing style, but please keep letters within 250 words. The shorter the better, as readership surveys have shown readers prefer shorter letters.
”Occasionally,” Cuneo droned, “letter writers might not know all the facts, confuse facts with opinion or just shoot from the hip with a verbal six-shooter. Opinion is good, but letters with personal attacks, criticism that exceeds the lines of good taste, obscenity or falsehoods won't be published.”
Lies, lies, all lies. Allow me to demonstrate. Back in June, I sent the following letter to the editor of the Times-News. I received a call from someone who said she was Penny calling for the Times-News to verify that it was I who had sent the letter, not someone posing as me. When I confirmed that I had sent the letter, she thanked me and said it would be published in a few days.
But after waiting a couple weeks without seeing it in print, I sent the same letter to Cuneo in his capacity as “public editor.” It follows:
Dear Kevin,
On May 30, the Times-News ran an editorial lavishly praising the late Pennsylvanian Rachael Carson for her pioneering role in the environmental movement of the 20th Century and the repopulation of bald eagles in some regions of the U.S. The editorial ignores the journalistic adage that there's always more than one side to every story.
In the early 1960s, Ms. Carson demonized the use of the pesticide Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), leading to a widespread ban on its use. The revival of bald eagle populations in the U.S is often attributed to the DDT ban.
Some reputable scientests of late vigorously disagree, citing massive land drainage and critical habitat loss instead. Some of them refer to Ms. Carson's writing as "junk science."
There's an irrefutable downside and incalculable human cost attached to the ban precipitated by Ms. Carson on the use of DDT as a pesticide. Untold tens of thousands of people have died of malaria, typhus and other infections contracted from legions of disease-carrying mosquitoes which the judicious use of DDT would have eradicated.
According to the World Health Organization, after South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in Kwa Zulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Today, after the reintroduction of DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is fewer than 50 per year.
Joe LaRocca
I never heard from Cuneo, and the letter was never published.
Why not? It was under 250 words; my grammar is impeccable;not only did I recite all the facts correctly, I corrected inaccuracies contained in the original editorial; my research was unimpeachable;I did not confuse facts with opinion, although the editorial did; I did not shoot from the hip with a “verbal six shooter (as the editorial writer did); as you, dear reader, can see, my letter did not contain any “personal attacks, criticism that exceeds the lines of good taste, obscenity or falsehoods;” any lawyer will tell you there’s nothing libelous, or even actionable in my letter; I’ve been a professional working journalist for more than 40 years, reporting and writing for some of the most prestigious newspapers in the country, including the New York Times, so I’m well tuned in to the “basic principles of journalism,” far better, I would suggest, than Cuneo or anyone else at the Times-News.
So why wasn’t my letter published? It met all the criteria extolled by Cuneo. I’ll tell you why. Because it contradicted the personal views, beliefs and left-wing ideology of the person who wrote the original editorial, Times-News Editorial Page Editor Bryan Oberle, spouse of one of the heirs of the Times-Publishing Co., embarrassing him by highlighting the factual errors contained in the editorial he wrote.
Apply this approach to all the editors on the Times-News editorial board, and you have the real answer to the question the reader above asked Cuneo: “Why did you change some of the wording in my letter to the editor? You also shortened it and took some of the "punch" out of it.”
If your letter doesn’t satisfy the gauntlet of biases, prejudices, agenda, self-serving policies, warped ideologies and ignorance of each of the members of the Times-News editorial board, it doesn’t get published, or if it does, it's butchered. It’s as simple as that.
Thus, having been demonstrably "untruthful in one" (actually, more than one),can we believe anything Cuneo tells us? I don’t think so. And if short letters of no more than 250 words are so appealing to readers, why don't Cuneo, Ed Mead, Pat Howard, Oberle and their fellow word merchants limit their offerings accordingly?
And so it is with Sunday’s column in the Erie Times-News by its so-called public editor, Kevin Cuneo. In response to this question from a reader: “Why did you change some of the wording in my letter to the editor? You also shortened it and took some of the "punch" out of it,” Cuneo replied:
“Letters are edited so they conform to newspaper style, which is the same standard for all news stories and columns. “
That's a lie: I’ve written letters to the editors of many newspapers and other publications such as the New York Times, TIME Magazine, USA ToDay and others without knowing what writing styles they use. I’ve never had one edited “for style” except by the Erie Times-News. There are as many styles as there are newspapers and magazines. Most of them have their own writing style manuals.
Cuneo went on to say: “It's a policy shared by many newspapers. In some cases, that means correcting grammar and style, such as making sure the formal names of businesses, groups, people, etc., are listed properly. Letters must also pass the rigors of fact checking, libel law and basic principles of journalism.
Cuneo continued, ad nauseum: “We make every effort to retain the author's writing style, but please keep letters within 250 words. The shorter the better, as readership surveys have shown readers prefer shorter letters.
”Occasionally,” Cuneo droned, “letter writers might not know all the facts, confuse facts with opinion or just shoot from the hip with a verbal six-shooter. Opinion is good, but letters with personal attacks, criticism that exceeds the lines of good taste, obscenity or falsehoods won't be published.”
Lies, lies, all lies. Allow me to demonstrate. Back in June, I sent the following letter to the editor of the Times-News. I received a call from someone who said she was Penny calling for the Times-News to verify that it was I who had sent the letter, not someone posing as me. When I confirmed that I had sent the letter, she thanked me and said it would be published in a few days.
But after waiting a couple weeks without seeing it in print, I sent the same letter to Cuneo in his capacity as “public editor.” It follows:
Dear Kevin,
On May 30, the Times-News ran an editorial lavishly praising the late Pennsylvanian Rachael Carson for her pioneering role in the environmental movement of the 20th Century and the repopulation of bald eagles in some regions of the U.S. The editorial ignores the journalistic adage that there's always more than one side to every story.
In the early 1960s, Ms. Carson demonized the use of the pesticide Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), leading to a widespread ban on its use. The revival of bald eagle populations in the U.S is often attributed to the DDT ban.
Some reputable scientests of late vigorously disagree, citing massive land drainage and critical habitat loss instead. Some of them refer to Ms. Carson's writing as "junk science."
There's an irrefutable downside and incalculable human cost attached to the ban precipitated by Ms. Carson on the use of DDT as a pesticide. Untold tens of thousands of people have died of malaria, typhus and other infections contracted from legions of disease-carrying mosquitoes which the judicious use of DDT would have eradicated.
According to the World Health Organization, after South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in Kwa Zulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400 percent increase in malaria deaths. Today, after the reintroduction of DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is fewer than 50 per year.
Joe LaRocca
I never heard from Cuneo, and the letter was never published.
Why not? It was under 250 words; my grammar is impeccable;not only did I recite all the facts correctly, I corrected inaccuracies contained in the original editorial; my research was unimpeachable;I did not confuse facts with opinion, although the editorial did; I did not shoot from the hip with a “verbal six shooter (as the editorial writer did); as you, dear reader, can see, my letter did not contain any “personal attacks, criticism that exceeds the lines of good taste, obscenity or falsehoods;” any lawyer will tell you there’s nothing libelous, or even actionable in my letter; I’ve been a professional working journalist for more than 40 years, reporting and writing for some of the most prestigious newspapers in the country, including the New York Times, so I’m well tuned in to the “basic principles of journalism,” far better, I would suggest, than Cuneo or anyone else at the Times-News.
So why wasn’t my letter published? It met all the criteria extolled by Cuneo. I’ll tell you why. Because it contradicted the personal views, beliefs and left-wing ideology of the person who wrote the original editorial, Times-News Editorial Page Editor Bryan Oberle, spouse of one of the heirs of the Times-Publishing Co., embarrassing him by highlighting the factual errors contained in the editorial he wrote.
Apply this approach to all the editors on the Times-News editorial board, and you have the real answer to the question the reader above asked Cuneo: “Why did you change some of the wording in my letter to the editor? You also shortened it and took some of the "punch" out of it.”
If your letter doesn’t satisfy the gauntlet of biases, prejudices, agenda, self-serving policies, warped ideologies and ignorance of each of the members of the Times-News editorial board, it doesn’t get published, or if it does, it's butchered. It’s as simple as that.
Thus, having been demonstrably "untruthful in one" (actually, more than one),can we believe anything Cuneo tells us? I don’t think so. And if short letters of no more than 250 words are so appealing to readers, why don't Cuneo, Ed Mead, Pat Howard, Oberle and their fellow word merchants limit their offerings accordingly?
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Mob hysteria fuels runway project
A viral mob hysteria has overtaken Erie county council and executive Mark DiVecchio, egged on by the development-at-any cost crowd and its mouthpiece, the Times Publishing Co., as they prepare to spend some $26 million on runway expansion at the Erie airport to expand services already underutilized by Erie’s anemic air passenger market,which should be directed towards more traditional and critical county needs.
Much of the new-found gaming revenues is earmarked by county politicians for the runway project, despite the fact that nearly half the county’s residents outside city and Millcreek/Summit boundaries will derive little or no benefit from it.
Most of the relatively few who use air passenger services at all, prefer to drive to Buffalo, Cleveland or Pittsburgh where a more convenient and timely array of flights await to serve them. Any benefit to them from this wasteful expenditure is negligible or non-existent.
While the county executive and all council members share in the political depravity inherent in the airport runway scheme, the principal culprit is county councilman Kyle Foust, the leader of the runway pack, who is shamefully sacrificing his east county constituency on the altar of his congressional ambitions by pandering to Times-News editorialists and their sycophants.
Proponents claim the runway project is needed to fuel future economic growth which will enhance the entire county. But no one has produced a single credible survey or study to support their contention, nor anything resembling a cost-benefit analysis. Rather, county officials are flying, so to speak, by the seat of their pants.
Much of the new-found gaming revenues is earmarked by county politicians for the runway project, despite the fact that nearly half the county’s residents outside city and Millcreek/Summit boundaries will derive little or no benefit from it.
Most of the relatively few who use air passenger services at all, prefer to drive to Buffalo, Cleveland or Pittsburgh where a more convenient and timely array of flights await to serve them. Any benefit to them from this wasteful expenditure is negligible or non-existent.
While the county executive and all council members share in the political depravity inherent in the airport runway scheme, the principal culprit is county councilman Kyle Foust, the leader of the runway pack, who is shamefully sacrificing his east county constituency on the altar of his congressional ambitions by pandering to Times-News editorialists and their sycophants.
Proponents claim the runway project is needed to fuel future economic growth which will enhance the entire county. But no one has produced a single credible survey or study to support their contention, nor anything resembling a cost-benefit analysis. Rather, county officials are flying, so to speak, by the seat of their pants.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Interstate 80 tolls a virtual certainty after Senate action Thursday
In a key development that seems to have eluded the eagle eyes over at the Erie Times-News, Republican U.S. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, along with Senate Democrats, Thursday night thwarted the efforts of two area Republican congressmen to ban tolls on Interstate 80.
With only one formality to be overcome, approval by the Federal Highway Administration, the imposition of tolls on the interstate, which cuts Pennsylvania in half on an east/west axis, appears to be a done deal.
U.S. Representatives Phil English of Erie and John Peterson of Venango County have led the fight against the tolls, successfully amending a transportation appropriations bill last summer to ban tolls on interstate highways.
But Thursday, Specter and Senate Democrats, at the request of Governor Ed Rendell, removed the English-Peterson amendment from the pending legislation.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette Reporter Ed Blazine quoted English in today's edition bitterly commenting that “The fix is in. It's clear that House Democrats, with the speaker's blessing and without the opportunity for a floor vote, have reversed the decision of the House from a few months ago, leaving I-80 open for the Harrisburg bureaucrats to toll." Peterson was quoted as saying that businesses will be "immensely burdened" by the tolls.
While Pennsylvania’s General Assembly, spurred on by Rendell, recently approved a compromise plan to impose tolls on I-80 as a way of funding mass transit and road and bridge building and maintenance, its action would have been meaningless without Congressional concurrence.
With only one formality to be overcome, approval by the Federal Highway Administration, the imposition of tolls on the interstate, which cuts Pennsylvania in half on an east/west axis, appears to be a done deal.
U.S. Representatives Phil English of Erie and John Peterson of Venango County have led the fight against the tolls, successfully amending a transportation appropriations bill last summer to ban tolls on interstate highways.
But Thursday, Specter and Senate Democrats, at the request of Governor Ed Rendell, removed the English-Peterson amendment from the pending legislation.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette Reporter Ed Blazine quoted English in today's edition bitterly commenting that “The fix is in. It's clear that House Democrats, with the speaker's blessing and without the opportunity for a floor vote, have reversed the decision of the House from a few months ago, leaving I-80 open for the Harrisburg bureaucrats to toll." Peterson was quoted as saying that businesses will be "immensely burdened" by the tolls.
While Pennsylvania’s General Assembly, spurred on by Rendell, recently approved a compromise plan to impose tolls on I-80 as a way of funding mass transit and road and bridge building and maintenance, its action would have been meaningless without Congressional concurrence.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Rick Santorum begins odd job
Today's edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Pennsylvania's largest and the nation's third oldest newspaper,carried the first effort by its newly-hired regular columnist, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, whose column will appear every other Thursday, starting today. It follows:
Rare welcome to a red-blooded conservative
And get ready for some unpredictable ideas.
"Odd." It is, indeed, odd to write a column every other Thursday for a paper that used that very word to describe me. Actually, odd was one of the nicer terms used in The Inquirer to describe me. Imagine these words next to your name in your high school yearbook - disingenuous, snake oil peddler, smug, arrogant, chicken-livered, intolerant and fatalistic. And most of those labels were in news stories.
My new employer also claimed not so long ago that I "inspire contempt" and "have lost my mind" and that my actions bore a remarkable resemblance to Joe McCarthy's. You know? The namesake of McCarthyism. At the time, I took solace from the implied compliment. At least The Inquirer thought I was making a substantial mark on my generation. Not bad for someone they also called a "doofus."
As regular readers of this page know, these pejoratives only scratched the surface of the contempt that this paper - and its readers, in what seemed to me an endless stream of letters to the editor - had for me and my performance in office.
What could have possibly possessed Chris Satullo to invite me to be a columnist shortly before he decided to step down as Editorial Page editor? Maybe it had something to do with his moving on. Other theories range from premature senility to guilt.
Judging from the flood of letters to the paper that followed the announcement, most believe it was a pure business decision to attract more readers. I see: Bring on a writer who got less than 20 percent of the city vote and about 40 percent of the suburban vote in 2006 to expand readership. Shrewd.
I readily admit that most of the readers of The Inquirer may not be big fans of conservative ideas. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the opportunity to consider them. It's an unfortunate fact that over the last decades, the institutional left - Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia - have not only become intolerant of dissent from their own orthodoxies, but also often attack anyone who espouses an opposing view.
I had the honor of speaking at Penn, Temple and Penn State last month. When I asked conservative student organizers at each school about the support they receive from the faculty, they all had the same response: laughter.
But it's really no joke. Most of the great urban daily papers just feign attempts to balance what is invariably a liberal editorial board. George Will or - for years here at The Inquirer - Tom Ferrick was trotted out as the token voice of the great unwashed.
To The Inquirer's credit, it has recently added the ideologically unpredictable Michael Smerconish, and now this red-state, red-blooded conservative to their team. Good for them. I mean, us!
I call my column "The Elephant in the Room" for two reasons. First, it reflects the hope that I can give voice to the thousands of people who either read this section of the paper only as a source of enemy intel or don't read it because it is bad for their blood pressure.
At a time when the conservative movement is rudderless and the lineup of future standard bearers is a mix of Johnnies-come-lately and Johnnies-never-been, I hope to provide some ideas that could help restore America's confidence in the conservative movement.
I also hope that my voice will not be as predictable as some regular readers may think. It may surprise you on occasion, as the few dozen of you who have read my book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good know, that I don't always fit the mold. For example, I have had my share of conservative critics who object to the more activist role for government I favor in dealing with poverty both at home and abroad.
Second, I want to focus many of my columns on the big issues people may not want to confront and offer readers arguments that may, as Editorial Page editor Harold Jackson said in announcing my column on Oct. 24, "shake their prior belief."
I have heard for years that Americans are disgusted with the polarization of politics. Much of that, it seems to me, is because people take the path of least resistance and join the crowd. That is why blue areas in America are getting bluer and red areas redder. Some have so personalized their contempt for the opposing view that they can no longer view issues with any sense of inquiry or objectivity. Neither is good for American democracy.
For our system to work, we must be able to debate issues civilly and compromise. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I don't think compromise is a dirty word. Believe it or not, I was able to pass more than 200 pieces of legislation that I authored. In the Senate, I needed at least five Democrats to vote with me to pass a bill. You can't compromise if you aren't willing to listen to the other side's point of view and incorporate it into your own ideas.
Thank you, Inquirer, for giving me that opportunity - for inviting this elephant into your living room. I hope it proves entertaining and enlightening. I promise to be gentle. The only thing I'd like to trample is readers' expectations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Santorum (rsantorum@phillynews.com) is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center
Rare welcome to a red-blooded conservative
And get ready for some unpredictable ideas.
"Odd." It is, indeed, odd to write a column every other Thursday for a paper that used that very word to describe me. Actually, odd was one of the nicer terms used in The Inquirer to describe me. Imagine these words next to your name in your high school yearbook - disingenuous, snake oil peddler, smug, arrogant, chicken-livered, intolerant and fatalistic. And most of those labels were in news stories.
My new employer also claimed not so long ago that I "inspire contempt" and "have lost my mind" and that my actions bore a remarkable resemblance to Joe McCarthy's. You know? The namesake of McCarthyism. At the time, I took solace from the implied compliment. At least The Inquirer thought I was making a substantial mark on my generation. Not bad for someone they also called a "doofus."
As regular readers of this page know, these pejoratives only scratched the surface of the contempt that this paper - and its readers, in what seemed to me an endless stream of letters to the editor - had for me and my performance in office.
What could have possibly possessed Chris Satullo to invite me to be a columnist shortly before he decided to step down as Editorial Page editor? Maybe it had something to do with his moving on. Other theories range from premature senility to guilt.
Judging from the flood of letters to the paper that followed the announcement, most believe it was a pure business decision to attract more readers. I see: Bring on a writer who got less than 20 percent of the city vote and about 40 percent of the suburban vote in 2006 to expand readership. Shrewd.
I readily admit that most of the readers of The Inquirer may not be big fans of conservative ideas. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the opportunity to consider them. It's an unfortunate fact that over the last decades, the institutional left - Hollywood, the mainstream media and academia - have not only become intolerant of dissent from their own orthodoxies, but also often attack anyone who espouses an opposing view.
I had the honor of speaking at Penn, Temple and Penn State last month. When I asked conservative student organizers at each school about the support they receive from the faculty, they all had the same response: laughter.
But it's really no joke. Most of the great urban daily papers just feign attempts to balance what is invariably a liberal editorial board. George Will or - for years here at The Inquirer - Tom Ferrick was trotted out as the token voice of the great unwashed.
To The Inquirer's credit, it has recently added the ideologically unpredictable Michael Smerconish, and now this red-state, red-blooded conservative to their team. Good for them. I mean, us!
I call my column "The Elephant in the Room" for two reasons. First, it reflects the hope that I can give voice to the thousands of people who either read this section of the paper only as a source of enemy intel or don't read it because it is bad for their blood pressure.
At a time when the conservative movement is rudderless and the lineup of future standard bearers is a mix of Johnnies-come-lately and Johnnies-never-been, I hope to provide some ideas that could help restore America's confidence in the conservative movement.
I also hope that my voice will not be as predictable as some regular readers may think. It may surprise you on occasion, as the few dozen of you who have read my book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good know, that I don't always fit the mold. For example, I have had my share of conservative critics who object to the more activist role for government I favor in dealing with poverty both at home and abroad.
Second, I want to focus many of my columns on the big issues people may not want to confront and offer readers arguments that may, as Editorial Page editor Harold Jackson said in announcing my column on Oct. 24, "shake their prior belief."
I have heard for years that Americans are disgusted with the polarization of politics. Much of that, it seems to me, is because people take the path of least resistance and join the crowd. That is why blue areas in America are getting bluer and red areas redder. Some have so personalized their contempt for the opposing view that they can no longer view issues with any sense of inquiry or objectivity. Neither is good for American democracy.
For our system to work, we must be able to debate issues civilly and compromise. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I don't think compromise is a dirty word. Believe it or not, I was able to pass more than 200 pieces of legislation that I authored. In the Senate, I needed at least five Democrats to vote with me to pass a bill. You can't compromise if you aren't willing to listen to the other side's point of view and incorporate it into your own ideas.
Thank you, Inquirer, for giving me that opportunity - for inviting this elephant into your living room. I hope it proves entertaining and enlightening. I promise to be gentle. The only thing I'd like to trample is readers' expectations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Santorum (rsantorum@phillynews.com) is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center
We have met the enemy: Guess who
In its lead editorial today, the Erie Times-News predictably bewailed the low turnout of voters at Tuesday’s primary election, blaming the weather, voter lethargy and apathy, listless political party leaders and the putative difficulty of contemporary voting logistics. But it neglected to mention one of the most important villains. Itself. Or, as Walt Kelly was wont to say, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Kelly’s lack of grammatical finesse aside, the Erie Times-News must take a large share of the hit for voter apathy by continuing its archaic practice of endorsing candidates, which studies show erode voter participation, especially in a one-newspaper town, the city of Erie’s biggest socio-economic and political dilemma. (See my previous posts: Oct. 22, An archaic and arrogant practice; Oct. 28, The Times-News, Tyranny by oligarchy, and Oct. 29, Times-News political endorsements: Throw out the Filters).
By force-feeding readers its own egalitarian choices in its editorial columns, even pasting color mugshots of the chosen few on its editorial page just before the election, the Times-News perpetuates the real perception that the outcome is a done deal, discouraging voters from exercising their voting franchise.
As a simplistic solution to low voter turnout here, the Times-News says: “Right now, Oregon has a working solution to dramatically increase voter turnout. It's called the mail, and we should use it and other creative solutions.”
Wallowing in its political naivete, the Times-News is either ignorant of or indifferent to the well-established electoral reality that the easier the voting process is made, the more susceptible it becomes to corruption and manipulation.
Kelly’s lack of grammatical finesse aside, the Erie Times-News must take a large share of the hit for voter apathy by continuing its archaic practice of endorsing candidates, which studies show erode voter participation, especially in a one-newspaper town, the city of Erie’s biggest socio-economic and political dilemma. (See my previous posts: Oct. 22, An archaic and arrogant practice; Oct. 28, The Times-News, Tyranny by oligarchy, and Oct. 29, Times-News political endorsements: Throw out the Filters).
By force-feeding readers its own egalitarian choices in its editorial columns, even pasting color mugshots of the chosen few on its editorial page just before the election, the Times-News perpetuates the real perception that the outcome is a done deal, discouraging voters from exercising their voting franchise.
As a simplistic solution to low voter turnout here, the Times-News says: “Right now, Oregon has a working solution to dramatically increase voter turnout. It's called the mail, and we should use it and other creative solutions.”
Wallowing in its political naivete, the Times-News is either ignorant of or indifferent to the well-established electoral reality that the easier the voting process is made, the more susceptible it becomes to corruption and manipulation.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Times-News writer must be more careful
In a Times-News article today about the local port authority’s proposal to sell Ravine Park, Reporter George Miller wrote: “Some residents around Ravine Park are upset about plans to sell the property. They voiced their concerns Wednesday to Erie City Council, who must give approval.”
This, of course, is not just misleading, it’s dead wrong. Where is it written, except in Miller’s story, that council MUST approve the sale. It may or it may not.
What Miller should have written is that any sale of the property “is subject to city council’s approval.” Or he could have written the property “can’t be sold without city council’s approval." What he cannot correctly write is that council must approve the sale.
This, of course, is not just misleading, it’s dead wrong. Where is it written, except in Miller’s story, that council MUST approve the sale. It may or it may not.
What Miller should have written is that any sale of the property “is subject to city council’s approval.” Or he could have written the property “can’t be sold without city council’s approval." What he cannot correctly write is that council must approve the sale.
OIL 150: The birth of a global industry in northwestern Pennslvania
There's an interesting classifed ad in today's Erie Times-News with a link to a new web site announcing an ambitious two-year celebration of the birth nearly 150 years ago of northwestern Pennsylvania's oil industry at Titusville, PA in 1959, the giant first step in establishing what is now the global world of oil and gas.
The web site launches what promises to be a major cultural undertaking that could have a far-reaching impact on the economy and tourism throughout the entire region. Entitled simply OIL 150, here's a verbatim account of what the announcement says:
"From medicine to jet fuel, the oil industry has not only powered progress, but transformed the world. It all began in the United States in 1859 in northwestern Pennsylvania, when Colonel Edwin Drake drilled the first successful commercial well.
"Oil 150 is the official website of the 150th anniversary celebration of the oil industry, which occurs in 2009.
"From now through 2009, this site will be updated with information on anniversary events, educational materials, historical places to visit, commemorative items, and more.
"You are invited to join the celebration and share our pride in an American-born industry that has fueled unparalled progress in lighting, heating and transporting civilizations worldwide.
Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry & Tourism • 206 Seneca St. • PO BOX 128 • Oil City, PA 16301 • 814-677-3152
OIL 150 is administered by the Oil Region Alliance.
Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry & Tourism
206 Seneca St., P.O. BOX 128
Oil City, PA 16301-0128
Phone: 814-677-3152
Fax: 814-677-5206
Website: http://www.oil150.com/
The Oil 150 website also links to a more detailed description of the two-year-long event through 2009, which says, among many other things: "The Oil 150 Committee will pursue federal legislation to create a US Petroleum Sesquicentennial Commission. It continues:
Who We Are
2009 IS THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF OIL
In 1859, “Colonel” Edwin L. Drake and the Seneca Oil Company struck oil in the Venango Oil Field near Titusville, PA. The Drake Well started producing about 40 barrels of oil a day. From such humble beginnings the petroleum industry developed. August 27, 2009 will mark the 150th anniversary of the Drake Well discovery. The Oil 150 Celebration commemorating this event will be a seventeen month celebration from August 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009.
The Drake Well near Titusville, Pennsylvania represents the start of the life-changing events that would not be possible without petroleum. From plastics to medicines, from kerosene to jet-fuel, from mascara to Vaseline, from the oils that lubricate our machines to the asphalt we drive on, most aspects of our lives are impacted by the petroleum industry. The refining of kerosene from oil dramatically changed the course of everyday life by providing an economical, safe, and widely available illuminant to light up the night throughout the world. The refining of gasoline from oil has dramatically changed the course of transportation, commerce, and warfare throughout the world. Achievements by the Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company, the Seneca Oil Company, and “Colonel” Edwin L. Drake at Drake Well ignited a triumph of American ingenuity, inventiveness, and diligence in developing new technologies, new business models, and new industries which remain an inspiration for Americans.
The celebration of Oil 150 creates a unique opportunity for the United States to focus on the historical significance of oil-related events leading up to and following August 27, 1859. The Celebration will recognize the important discoveries and innovations that span across America and around the globe. The Celebration will acknowledge achievements in all functions of the industry including exploration & production, refining, transportation & storage, marketing, and business organization. The Celebration will incorporate the very close parallel development of the natural gas industry. This Celebration is not about a single event, but rather a century and a half of oil and natural gas industry development.
Purposes of the Celebration
Increase worldwide awareness of the sesquicentennial of oil.
Increase national public knowledge and understanding of the significance of the early oil & natural gas industry developments in Pennsylvania.
Educate the public on the petroleum industry’s development.
Educate the public on the social & economic benefits the industry has brought to the nation.
Enhance interest in oil history & oil-related education fields.
Increase tourism at oil-related sites.
Responsibilities of the OIL 150 Steering Committee
Assemble financial resources
Create and lead partnerships
Coordinate an awareness campaign
Educate
Generate publicity
Encourage individuals and organizations to conduct commemorative activities
Maintain a web site and national calendar of events
Maintain a speakers bureau
Represent the Celebration nationally
Educational and Cultural Programs
Conferences and Symposia
The Committee will participate and exhibit at conferences, symposia, and seminars to promote national and international recognition of the sesquicentennial of oil and the oil & natural gas industry.
Public Speakers
The Committee will organize a cadre of speakers for use by public forums to promote oil history & oil industry themes.
Calendar of Events
The Events Calendar will host a wide-ranging list of events from across the nation related to the sesquicentennial of oil and the history of petroleum.
A Focus on Scholarship
Primary resource material available for scholarly research will be identified and located for new work in the field of petroleum history. A bibliography of published oil history will be compiled to enhance scholarship in this field.
Classroom Materials
The Oil 150 Committee will encourage development of educational components for use by schools and libraries. Partnerships with other groups to create curricula and learning opportunities will be pursued.
The Art & Music of Oil
The Committee will encourage works in all the arts that relate to the sesquicentennial of oil and oil history. These could include musical compositions, scripting and enactment of plays, paintings, prints, and sculptures. Photography or art exhibits with a sesquicentennial of oil or oil history theme would be supported.
Exhibits
The Committee will encourage and support sesquicentennial of oil and Oil 150 exhibits at museums, libraries, educational institutions, and other public settings.
Public Outreach
Public outreach will be of major importance to the success of the Celebration. The Celebration will create interest and inspire future generations of engineers, researchers, geologists, inventors, entrepreneurs, economists, and historians.
The Committee will endeavor to unify the efforts of all related organizations and promote the significance of the historic oil industry achievements with one voice.
The Committee will work with national media to create special sesquicentennial of oil programming and encourage corporate participation in telling the story of petroleum.
The Committee will increase awareness of educational resources through media relations, media tours, and Internet interaction.
The Committee will address the public by means of promotional literature, exhibits, web site, and radio & television.
The Oil 150 Committee will pursue federal legislation to create a US Petroleum Sesquicentennial Commission.
Administration
The Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry & Tourism (ORA) administers the Oil 150. The ORA is the manager of the Oil Region National Heritage Area. The mission of ORA is to increase the prosperity and population of the Oil Region National Heritage Area, through the preservation, promotion, development and support of destinations within the Oil Region National Heritage Area. This project was financed in part by a Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation, via Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry & Tourism. Additional funding was furnished by the National Parks Service, the Oil Region Alliance, and the Petroleum History Institute.
Who We Are OIL150 Committee Policies Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry & Tourism • 206 Seneca St. • PO BOX 128 • Oil City, PA 16301 • 814-677-3152
OIL 150 is administered by the Oil Region Alliance.
The web site launches what promises to be a major cultural undertaking that could have a far-reaching impact on the economy and tourism throughout the entire region. Entitled simply OIL 150, here's a verbatim account of what the announcement says:
"From medicine to jet fuel, the oil industry has not only powered progress, but transformed the world. It all began in the United States in 1859 in northwestern Pennsylvania, when Colonel Edwin Drake drilled the first successful commercial well.
"Oil 150 is the official website of the 150th anniversary celebration of the oil industry, which occurs in 2009.
"From now through 2009, this site will be updated with information on anniversary events, educational materials, historical places to visit, commemorative items, and more.
"You are invited to join the celebration and share our pride in an American-born industry that has fueled unparalled progress in lighting, heating and transporting civilizations worldwide.
Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry & Tourism • 206 Seneca St. • PO BOX 128 • Oil City, PA 16301 • 814-677-3152
OIL 150 is administered by the Oil Region Alliance.
Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry & Tourism
206 Seneca St., P.O. BOX 128
Oil City, PA 16301-0128
Phone: 814-677-3152
Fax: 814-677-5206
Website: http://www.oil150.com/
The Oil 150 website also links to a more detailed description of the two-year-long event through 2009, which says, among many other things: "The Oil 150 Committee will pursue federal legislation to create a US Petroleum Sesquicentennial Commission. It continues:
Who We Are
2009 IS THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF OIL
In 1859, “Colonel” Edwin L. Drake and the Seneca Oil Company struck oil in the Venango Oil Field near Titusville, PA. The Drake Well started producing about 40 barrels of oil a day. From such humble beginnings the petroleum industry developed. August 27, 2009 will mark the 150th anniversary of the Drake Well discovery. The Oil 150 Celebration commemorating this event will be a seventeen month celebration from August 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009.
The Drake Well near Titusville, Pennsylvania represents the start of the life-changing events that would not be possible without petroleum. From plastics to medicines, from kerosene to jet-fuel, from mascara to Vaseline, from the oils that lubricate our machines to the asphalt we drive on, most aspects of our lives are impacted by the petroleum industry. The refining of kerosene from oil dramatically changed the course of everyday life by providing an economical, safe, and widely available illuminant to light up the night throughout the world. The refining of gasoline from oil has dramatically changed the course of transportation, commerce, and warfare throughout the world. Achievements by the Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company, the Seneca Oil Company, and “Colonel” Edwin L. Drake at Drake Well ignited a triumph of American ingenuity, inventiveness, and diligence in developing new technologies, new business models, and new industries which remain an inspiration for Americans.
The celebration of Oil 150 creates a unique opportunity for the United States to focus on the historical significance of oil-related events leading up to and following August 27, 1859. The Celebration will recognize the important discoveries and innovations that span across America and around the globe. The Celebration will acknowledge achievements in all functions of the industry including exploration & production, refining, transportation & storage, marketing, and business organization. The Celebration will incorporate the very close parallel development of the natural gas industry. This Celebration is not about a single event, but rather a century and a half of oil and natural gas industry development.
Purposes of the Celebration
Increase worldwide awareness of the sesquicentennial of oil.
Increase national public knowledge and understanding of the significance of the early oil & natural gas industry developments in Pennsylvania.
Educate the public on the petroleum industry’s development.
Educate the public on the social & economic benefits the industry has brought to the nation.
Enhance interest in oil history & oil-related education fields.
Increase tourism at oil-related sites.
Responsibilities of the OIL 150 Steering Committee
Assemble financial resources
Create and lead partnerships
Coordinate an awareness campaign
Educate
Generate publicity
Encourage individuals and organizations to conduct commemorative activities
Maintain a web site and national calendar of events
Maintain a speakers bureau
Represent the Celebration nationally
Educational and Cultural Programs
Conferences and Symposia
The Committee will participate and exhibit at conferences, symposia, and seminars to promote national and international recognition of the sesquicentennial of oil and the oil & natural gas industry.
Public Speakers
The Committee will organize a cadre of speakers for use by public forums to promote oil history & oil industry themes.
Calendar of Events
The Events Calendar will host a wide-ranging list of events from across the nation related to the sesquicentennial of oil and the history of petroleum.
A Focus on Scholarship
Primary resource material available for scholarly research will be identified and located for new work in the field of petroleum history. A bibliography of published oil history will be compiled to enhance scholarship in this field.
Classroom Materials
The Oil 150 Committee will encourage development of educational components for use by schools and libraries. Partnerships with other groups to create curricula and learning opportunities will be pursued.
The Art & Music of Oil
The Committee will encourage works in all the arts that relate to the sesquicentennial of oil and oil history. These could include musical compositions, scripting and enactment of plays, paintings, prints, and sculptures. Photography or art exhibits with a sesquicentennial of oil or oil history theme would be supported.
Exhibits
The Committee will encourage and support sesquicentennial of oil and Oil 150 exhibits at museums, libraries, educational institutions, and other public settings.
Public Outreach
Public outreach will be of major importance to the success of the Celebration. The Celebration will create interest and inspire future generations of engineers, researchers, geologists, inventors, entrepreneurs, economists, and historians.
The Committee will endeavor to unify the efforts of all related organizations and promote the significance of the historic oil industry achievements with one voice.
The Committee will work with national media to create special sesquicentennial of oil programming and encourage corporate participation in telling the story of petroleum.
The Committee will increase awareness of educational resources through media relations, media tours, and Internet interaction.
The Committee will address the public by means of promotional literature, exhibits, web site, and radio & television.
The Oil 150 Committee will pursue federal legislation to create a US Petroleum Sesquicentennial Commission.
Administration
The Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry & Tourism (ORA) administers the Oil 150. The ORA is the manager of the Oil Region National Heritage Area. The mission of ORA is to increase the prosperity and population of the Oil Region National Heritage Area, through the preservation, promotion, development and support of destinations within the Oil Region National Heritage Area. This project was financed in part by a Pennsylvania Heritage Parks Program Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation, via Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry & Tourism. Additional funding was furnished by the National Parks Service, the Oil Region Alliance, and the Petroleum History Institute.
Who We Are OIL150 Committee Policies Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry & Tourism • 206 Seneca St. • PO BOX 128 • Oil City, PA 16301 • 814-677-3152
OIL 150 is administered by the Oil Region Alliance.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Pictures hung, man hanged
In a police beat story today out of Meadville bearing the headline “Man dies in Meadville police custody,” Erie Times-News Reporter Kara Rhodes wrote: “A man in Meadville police custody died after police said he hung himself with his T-shirt.”
Stockings are hung by the chimney with care, and pictures are hung in an art gallery, but people who die of a certain type of asphyxiation are hanged by the neck until dead.
Stockings are hung by the chimney with care, and pictures are hung in an art gallery, but people who die of a certain type of asphyxiation are hanged by the neck until dead.
Times-News "public editor": A travesty
Kevin Cuneo, the Erie Times-News’s self-styled “public editor,” apparently pushed the wrong button on his computer the other day. He sent his nostalgic commentary on the Fuhrman Cider Mill fire to the space where issues dealing with the public’s complaints about the newspaper’s frequent foul-ups should be addressed, instead of sending it to his entertainment / gossip / promotions / public relations page.
The column, entitled “Cider mill fire touches many,” is a moving trip down memory lane for those thousands of area residents who visited and enjoyed the popular venue over the years. But it has nothing to do with the normal business of a “public editor,” which is to advocate for readers, rather than defend the newspapers oft- criticized news and editorial policies and practices.
By any standard of journalism, Cuneo’s columns as“public editor,” including this one, are a travesty of the genre.
The column, entitled “Cider mill fire touches many,” is a moving trip down memory lane for those thousands of area residents who visited and enjoyed the popular venue over the years. But it has nothing to do with the normal business of a “public editor,” which is to advocate for readers, rather than defend the newspapers oft- criticized news and editorial policies and practices.
By any standard of journalism, Cuneo’s columns as“public editor,” including this one, are a travesty of the genre.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Erie Times-News abets election year propaganda
At a press conference in Erie today, U.S. Representative Phil English said he will introduce legislation which would give the president the power of line item veto over the federal budget, according to a report in today's Erie Times-News.
Reporter John Guerriero wrote that “The bill, which English said he will formally introduce this week, would give the president the authority to strip unnecessary and costly ‘pork projects’ from congressional spending bills. The president now only has the authority to veto or accept an entire appropriations bill.”
What the article does not say is that English’s proposal is little more than election year propaganda. In 1998 the U. S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the line item veto act passed by Congress two years earlier after then-President Bill Clinton, the first and only chief executive ever to exercise the power, eliminated 81 spending items from the 1996 federal budget.
His actions were challenged by the city of New York and then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani. On Feb. 12, 1998, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes passed by Congress violates the U.S. Constitution. The decision was affirmed on June 25, 1998 by the Supremes.
The only way the president may be granted line item veto authority is by amendment to the U.S. Constitution. English is safe in proposing such an amendment because he knows a majority, much less a two-thirds majority of Congress would never give any president that much control over the federal pursestrings. All but seven state governors in the nation have some form of line item veto power, expressly authorized by their state constitutions.
Reporter John Guerriero wrote that “The bill, which English said he will formally introduce this week, would give the president the authority to strip unnecessary and costly ‘pork projects’ from congressional spending bills. The president now only has the authority to veto or accept an entire appropriations bill.”
What the article does not say is that English’s proposal is little more than election year propaganda. In 1998 the U. S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the line item veto act passed by Congress two years earlier after then-President Bill Clinton, the first and only chief executive ever to exercise the power, eliminated 81 spending items from the 1996 federal budget.
His actions were challenged by the city of New York and then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani. On Feb. 12, 1998, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes passed by Congress violates the U.S. Constitution. The decision was affirmed on June 25, 1998 by the Supremes.
The only way the president may be granted line item veto authority is by amendment to the U.S. Constitution. English is safe in proposing such an amendment because he knows a majority, much less a two-thirds majority of Congress would never give any president that much control over the federal pursestrings. All but seven state governors in the nation have some form of line item veto power, expressly authorized by their state constitutions.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
"Full of sound and fury..."
At first glance, Ed Pallatella’s long article in Sunday’s Erie Times-News on “How Judge Joyce ruled” promised to be a revealing exposition of the circumstances that led to the judge’s indictment by a federal grand jury on insurance fraud and related charges several months ago, to which Joyce has emphatically pleaded innocent, denying all charges.
Length of the article alone, starting on Page One above the fold, and jumping to Page Four, coupled with what was obviously time-consuming and extensive research into some of the many cases in which Judge Joyce was involved, and how he and his colleagues on the state Superior Court handled them, seemed to augur in favor of significant findings and worthwhile time spent which would shed a welcome and bright light on the case.
But on second glance, and after several re-readings, I was forced to conclude that the article was, to quote the bard of Avon, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Or at least very little.
I’ve followed the case closely since it’s inception. I couldn’t find any pathway in Pallatella’s story which advanced the fundamental premises of the case. It’s long on mundane facts, but short on conclusive findings.
The lead paragraph subtley sets up readers for a finding of culpability on the judge’s part by noting that he “often sided legally with the industry he is now accused of defrauding.” Aha, that lead seems to say, Ed’s got him by the short ones. Read on. But 15 minutes and several thousand words later, we seem to have come full circle, 360 degrees from the beginning back to the beginning again, with nothing resolved along the way.
This is one of those journalistic fishing expeditions in which the reporter/writer begins with a predilection he expects in the end to fulfill, in this case, a series of preconceived rulings on cases before him on which the judge set out prospectively to influence a settlement of his allegedly fraudulent claim magnanimously in his favor.
While it’s true, there was a magnanimous settlement in the judge’s favor (though a terrible outcome), the reporter found no link between it and the judge’s rulings on insurance cases brought before him, even though most of them favored the insurance industry, setting invaluable legal precedents on its behalf.
No link, dammit. No link! That left Ed and his editors with a conundrum. Ed spent countless hours on this story, poring over hundreds, perhaps thousands of pages of court documents in its pursuit, interviewing numerous prominent subjects, ignoring other unrelated stories with potentially meaningful outcomes. But there’s no dramatic denouement here. Plus, the Sunday editor left a big space in the Sunday news hole for the story, with nothing else to fill it at the last minute. Was it all for naught?
Wait, someone says. The story is long. It’s detailed. It’s a liberal education on the operation of the state Superior Court. It’s well written. It has lots of quotes from important people. We know it doesn’t mean anything, but if we give it top play, maybe nobody will notice.
Sorry, folks. The emperor has no clothes.
The one aspect of the case which cries for enlightenment, and which Pallatella ignores once again in this most recent of his series of writings on this important matter, is why he has never identified or interviewed the driver of the Ford Explorer which rear-ended Judge Joyce’s Mercedes, leading to his unexamined claim and munificent settlements.
Surely that driver, whoever he or she is, could provide some compelling insight into the judge’s behavior and conduct in the wake of the accident, or perhaps even contradict his version of events.
Is it possible, for example that Judge Joyce not only fabricated the extent of his injuries, if he did, but also deliberately caused the other driver to collide with his vehicle in order to set up his allegedly fraudulent insurance claims? That’s a growing trend in auto insurance fraud in some venues. If the judge were capable of fabricating the fraudulent aftermath of the “accident,” why not the accident itself?
Despite his indefatigable inquiries into this case, Pallatella seems to be intent upon avoiding what may be the most significant question it raises.
Finally, it’s poor form to separate the accused’s assertion of innocence from the first mention of the charges against him, as Pallatella did here. The former should follow directly on the heels of the latter, and should have been in the lead or second paragraph of this story.
Length of the article alone, starting on Page One above the fold, and jumping to Page Four, coupled with what was obviously time-consuming and extensive research into some of the many cases in which Judge Joyce was involved, and how he and his colleagues on the state Superior Court handled them, seemed to augur in favor of significant findings and worthwhile time spent which would shed a welcome and bright light on the case.
But on second glance, and after several re-readings, I was forced to conclude that the article was, to quote the bard of Avon, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Or at least very little.
I’ve followed the case closely since it’s inception. I couldn’t find any pathway in Pallatella’s story which advanced the fundamental premises of the case. It’s long on mundane facts, but short on conclusive findings.
The lead paragraph subtley sets up readers for a finding of culpability on the judge’s part by noting that he “often sided legally with the industry he is now accused of defrauding.” Aha, that lead seems to say, Ed’s got him by the short ones. Read on. But 15 minutes and several thousand words later, we seem to have come full circle, 360 degrees from the beginning back to the beginning again, with nothing resolved along the way.
This is one of those journalistic fishing expeditions in which the reporter/writer begins with a predilection he expects in the end to fulfill, in this case, a series of preconceived rulings on cases before him on which the judge set out prospectively to influence a settlement of his allegedly fraudulent claim magnanimously in his favor.
While it’s true, there was a magnanimous settlement in the judge’s favor (though a terrible outcome), the reporter found no link between it and the judge’s rulings on insurance cases brought before him, even though most of them favored the insurance industry, setting invaluable legal precedents on its behalf.
No link, dammit. No link! That left Ed and his editors with a conundrum. Ed spent countless hours on this story, poring over hundreds, perhaps thousands of pages of court documents in its pursuit, interviewing numerous prominent subjects, ignoring other unrelated stories with potentially meaningful outcomes. But there’s no dramatic denouement here. Plus, the Sunday editor left a big space in the Sunday news hole for the story, with nothing else to fill it at the last minute. Was it all for naught?
Wait, someone says. The story is long. It’s detailed. It’s a liberal education on the operation of the state Superior Court. It’s well written. It has lots of quotes from important people. We know it doesn’t mean anything, but if we give it top play, maybe nobody will notice.
Sorry, folks. The emperor has no clothes.
The one aspect of the case which cries for enlightenment, and which Pallatella ignores once again in this most recent of his series of writings on this important matter, is why he has never identified or interviewed the driver of the Ford Explorer which rear-ended Judge Joyce’s Mercedes, leading to his unexamined claim and munificent settlements.
Surely that driver, whoever he or she is, could provide some compelling insight into the judge’s behavior and conduct in the wake of the accident, or perhaps even contradict his version of events.
Is it possible, for example that Judge Joyce not only fabricated the extent of his injuries, if he did, but also deliberately caused the other driver to collide with his vehicle in order to set up his allegedly fraudulent insurance claims? That’s a growing trend in auto insurance fraud in some venues. If the judge were capable of fabricating the fraudulent aftermath of the “accident,” why not the accident itself?
Despite his indefatigable inquiries into this case, Pallatella seems to be intent upon avoiding what may be the most significant question it raises.
Finally, it’s poor form to separate the accused’s assertion of innocence from the first mention of the charges against him, as Pallatella did here. The former should follow directly on the heels of the latter, and should have been in the lead or second paragraph of this story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
