Pennsylvania's new "Right to Know " law, which goes into effect
next month, governs public access to public records. Its
"Sunshine" law governs access to public meetings. As reported
today in the Erie Times-News, the General Assembly made some
significant improvements to the existing Right to Know law earlier
this year, which were signed into law by Governor Ed Rendell in
February. It did not address the Sunshine law, which remains
woefully deficient.
The new Right to Know law leaves much to be desired in terms of
transparency, and should merely be viewed as a work in progress.
Right to Know advocates should continue to pressure legislators
for more transparency and openness. They should also continue
their efforts to reform the commonwealth's Sunshine law.
The new Right to Know law’s two most important features are its
unprecedented inclusivity; it draws virtually every publicly
funded agency,including for the first time, the legislature,
state universities and some private recipients of public funds,
within its reach;and it shifts from the requester to the agency
the burden of proving whether information being sought is public.
While the new law requires public agencies to assume that all
records in their hands are public unless they are expressly
exempted, it also establishes a staggering number of exemptions.
There are 30 broad categories of exemptions, plus numerous
sub-categories, bringing the total number of exemptions to
nearly 100.
The new Right to Know law could, with only a slight bow to
hyperbole, be subtitled, the Pennsylvania Continuous Attorney
Employment Act of 2008, as the commonwealth’s hundreds of
agencies at every level wrestle to comply with its intermingling
provisions, laden with legal jargon, especially during the
early years of its implementation before its provisions become
settled law.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The Erie School District Swindle: Part Two
Today’s Erie Times-News carries a follow-up of an on-going
story about the Erie School District’s lawsuit against JP Morgan
Chase which the school district alleges overcharged it more than
$1 million for financial services several years ago.
Today’s article focuses on the school district's efforts to
have the case heard in federal district court here in Erie,
whereas the banking consortium wants it held in federal court
in Manhattan. What this otherwise informative story lacks is
background and context which tells us how the Erie School
District got into the dilemma described in the Times-News article.
For example, not once is the name of the person perhaps most
responsible for its predicament, nor his leading role in it
mentioned,longtime Schools Superintendent James Barker, although
a photo of him accompanies the article.
Following is a piece I posted on my blog "Erie Counter News Media"
more than a year ago, on October 14, 2007 which may provide some
helpful context.
_____________________________________________________
Times-News Reporter Ed Pallatella fell hook, line and sinker
for School Superintendent James Barker's fancy spiel about
how the school district may have paid an unknown but presumably
excessive amount in fees to the broker, J.P. Morgan, which
managed the refinancing of $37 million in bonded indebtedness
for the district back in 2003.
If Barker had couched his tale of woe in memorandum form it
could have been called what is colloquially known as a CYA Memo,
and I don't believe I have to spell that out.
Don't know if Barker ever heard the old saw "The buck stops
here," and "here" is directly on his oversized desk. Yet he
managed by inference to blame everyone but himself for the
school district's loss, whatever it is, although it appears
to be at least $750,000, or half of what the school board
was told its profit would be from the refinancing scheme,
plus whatever excess fees may have been paid to the broker,
if any, plus the $60,000 the district paid to a downstate
financial firm to advise it (badly, it appears) on how to
handle the refinacing.
But I suspect, and I believe Barker knows the loss will be
significant, or he wouldn't have gone to the lengths he
did to concoct his convoluted cover story.
Then, of course, there will also be the huge but unknown
prospective expense the school district's taxpayers will
have to bear to litigate Barker's faux pax, thus compounding
the loss, coupled with the prospect that the outcome of the
litigation may be a big fat zero for the school district.
There's no doubt Barker is the culprit here, but you'd never
know it without reading between the lines of Pallatella's story,
which provides an elaborate if convenient escape route for
the superintendent.
He's presumably the high-priced expert the board pays big bucks
plus perks to guide them through financial morasses like this one.
And it appears all he had to do in 2003 was insist on knowing what
the refinancing fee would be, a no brainer in most business
environments except, apparently, in the superintendent's suite.
But instead, he allowed himself and the school board to be stiffed
by slick New York bankers, assuming pending litigation shows that's
what happened.
A further irony is that it took an enterprising reporter with
Bloomberg News in New York City to uncover this major story in
the Times-News's own backyard
story about the Erie School District’s lawsuit against JP Morgan
Chase which the school district alleges overcharged it more than
$1 million for financial services several years ago.
Today’s article focuses on the school district's efforts to
have the case heard in federal district court here in Erie,
whereas the banking consortium wants it held in federal court
in Manhattan. What this otherwise informative story lacks is
background and context which tells us how the Erie School
District got into the dilemma described in the Times-News article.
For example, not once is the name of the person perhaps most
responsible for its predicament, nor his leading role in it
mentioned,longtime Schools Superintendent James Barker, although
a photo of him accompanies the article.
Following is a piece I posted on my blog "Erie Counter News Media"
more than a year ago, on October 14, 2007 which may provide some
helpful context.
_____________________________________________________
Times-News Reporter Ed Pallatella fell hook, line and sinker
for School Superintendent James Barker's fancy spiel about
how the school district may have paid an unknown but presumably
excessive amount in fees to the broker, J.P. Morgan, which
managed the refinancing of $37 million in bonded indebtedness
for the district back in 2003.
If Barker had couched his tale of woe in memorandum form it
could have been called what is colloquially known as a CYA Memo,
and I don't believe I have to spell that out.
Don't know if Barker ever heard the old saw "The buck stops
here," and "here" is directly on his oversized desk. Yet he
managed by inference to blame everyone but himself for the
school district's loss, whatever it is, although it appears
to be at least $750,000, or half of what the school board
was told its profit would be from the refinancing scheme,
plus whatever excess fees may have been paid to the broker,
if any, plus the $60,000 the district paid to a downstate
financial firm to advise it (badly, it appears) on how to
handle the refinacing.
But I suspect, and I believe Barker knows the loss will be
significant, or he wouldn't have gone to the lengths he
did to concoct his convoluted cover story.
Then, of course, there will also be the huge but unknown
prospective expense the school district's taxpayers will
have to bear to litigate Barker's faux pax, thus compounding
the loss, coupled with the prospect that the outcome of the
litigation may be a big fat zero for the school district.
There's no doubt Barker is the culprit here, but you'd never
know it without reading between the lines of Pallatella's story,
which provides an elaborate if convenient escape route for
the superintendent.
He's presumably the high-priced expert the board pays big bucks
plus perks to guide them through financial morasses like this one.
And it appears all he had to do in 2003 was insist on knowing what
the refinancing fee would be, a no brainer in most business
environments except, apparently, in the superintendent's suite.
But instead, he allowed himself and the school board to be stiffed
by slick New York bankers, assuming pending litigation shows that's
what happened.
A further irony is that it took an enterprising reporter with
Bloomberg News in New York City to uncover this major story in
the Times-News's own backyard
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Think again, Ed
There are some items in Ed Mead's column today which
warrant some comment. Here's how the column headline read:
Legislative pay cut unlikely
Then he wrote: "It is not certain, but there is talk in
Harrisburg that one of the ways to reduce the budget is to
cut back on salaries of state legislators. That might be a
tough law to get passed, since the legislators would be
voting to cut their own salaries."
There's no "talk" I'm aware of pertaining to legislators
voting to cut their own salaries, but there is widespread
discussion over the prospect of disallowing this years 2.8
percent cost of living allowance (COLA)for legislators, judges
and certain other elected and appointed state offices which
goes automatically goes into effect each year, thanks to a
self-serving law the legislature enacted about 20 years ago.
Ed also wrote:
Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, 85, had held that Senate seat
for 40 years, longer than any Republican in history. After
being convicted recently, it was hard to see how he could
expect to keep his seat against his Democratic opponent,
Mark Begich. He lost the seat in a close race.
The reason Ted Stevens lost his reelection bid to
the U.S. Senate is because he was stuck in Washington,
D.C, defending himself against dubious charges during his
trial and unable to campaign for reelection in Alaska,
while his opponent campaigned freely throughout that vast
constitutency. Stevens has appealed his conviction on
grounds of proven prosecutorial and juror misconduct which
should have resulted in a mistrial,if not dismissal of the charges.
Thirdly, Ed wrote:
President-elect Barack Obama is looking ahead and knows that by naming Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state, he will eliminate one possible opponent for a second term in 2012.
Hillary Clinton's appointment as secretary of state does nothing do preclude her presidential candidacy in the 2012 election. Indeed it strenghtens and emboldens her hand by butressing her foreign policy credentials and political stature.
Delete It Cancel
warrant some comment. Here's how the column headline read:
Legislative pay cut unlikely
Then he wrote: "It is not certain, but there is talk in
Harrisburg that one of the ways to reduce the budget is to
cut back on salaries of state legislators. That might be a
tough law to get passed, since the legislators would be
voting to cut their own salaries."
There's no "talk" I'm aware of pertaining to legislators
voting to cut their own salaries, but there is widespread
discussion over the prospect of disallowing this years 2.8
percent cost of living allowance (COLA)for legislators, judges
and certain other elected and appointed state offices which
goes automatically goes into effect each year, thanks to a
self-serving law the legislature enacted about 20 years ago.
Ed also wrote:
Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, 85, had held that Senate seat
for 40 years, longer than any Republican in history. After
being convicted recently, it was hard to see how he could
expect to keep his seat against his Democratic opponent,
Mark Begich. He lost the seat in a close race.
The reason Ted Stevens lost his reelection bid to
the U.S. Senate is because he was stuck in Washington,
D.C, defending himself against dubious charges during his
trial and unable to campaign for reelection in Alaska,
while his opponent campaigned freely throughout that vast
constitutency. Stevens has appealed his conviction on
grounds of proven prosecutorial and juror misconduct which
should have resulted in a mistrial,if not dismissal of the charges.
Thirdly, Ed wrote:
President-elect Barack Obama is looking ahead and knows that by naming Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state, he will eliminate one possible opponent for a second term in 2012.
Hillary Clinton's appointment as secretary of state does nothing do preclude her presidential candidacy in the 2012 election. Indeed it strenghtens and emboldens her hand by butressing her foreign policy credentials and political stature.
Delete It Cancel
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Erie Times-News story misses the main point
According to an article in the Erie Times-News today written by Reporter Kevin Flowers, around 3 am. Thursday, a stainless steel water filter on the sixth floor of the Erie County Court House failed during extensive renovations there.
"The breakdown sent as many as 900 gallons of water cascading downward through the courthouse’s east wing, soaking ceiling tiles, saturating carpets and splashing computers, telephones and other office equipment", Flowers wrote. " It also set off a chain of events that postponed scheduled hearings and shut down business at the courthouse, 140 W. Sixth St., for the entire day.
"Among the areas damaged was the fifth floor, where a $3.9 million renovation project is nearing completion. Although courthouse rumors Thursday put the damage at as much as $1 million, DiVecchio and other county officials said it could take a day or two to determine that," according to Flowers.
Flowers said "Luigi Pasquale, the courthouse’s manager of procurement and the supervisor of county facilities, said insurance is expected to cover most of the loss.
'I think it’s under control now,'’ said DiVecchio, who consulted with President Judge Elizabeth K. Kelly, Sheriff Bob Merski and other county officials before deciding around 8 a.m. Thursday to shut the building down and send roughly 600 courthouse employees home for the day.
According to Flowers,Pasquale said the water filter was installed about four months ago. The county has a $25,000 deductible for such damage, Pasquale said, which means that county dollars would cover the first $25,000 of repair and insurance would cover of the rest."
The above is yet another example of poor, partial and superficial reporting by the Erie Times News.
The article answers the fundamental questions of what, where and when, but neglects the crucial question of "why." Why did the filter fail? Was it factory defective, or was there human error in installing it?
In either case, taxpayers should not have to pay for the damages and repairs, or for the costs of sending home 600 county employees while repairs are effected..
Basic investigation could and should determine where the blame for the failure lies, and the accountable party or parties should be assessed accordingly.
Do your job, Kevin and quit glossing over and covering up the failures of your buddies at the courthouse.
"The breakdown sent as many as 900 gallons of water cascading downward through the courthouse’s east wing, soaking ceiling tiles, saturating carpets and splashing computers, telephones and other office equipment", Flowers wrote. " It also set off a chain of events that postponed scheduled hearings and shut down business at the courthouse, 140 W. Sixth St., for the entire day.
"Among the areas damaged was the fifth floor, where a $3.9 million renovation project is nearing completion. Although courthouse rumors Thursday put the damage at as much as $1 million, DiVecchio and other county officials said it could take a day or two to determine that," according to Flowers.
Flowers said "Luigi Pasquale, the courthouse’s manager of procurement and the supervisor of county facilities, said insurance is expected to cover most of the loss.
'I think it’s under control now,'’ said DiVecchio, who consulted with President Judge Elizabeth K. Kelly, Sheriff Bob Merski and other county officials before deciding around 8 a.m. Thursday to shut the building down and send roughly 600 courthouse employees home for the day.
According to Flowers,Pasquale said the water filter was installed about four months ago. The county has a $25,000 deductible for such damage, Pasquale said, which means that county dollars would cover the first $25,000 of repair and insurance would cover of the rest."
The above is yet another example of poor, partial and superficial reporting by the Erie Times News.
The article answers the fundamental questions of what, where and when, but neglects the crucial question of "why." Why did the filter fail? Was it factory defective, or was there human error in installing it?
In either case, taxpayers should not have to pay for the damages and repairs, or for the costs of sending home 600 county employees while repairs are effected..
Basic investigation could and should determine where the blame for the failure lies, and the accountable party or parties should be assessed accordingly.
Do your job, Kevin and quit glossing over and covering up the failures of your buddies at the courthouse.
Anothe Erie Times-News puff piece
The following article appeared in today's edition of the Erie Times-News.
Robbins re-elected to leadership post
State Sen. Bob Robbins, of Greenville, R-50th Dist., has been re-elected by his Senate GOP colleagues to a leadership position for the 2009-10 legislative session.
Robbins was re-elected Senate majority caucus secretary. As such, he handles all nominations submitted by the governor to the Senate for approval.
Robbins ensures that the Senate receives all background information and coordinates the review of nominations by committees and the full Senate.
As part of Senate leadership, Robbins also plays a role in setting the Senate's agenda."Serving in leadership gives residents of northwest Pennsylvania a stronger voice in state government affairs,'' Robbins said in prepared remarks.
Where did this story come from? Except for the abstract quote at the end, none of it is attributed to anyone. It reads like an unedited press release issued by the Senate Republican caucus or Robbins's office.
Why do state senators need someone in a "leadership" position to ensure "that the Senate receives all background information and coordinates the review of nominations by committees and the full Senate."
The nominations come directly from the governor's office. Can't they or their staffs do it for themselves. Is this just another excuse to reward party loyalty with a position that pays more than rank and file senators are paid and purports to justify additional staff?
The reporter who filed this story and the editor(s) who edited it should be ashamed of themselves for letting this puff piece get through without an iota of critical scrutiny.
Robbins re-elected to leadership post
State Sen. Bob Robbins, of Greenville, R-50th Dist., has been re-elected by his Senate GOP colleagues to a leadership position for the 2009-10 legislative session.
Robbins was re-elected Senate majority caucus secretary. As such, he handles all nominations submitted by the governor to the Senate for approval.
Robbins ensures that the Senate receives all background information and coordinates the review of nominations by committees and the full Senate.
As part of Senate leadership, Robbins also plays a role in setting the Senate's agenda."Serving in leadership gives residents of northwest Pennsylvania a stronger voice in state government affairs,'' Robbins said in prepared remarks.
Where did this story come from? Except for the abstract quote at the end, none of it is attributed to anyone. It reads like an unedited press release issued by the Senate Republican caucus or Robbins's office.
Why do state senators need someone in a "leadership" position to ensure "that the Senate receives all background information and coordinates the review of nominations by committees and the full Senate."
The nominations come directly from the governor's office. Can't they or their staffs do it for themselves. Is this just another excuse to reward party loyalty with a position that pays more than rank and file senators are paid and purports to justify additional staff?
The reporter who filed this story and the editor(s) who edited it should be ashamed of themselves for letting this puff piece get through without an iota of critical scrutiny.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Gwen Ifel's blatant conflict of interest
Governor Palin clearly won Thursday night's vice presidential
debate despite the blatant pro-Obama/Biden bias of Moderator
Gwen Ifel, who chose and posed questions she knew would play
to Biden's strengths and Palin's weaknesses.
Formerly with the left-wing New York Times, now with the
ultra left-wing PBS News Hour, Ifel brazenly allowed Biden
to rebut Palin time after time, while cutting off Palin's
attempts to rebut Biden.
Because of her glaring conflict of interest, Ifel should
have been yanked as moderator. Her pro-Obama book,
scheduled to be released on presidential inauguration
day in January, will tank if Obama/Biden lose the election.
If Obama loses, she sells a couple thousand copies; if he wins,
she sells half a million copies.
debate despite the blatant pro-Obama/Biden bias of Moderator
Gwen Ifel, who chose and posed questions she knew would play
to Biden's strengths and Palin's weaknesses.
Formerly with the left-wing New York Times, now with the
ultra left-wing PBS News Hour, Ifel brazenly allowed Biden
to rebut Palin time after time, while cutting off Palin's
attempts to rebut Biden.
Because of her glaring conflict of interest, Ifel should
have been yanked as moderator. Her pro-Obama book,
scheduled to be released on presidential inauguration
day in January, will tank if Obama/Biden lose the election.
If Obama loses, she sells a couple thousand copies; if he wins,
she sells half a million copies.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sayonara to Erie Times-News "public editor"
A couple weeks ago, I noted here the lack of a "public
editor" credit on recent Liz Allen columns whose content
would normally call for such a credit line.
I speculated that its absence may foretell an unannounced
decision by the Erie Times-News quietly to eliminate that position.
Liz is the third Times-News staffer to hold the "public
editor" assignment, following Jeff Pinski and Kevin Cuneo,
since it's inception five or six years ago, although I
may be a year or two off. Pinski held the title longest,
3 or 4 years; Cuneo one or two, and Liz only a few months.
Over the past couple weeks, events seem to confirm my
earlier speculation that the position has been quietly dropped,
as there's been no "public editor" credit on any of Allen's
columns in the interim.
This includes her last column on editorial matters which
appeared in Sunday's paper calling for reader contributions
to the Times-News's Op-Ed pages on the forthcoming general
election. Once again, no "public editor" credit line.
If my specualtion is correct, dropping the public editor title
is a development too long in coming, because it's been a fraud from
its outset. As I've pointed out here repeatedly over the past
couple years, the role of the public editor is to serve as an
advocate and voice within the newspaper for the readers.
But its Times-News practitioners have instead turned the function
on its head and converted it into a shrill mouthpiece for the
newspaper and its editorial, news and related operations.
editor" credit on recent Liz Allen columns whose content
would normally call for such a credit line.
I speculated that its absence may foretell an unannounced
decision by the Erie Times-News quietly to eliminate that position.
Liz is the third Times-News staffer to hold the "public
editor" assignment, following Jeff Pinski and Kevin Cuneo,
since it's inception five or six years ago, although I
may be a year or two off. Pinski held the title longest,
3 or 4 years; Cuneo one or two, and Liz only a few months.
Over the past couple weeks, events seem to confirm my
earlier speculation that the position has been quietly dropped,
as there's been no "public editor" credit on any of Allen's
columns in the interim.
This includes her last column on editorial matters which
appeared in Sunday's paper calling for reader contributions
to the Times-News's Op-Ed pages on the forthcoming general
election. Once again, no "public editor" credit line.
If my specualtion is correct, dropping the public editor title
is a development too long in coming, because it's been a fraud from
its outset. As I've pointed out here repeatedly over the past
couple years, the role of the public editor is to serve as an
advocate and voice within the newspaper for the readers.
But its Times-News practitioners have instead turned the function
on its head and converted it into a shrill mouthpiece for the
newspaper and its editorial, news and related operations.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Erie Times-New editor is pot calling TV kettle Black on slease campaign advertising
In his Sunday column, entitled "Truth becomes casualty
when politics mimics war," Erie Times-New Managing Editor
Pat Howard, commenting on presidential campaign TV advertising,
said among other things, that "fact-checking operations" tell
us attack ads "are spewing gross distortions and flat-out
lies more often than in the past."
Those who subscribe to these tactics, Howard wrote,"know that
while some voters are students of issues, positions and
evidence, many others, by inclination or aptitude, get
their information only in bits and pieces, and it tends to go
in one ear and straight to the gut.Such people are especially
prone to being frightened, manipulated and bamboozled."
This is the pot calling the kettle black.
The Erie Times-News's local and syndicated Op-Ed columns,
like the left wing national mainstream media (The New York
Times, The Washington Post, The Buffalo News, The Pittsburgh
Post Gazette, the L A Times, et al) all whose news and
editorial coverage is heavily slanted in favor of Obama/Biden
and against McCain/Palin, play the same role within the print
media that the false advertising Howard hollowly deplores exercises
within the electronic media.
What the "fact checkers" - in whom Howard seems to place so much
faith - need, including the Times-News, is someone to check their
facts. More errors and bias are typically asserted in the name of
fact-checking than are committed in the original fact scenario.
when politics mimics war," Erie Times-New Managing Editor
Pat Howard, commenting on presidential campaign TV advertising,
said among other things, that "fact-checking operations" tell
us attack ads "are spewing gross distortions and flat-out
lies more often than in the past."
Those who subscribe to these tactics, Howard wrote,"know that
while some voters are students of issues, positions and
evidence, many others, by inclination or aptitude, get
their information only in bits and pieces, and it tends to go
in one ear and straight to the gut.Such people are especially
prone to being frightened, manipulated and bamboozled."
This is the pot calling the kettle black.
The Erie Times-News's local and syndicated Op-Ed columns,
like the left wing national mainstream media (The New York
Times, The Washington Post, The Buffalo News, The Pittsburgh
Post Gazette, the L A Times, et al) all whose news and
editorial coverage is heavily slanted in favor of Obama/Biden
and against McCain/Palin, play the same role within the print
media that the false advertising Howard hollowly deplores exercises
within the electronic media.
What the "fact checkers" - in whom Howard seems to place so much
faith - need, including the Times-News, is someone to check their
facts. More errors and bias are typically asserted in the name of
fact-checking than are committed in the original fact scenario.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Why Sarah & Todd Palin ignore Troopergate subpoenas
A Buffalo News letter to the editor writer recently
asked "How can the Palins not honor subpoenas" in
the Alaska Troopergate investigation? That's
a good question that deserves a full answer.
The subpoenas were issued by an interim legislative
committee called the Legislative Council, which handles
administrative and other legislative affairs while the
legislature is not in session. It consistes of 12
mumbers appointed by the presiding officers of the
Alaska state House and Senate.
Because of the current coalition make-up of the Alaska
legislature, the council is made up of four Democrats
and eight Republicans.
Keep in mind that not all Republicans in Alaska are
political allies of Governor Palin, a Republican,
because her successful reform efforts in
Alaska have targeted both Democrat and Republican
members of the legislature.
She also successfully ran against the incumbent
Republican governor without the support or help of
the Alaska Republican Party which supported
the incumbent, and blew the ethics whistle on the
chairman of the Republican Party for corruption,
forcing his resignation from an important
state commission to which he was appointed by
the former Republican governor.
Partly as a result, she has an 80 percent-plus
favorable rating in Alaska and is the most popular
state governor in the nation's history. Many Republicans
ae among the 20 percent minority in Alaska who don't like
Governor Palin.
Thus, while the Legislative Council appears to be
a bi-partisan body, its membership is 100 percent
anti-Palin.The members' antagonism towards
Governor Palin was a condition of their appointments
to the council.
Two of the Democrats on the council, Senators Hollis
French and Kim Elton,are openly Obama supporters. They
were captured in a photo at Obama headquarters in Anchorage.
French was the prime instigator, is the manager of
the Troopergate investigation, and is likely to run
against Palin in the next gubernatorial election if
she is still governor. He handpicked the special
investigator handling the Troopergate investigation.
a personal friend whose wife was once a colleague of
the former Alaska public safety commissioner
whom Palin fired. Elton is the chair of the council,
and contributed more than $2,000 to Obama's
campaign.
Both the launching of the Troopergate investigation
and the issuance of the subpoenas by the council fly
in the face of Alaska's Constitution. The council is
expressly barred by the constitution from conducting
investigations of the executive branch, or issuing
subpoenas to its members.
Two other standing legislative committees, State Affairs
and Judiciary,are authorized to investigate the executive
branch and issue subpoenas,but neither has done so. The
legislature as a committee of the whole may
also launch investigations and issue subpoenas,
but has not done so.
Five Republican members of the legislature, including
the Republican speaker of the house, have filed an action
in state court seeking an order to dismantle the
investigation on constitutional grounds.
Alaska law also mandates that any investigation
into personnel matters may only be undertaken by
the three-member State Personnel Board, whose
members by law are appointed by the govenor. Governor
Palin has pledged to cooperate with any Personnel
Board investigation.
Shortly after the Troopergate investigation was launched,
Senator French issued a public statement predicting that
it would produce an "October surprise" implying that it
would adversely compromise Governor Palin's
vice presidential candidacy.
His comments, which revealed that the investigation
was predisposed against Palin, raised a firestorm of
controversy in Alaska, forcing French to retract them.
This is when the investigation's political "taint"
was exposed and bad faith demonstrated, prompting
Governor Palin to withdraw her previously
pledged cooperation.
It should also be kept in mind that the Alaska Constitution
unequivocally empowers the governor to fire any cabinet
member and certain other political appointees "without cause."
Thus, the short answer to the letter writer's question
is that both the Troopergate investigation and the issuance
of subpoenas by the Legislative Council are unconstitutional.
_____________________________________________________________
Author's note: I covered the Alaska Legislature and
state govenment in the state capital of Juneau for 20 years.
I also dsigned and taught a college credit course on the
legislative process at the Uiversity of Alaska. Senator Elton
was one of my students.
asked "How can the Palins not honor subpoenas" in
the Alaska Troopergate investigation? That's
a good question that deserves a full answer.
The subpoenas were issued by an interim legislative
committee called the Legislative Council, which handles
administrative and other legislative affairs while the
legislature is not in session. It consistes of 12
mumbers appointed by the presiding officers of the
Alaska state House and Senate.
Because of the current coalition make-up of the Alaska
legislature, the council is made up of four Democrats
and eight Republicans.
Keep in mind that not all Republicans in Alaska are
political allies of Governor Palin, a Republican,
because her successful reform efforts in
Alaska have targeted both Democrat and Republican
members of the legislature.
She also successfully ran against the incumbent
Republican governor without the support or help of
the Alaska Republican Party which supported
the incumbent, and blew the ethics whistle on the
chairman of the Republican Party for corruption,
forcing his resignation from an important
state commission to which he was appointed by
the former Republican governor.
Partly as a result, she has an 80 percent-plus
favorable rating in Alaska and is the most popular
state governor in the nation's history. Many Republicans
ae among the 20 percent minority in Alaska who don't like
Governor Palin.
Thus, while the Legislative Council appears to be
a bi-partisan body, its membership is 100 percent
anti-Palin.The members' antagonism towards
Governor Palin was a condition of their appointments
to the council.
Two of the Democrats on the council, Senators Hollis
French and Kim Elton,are openly Obama supporters. They
were captured in a photo at Obama headquarters in Anchorage.
French was the prime instigator, is the manager of
the Troopergate investigation, and is likely to run
against Palin in the next gubernatorial election if
she is still governor. He handpicked the special
investigator handling the Troopergate investigation.
a personal friend whose wife was once a colleague of
the former Alaska public safety commissioner
whom Palin fired. Elton is the chair of the council,
and contributed more than $2,000 to Obama's
campaign.
Both the launching of the Troopergate investigation
and the issuance of the subpoenas by the council fly
in the face of Alaska's Constitution. The council is
expressly barred by the constitution from conducting
investigations of the executive branch, or issuing
subpoenas to its members.
Two other standing legislative committees, State Affairs
and Judiciary,are authorized to investigate the executive
branch and issue subpoenas,but neither has done so. The
legislature as a committee of the whole may
also launch investigations and issue subpoenas,
but has not done so.
Five Republican members of the legislature, including
the Republican speaker of the house, have filed an action
in state court seeking an order to dismantle the
investigation on constitutional grounds.
Alaska law also mandates that any investigation
into personnel matters may only be undertaken by
the three-member State Personnel Board, whose
members by law are appointed by the govenor. Governor
Palin has pledged to cooperate with any Personnel
Board investigation.
Shortly after the Troopergate investigation was launched,
Senator French issued a public statement predicting that
it would produce an "October surprise" implying that it
would adversely compromise Governor Palin's
vice presidential candidacy.
His comments, which revealed that the investigation
was predisposed against Palin, raised a firestorm of
controversy in Alaska, forcing French to retract them.
This is when the investigation's political "taint"
was exposed and bad faith demonstrated, prompting
Governor Palin to withdraw her previously
pledged cooperation.
It should also be kept in mind that the Alaska Constitution
unequivocally empowers the governor to fire any cabinet
member and certain other political appointees "without cause."
Thus, the short answer to the letter writer's question
is that both the Troopergate investigation and the issuance
of subpoenas by the Legislative Council are unconstitutional.
_____________________________________________________________
Author's note: I covered the Alaska Legislature and
state govenment in the state capital of Juneau for 20 years.
I also dsigned and taught a college credit course on the
legislative process at the Uiversity of Alaska. Senator Elton
was one of my students.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Erie Times-New press awards less than they seem
Sunday's Erie Times-News carried a self-serving article
reporting that the paper won seven, count them seven,
press awards announced by the Pennsylvania Newspaper
Assn. Foundation recently.
The article said the Times-News won the awards in
competition with other newspapers throughout the
state with circulations ranging between 35,000 and 70,000.
It neglected to mention that these are Division
Two newspapers. This division includes smaller
newspaper cities around the state like York,
Bucks County, Reading, York, Erie and others.
It does not include the bigger and more prestigious
papers such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Philly News, the
Allentown Morning Call, the Pittsburgh Tribune
and the Harrisburg Patriot-News.
By failing to make that distinction, the Times-News
gave the false impression that the awards it received were
in competition with those far superior newspapers.
reporting that the paper won seven, count them seven,
press awards announced by the Pennsylvania Newspaper
Assn. Foundation recently.
The article said the Times-News won the awards in
competition with other newspapers throughout the
state with circulations ranging between 35,000 and 70,000.
It neglected to mention that these are Division
Two newspapers. This division includes smaller
newspaper cities around the state like York,
Bucks County, Reading, York, Erie and others.
It does not include the bigger and more prestigious
papers such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Philly News, the
Allentown Morning Call, the Pittsburgh Tribune
and the Harrisburg Patriot-News.
By failing to make that distinction, the Times-News
gave the false impression that the awards it received were
in competition with those far superior newspapers.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Attorney general puts bonusgate "in the freezer"
Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett says he has
temporarily suspended his investigation into the
legislative bonusgate scandal until after the
November general election, so as not to influence
election outcomes.
His decision comes on the heels of reports that the
investigation is now focusing on possible misconduct
by Republican legislators.
Earlier this summer, a grand jury indicted eight legislators,
one former legislator and a ranking legislative aide,
all Democrats, in the sweeping invesigation, which Corbett
said was expected to implicate Republican legislators as well.
The Democrats are alleged to have channeled nearly two million dollars
into partisan political election campaign activities, and illegally paid
hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses to legislative
aides who worked on election campaigns on state time.
So far no Republicans have been named or indicted, although
Corbett, a Republican, reported recently that half a dozen
Republican legislative aides have been interviewed in
connection with a scheme by House Republicans. They allegedly
used a $1.8 million state-of-the-art computer system paid
for by taxpayers for partisan political campaign purposes.
Corbett's announcement that the investigation would be
suspended until after the general elections is viewed
by some critics as a partisan scheme to protect
Republican candidates seeking election or reelection
who might be implicated if the investigation were to
proceed now.
In an editorial yesterday entitled "Criminal timing:
Corbett should not put Bonusgate in the freezer," the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said: "Justice delayed is justice denied.
"The legal cliche lies at the heart of what is wrong with
state Attorney General Tom Corbett's decision to put off
any presentments in the scandal known as Bonusgate during
the month preceding the election," the Post Gazette editorialized.
"Mr. Corbett, a Republican who is running for a second term,
was elected to investigate and prosecute crimes and corruption,
regardless of the political affiliations of any of the targets.
And that's what he has been doing -- witness the partisan
complaints made about his investigation from both sides of
the political aisle.
"Mr. Corbett's investigation started in 2007 and focused
first on the House Democratic caucus, which was logical
given the $1.9 million spent on questionable bonuses
in 2006 alone, a total that dwarfed sums allotted by
House Republicans and the Senate. Now his attention is
turned to House Republicans.
"When Mr. Corbett worked in the U.S. attorney's office,
it was the practice of federal prosecutors not to indict
in political corruption cases in the month preceding an
election, according to his spokesman, Kevin Harley. The
intention is to eliminate the suggestion that charges
are being filed in an attempt to influence the outcome
of an election.
"We'd argue that any information coming out of Mr. Corbett's
investigation is something voters might appreciate knowing
before they cast their ballots. If and when Mr. Corbett
gets enough evidence, that's when he should issue new
presentments," The Post Gazette said.
I agree. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
It smacks of partisan political favoritism to have prosecuted
Democrats facing reelection, while allowing potential
Republican wrongdoers to go before the voters unscathed.
temporarily suspended his investigation into the
legislative bonusgate scandal until after the
November general election, so as not to influence
election outcomes.
His decision comes on the heels of reports that the
investigation is now focusing on possible misconduct
by Republican legislators.
Earlier this summer, a grand jury indicted eight legislators,
one former legislator and a ranking legislative aide,
all Democrats, in the sweeping invesigation, which Corbett
said was expected to implicate Republican legislators as well.
The Democrats are alleged to have channeled nearly two million dollars
into partisan political election campaign activities, and illegally paid
hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses to legislative
aides who worked on election campaigns on state time.
So far no Republicans have been named or indicted, although
Corbett, a Republican, reported recently that half a dozen
Republican legislative aides have been interviewed in
connection with a scheme by House Republicans. They allegedly
used a $1.8 million state-of-the-art computer system paid
for by taxpayers for partisan political campaign purposes.
Corbett's announcement that the investigation would be
suspended until after the general elections is viewed
by some critics as a partisan scheme to protect
Republican candidates seeking election or reelection
who might be implicated if the investigation were to
proceed now.
In an editorial yesterday entitled "Criminal timing:
Corbett should not put Bonusgate in the freezer," the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said: "Justice delayed is justice denied.
"The legal cliche lies at the heart of what is wrong with
state Attorney General Tom Corbett's decision to put off
any presentments in the scandal known as Bonusgate during
the month preceding the election," the Post Gazette editorialized.
"Mr. Corbett, a Republican who is running for a second term,
was elected to investigate and prosecute crimes and corruption,
regardless of the political affiliations of any of the targets.
And that's what he has been doing -- witness the partisan
complaints made about his investigation from both sides of
the political aisle.
"Mr. Corbett's investigation started in 2007 and focused
first on the House Democratic caucus, which was logical
given the $1.9 million spent on questionable bonuses
in 2006 alone, a total that dwarfed sums allotted by
House Republicans and the Senate. Now his attention is
turned to House Republicans.
"When Mr. Corbett worked in the U.S. attorney's office,
it was the practice of federal prosecutors not to indict
in political corruption cases in the month preceding an
election, according to his spokesman, Kevin Harley. The
intention is to eliminate the suggestion that charges
are being filed in an attempt to influence the outcome
of an election.
"We'd argue that any information coming out of Mr. Corbett's
investigation is something voters might appreciate knowing
before they cast their ballots. If and when Mr. Corbett
gets enough evidence, that's when he should issue new
presentments," The Post Gazette said.
I agree. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
It smacks of partisan political favoritism to have prosecuted
Democrats facing reelection, while allowing potential
Republican wrongdoers to go before the voters unscathed.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Is the reign of the Erie Times-News "public editor" over?
Is Liz Allen's failure to identify herself for the first
time as "public editor" in the credit line at the bottom
of what appears to be the public editor column today a
nuanced annoucement that the Erie Times-News has decided
to eliminate the position of "public editor," so called?
Or is this not the irregular installment of that column?
It's hard to tell because the "public editor" at the
Times-News wears several hats, a contradiction in terms.
A "public editor" cannot by definition be any other
editor without creating an inherent conflict of interest.
Not to worry. The Times-News recognizes conflicts of
interest only in others, not itself.
If my suspicion is correct, there's no real loss, as the
Times-News's "public editor" has never served that function
as defined within the trade since its inception, starting
with Jeff Pinski through Kevin Cuneo and now Liz Allen.
Instead of being advocates for the public, as public editors
are wont to be, they've been mouthpieces for the newspaper, a
kind of unofficial director of public relations and promotions
for the Times-News.
In today's column, Liz writes about a phone conversation she
had with a reader, Richard Spaeder of Erie, who has subsribed
to the Times-News or one of its aberrations for 59 years.
He apparently called to express his dissatisfaction with the
Times-News's decidedly liberal bent in general, and its
unrelenting editorial campaign against Alaska Governor Sarah Palin,
the Republican vice presidential nominee in particular.
It's interesting to note how Liz distorted Mr. Spaeder's
complaint that the Times-News's Op-Ed content is heavily
weighted against Governor Palin.
To counter that criticizm, Liz broke down the Times-News's
Op-Ed columnists by ideology - liberal, moderate and
conservative. By that count, she said, there's only a
difference of one more liberal columnist than conservative
or moderate(assuming one agrees with her breakdown, which
I don't, e.g., David Broder a "moderate?" Hardly.
He's as left-wing as they come)
But Mr. Spaeder didn't complain about the columnists' known
ideological biases per se if Liz correctly characterized his complaint;
he complained about the ideological CONTENT of the Op-Ed page,
notably that trashing Governor Palin.
His complaint is well-founded. For example, on two consecutive
days last week, the Times-News ran a total of six columns back
to back trashing Palin, none supporting her.
In addition, the selection of Letters to the Editor by the
Times-News's left wing editorial page editor has also been
heavily biased against Governor Palin.
If Liz's omission of the "public editor" credit on her column
today is indicative of a surreptitious Time-News's decision
to eliminate that position, it's not an isolated case.
Today, for example, the public editor for the Sacramento
(California) Bee, the flagship newspaper of the fading
McClatchy Newspaper empire, announced in his column today
that it would be his last as public editor,a victim of top
management budget cuts, joining several other major newspapers
throughout the country which have done the same in recent months.
time as "public editor" in the credit line at the bottom
of what appears to be the public editor column today a
nuanced annoucement that the Erie Times-News has decided
to eliminate the position of "public editor," so called?
Or is this not the irregular installment of that column?
It's hard to tell because the "public editor" at the
Times-News wears several hats, a contradiction in terms.
A "public editor" cannot by definition be any other
editor without creating an inherent conflict of interest.
Not to worry. The Times-News recognizes conflicts of
interest only in others, not itself.
If my suspicion is correct, there's no real loss, as the
Times-News's "public editor" has never served that function
as defined within the trade since its inception, starting
with Jeff Pinski through Kevin Cuneo and now Liz Allen.
Instead of being advocates for the public, as public editors
are wont to be, they've been mouthpieces for the newspaper, a
kind of unofficial director of public relations and promotions
for the Times-News.
In today's column, Liz writes about a phone conversation she
had with a reader, Richard Spaeder of Erie, who has subsribed
to the Times-News or one of its aberrations for 59 years.
He apparently called to express his dissatisfaction with the
Times-News's decidedly liberal bent in general, and its
unrelenting editorial campaign against Alaska Governor Sarah Palin,
the Republican vice presidential nominee in particular.
It's interesting to note how Liz distorted Mr. Spaeder's
complaint that the Times-News's Op-Ed content is heavily
weighted against Governor Palin.
To counter that criticizm, Liz broke down the Times-News's
Op-Ed columnists by ideology - liberal, moderate and
conservative. By that count, she said, there's only a
difference of one more liberal columnist than conservative
or moderate(assuming one agrees with her breakdown, which
I don't, e.g., David Broder a "moderate?" Hardly.
He's as left-wing as they come)
But Mr. Spaeder didn't complain about the columnists' known
ideological biases per se if Liz correctly characterized his complaint;
he complained about the ideological CONTENT of the Op-Ed page,
notably that trashing Governor Palin.
His complaint is well-founded. For example, on two consecutive
days last week, the Times-News ran a total of six columns back
to back trashing Palin, none supporting her.
In addition, the selection of Letters to the Editor by the
Times-News's left wing editorial page editor has also been
heavily biased against Governor Palin.
If Liz's omission of the "public editor" credit on her column
today is indicative of a surreptitious Time-News's decision
to eliminate that position, it's not an isolated case.
Today, for example, the public editor for the Sacramento
(California) Bee, the flagship newspaper of the fading
McClatchy Newspaper empire, announced in his column today
that it would be his last as public editor,a victim of top
management budget cuts, joining several other major newspapers
throughout the country which have done the same in recent months.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Republican legislators now under investigation by grand jury
You'd never know it from reading the Erie Times-News,
but Attorney General Tom Corbett has dropped the other
shoe in his investigation into corruption in
Pennsylvania's House of Representatives.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran an article yesterday
noting that the grand jury is looking into the Republican
caucus's allegedly illegal use of a state-of-the art
computer system for partisan political campaign purposes.
The fraudulent use of at least $1.8 million of taxpayer monies
is alleged.
Half a dozen of the House's Republican staffers have been
interviewed by the grand jury in the course of the investigation,
the Post-Gazette reported. The Post-Gazette has obtained a copy
of a contract between a former House majority leader and a company
which provided the computer services.
So far eight Democrat House members and two staff persons
have been indicted in the attorney general's on-going
investigation into what has come to be known as "bonusgate."
These ten Democrats have been charged with fraud
for rediredcting taxpayer funds into partisan political
campaigns, and paying certain staff persons
more than $1 million in bonuses for their allegedly illegal
campaign activities while on the state payroll.
While he has not been indicted, the House majority leader,
Bud DeWeese of Greene County, is under fire by some of his
own party members who have publicly called for him to step
down because of his failure of leadership.
So far, ten Democrat legislators have asked for DeWeese's
resignation as majority leader. DeWeese is up for reelection
to his House seat this year.
Two of the Erie area's five state legislators have remained
mum on what role, if any, they played in the bonusgate
scandal, viewed as the biggest ever to hit Pennsylvania.
They are Flo Fabrizio and John Hornaman.
The Times-News has been consistently behind the curve
on this scandal, and has never bothered to ask the area
delegation what they may know about it, and
has never published an article on what
the local tie-in may be.
Democrat Governor Ed Rendell has also remained curiously
silent on bonusgate, presumably because until recently,
only Democrats have been indicted. Will he maintain his silence
once Republicans are implicated?
but Attorney General Tom Corbett has dropped the other
shoe in his investigation into corruption in
Pennsylvania's House of Representatives.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran an article yesterday
noting that the grand jury is looking into the Republican
caucus's allegedly illegal use of a state-of-the art
computer system for partisan political campaign purposes.
The fraudulent use of at least $1.8 million of taxpayer monies
is alleged.
Half a dozen of the House's Republican staffers have been
interviewed by the grand jury in the course of the investigation,
the Post-Gazette reported. The Post-Gazette has obtained a copy
of a contract between a former House majority leader and a company
which provided the computer services.
So far eight Democrat House members and two staff persons
have been indicted in the attorney general's on-going
investigation into what has come to be known as "bonusgate."
These ten Democrats have been charged with fraud
for rediredcting taxpayer funds into partisan political
campaigns, and paying certain staff persons
more than $1 million in bonuses for their allegedly illegal
campaign activities while on the state payroll.
While he has not been indicted, the House majority leader,
Bud DeWeese of Greene County, is under fire by some of his
own party members who have publicly called for him to step
down because of his failure of leadership.
So far, ten Democrat legislators have asked for DeWeese's
resignation as majority leader. DeWeese is up for reelection
to his House seat this year.
Two of the Erie area's five state legislators have remained
mum on what role, if any, they played in the bonusgate
scandal, viewed as the biggest ever to hit Pennsylvania.
They are Flo Fabrizio and John Hornaman.
The Times-News has been consistently behind the curve
on this scandal, and has never bothered to ask the area
delegation what they may know about it, and
has never published an article on what
the local tie-in may be.
Democrat Governor Ed Rendell has also remained curiously
silent on bonusgate, presumably because until recently,
only Democrats have been indicted. Will he maintain his silence
once Republicans are implicated?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The pedant and the demagogue
Not satisfied with six, read them, six editorial columns
yesterday bashing the McCain-Palin ticket and promoting
Obama-Biden, the Erie Times-News also ran a lengthy puff
piece, complete with mug shot, about a former schoolboy
buddy of Joe Biden's, Jim Lanahan, an administrator at
Mercyhurst North East.
The article had about as much substance as Obama's
tissue-thin resume. Its shaky premise hardly
justified so much space in the paper unless it was
intended primarily as a pretext to bolster even
further that day's six Op-Ed columns pumping up
the Democrat presidential ticket.
Lanahan both pushed the Obama-Biden candidacy and
dumped a ton of sour grapes on Palin, replicating the
vicious sexist attacks which the far left media have
piled on Palin since McCain elevated her to her historic role.
I find it interesting that Lanahan would denigrate
Governor Palin's alleged lack of experience, but
ignore that obvious deficiency in both members of
the Obama-Biden ticket.
Palin has more executive experience than both of them
put together, and is a proven political reformer, having
among other things challenged and defeated the incumbent
Republican governor with 22 years' seniority as a U.S.
senator from Alaska, a certified member of the old boys'
club, and blown the whistle on the chairman of the Alaska
Republican Party for ethics violations.
Biden, on the other hand, was caught plagiarizng material
while at law school and publicly misrepresenting his
collegiate academic status as a candidate for Congress.
Isn't it ironic that a college administrator
would advance as a role model someone with a resume as
checkered with academic pettifoggery as Biden's?
Obama has never led a reform effort of any kind, and
epitomizes the self-serving old boys' club which Palin
and McCain are committed to decimating in the nation's capital.
In a glowing reminisence of schoolboy days, Lanahan told
the Times-News that Biden eventually conquered a stuttering
handicap that plagued him as a youth. Senator Biden is to be
congratulated for overcoming that handicap. Now if he would
only do something about that demagoguery.
yesterday bashing the McCain-Palin ticket and promoting
Obama-Biden, the Erie Times-News also ran a lengthy puff
piece, complete with mug shot, about a former schoolboy
buddy of Joe Biden's, Jim Lanahan, an administrator at
Mercyhurst North East.
The article had about as much substance as Obama's
tissue-thin resume. Its shaky premise hardly
justified so much space in the paper unless it was
intended primarily as a pretext to bolster even
further that day's six Op-Ed columns pumping up
the Democrat presidential ticket.
Lanahan both pushed the Obama-Biden candidacy and
dumped a ton of sour grapes on Palin, replicating the
vicious sexist attacks which the far left media have
piled on Palin since McCain elevated her to her historic role.
I find it interesting that Lanahan would denigrate
Governor Palin's alleged lack of experience, but
ignore that obvious deficiency in both members of
the Obama-Biden ticket.
Palin has more executive experience than both of them
put together, and is a proven political reformer, having
among other things challenged and defeated the incumbent
Republican governor with 22 years' seniority as a U.S.
senator from Alaska, a certified member of the old boys'
club, and blown the whistle on the chairman of the Alaska
Republican Party for ethics violations.
Biden, on the other hand, was caught plagiarizng material
while at law school and publicly misrepresenting his
collegiate academic status as a candidate for Congress.
Isn't it ironic that a college administrator
would advance as a role model someone with a resume as
checkered with academic pettifoggery as Biden's?
Obama has never led a reform effort of any kind, and
epitomizes the self-serving old boys' club which Palin
and McCain are committed to decimating in the nation's capital.
In a glowing reminisence of schoolboy days, Lanahan told
the Times-News that Biden eventually conquered a stuttering
handicap that plagued him as a youth. Senator Biden is to be
congratulated for overcoming that handicap. Now if he would
only do something about that demagoguery.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Runway extension costs: Short on details
In yet another of its “news” stories in the guise of
an editorial, the Erie Times News published an article
today on the progress of the airport runway extension,
currently estimated to cost $80.5 million, entitled
"Airport runway extension - 1st house torn down."
While wordy in length, it's short on pertinent details.
Reporters, as writers, are notoriously inherently
deficient in mathematics and finances. As a case in
point,the reporter who penned this story, quoting Erie
economic development director Bob Spaulding, wrote, in
part: "That means the county will not have to pay to
insure the ($21 million) bond issue. It will also
save on interest costs, he said."
A fiscally savvy reporter, an oxymoron, would have
asked the economic development guru he quoted the
next logical question: What did he mean when he
said "It will also save on interest costs."?
Revenue bonds which are repaid through revenue earned
by the project they are floated to finance are
substantially more expensive to float because of
much higher interest costs than general obligation bonds.
What are the life cycle financing costs of floating this
airport runway bond issue for a project which may not be
completed in years, and even then is never likely to
generate anywhere near the revenue necessary to pay
for its construction, amortization and life cycle
maintenance costs?
That means the payout will have to come, one way
or another, from general funds? In other words, how
much are taxpayers being asked to pay beyond the
face value of the bonds? And how about the huge
and inevitable project cost overruns? The devil
is in the details. It's a pig in a poke.
Not only don't we get the answer to the question,
we don't even get the question.
an editorial, the Erie Times News published an article
today on the progress of the airport runway extension,
currently estimated to cost $80.5 million, entitled
"Airport runway extension - 1st house torn down."
While wordy in length, it's short on pertinent details.
Reporters, as writers, are notoriously inherently
deficient in mathematics and finances. As a case in
point,the reporter who penned this story, quoting Erie
economic development director Bob Spaulding, wrote, in
part: "That means the county will not have to pay to
insure the ($21 million) bond issue. It will also
save on interest costs, he said."
A fiscally savvy reporter, an oxymoron, would have
asked the economic development guru he quoted the
next logical question: What did he mean when he
said "It will also save on interest costs."?
Revenue bonds which are repaid through revenue earned
by the project they are floated to finance are
substantially more expensive to float because of
much higher interest costs than general obligation bonds.
What are the life cycle financing costs of floating this
airport runway bond issue for a project which may not be
completed in years, and even then is never likely to
generate anywhere near the revenue necessary to pay
for its construction, amortization and life cycle
maintenance costs?
That means the payout will have to come, one way
or another, from general funds? In other words, how
much are taxpayers being asked to pay beyond the
face value of the bonds? And how about the huge
and inevitable project cost overruns? The devil
is in the details. It's a pig in a poke.
Not only don't we get the answer to the question,
we don't even get the question.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Gov. Palin's landmine # 2: The bridge to nowhere
This is yet another example of the folly politicians engage
when they’re not upfront with the public. Sooner or later the
truth will out, and when it’s later, it’s always worse
because untruth takes on a life of its own, complete with
unfounded rumors and distortions that could have been
avoided had the truth been told at the outset.
Although it’s not a major setback, and in the end Governor
Palin did the right thing, in this case she initially shaded
the truth and is now paying the consequences.
Several years ago, congressional funding in the amount of
some $400 million for two proposed new bridges in Alaska
was earmarked by one of Alaska’s two Republican U.S.
senators, Ted Stevens, arguably one of the most powerful
men in the nation’s capital in recent years.
The costlier of the two bridges was intended to link the
city of Ketchikan, Alaska’s fourth largest city, with
the offshore island on which its municipal airport is
located. The only way air passengers can get to or from
the airport is by ferryboat, about a 15-minute ride.
It would be the equivalent of going by boat from Erie’s Public
Dock to Presque Isle by ferry. (The second bridge would have
served the more populous Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city,
and isn’t especially relevant here).
The Ketchikan bridge, estimated to cost about $350 million,
would have served another purpose besides eliminating the
inconvenient and, in bad weather, hazardous ferry boat
ride to and from the airport. The city, now crowded on
a narrow shoreline between the water and the mountains
behind it has for decades needed more room for commercial
and residential expansion.
Although only a few dozen residents now live on the island,
the bridge would have opened up a whole new area to residential
and commercial development, allowing the city to experience
substantial growth.
Thus, there was a legitimate rationale for
what mockingly came to be known as “the bridge to nowhere”
which was lost in the growing unrest with Congress’s infamous
pork barrel politics. Instead it became a symbol for the
arrogance of lawmakers like Stevens who felt they could do
anything they like with impunity.
In the early stages of the efforts to obtain the funding
for the bridges, Palin was not governor. But as mayor of
a small Alaska city and later as candidate for governor,
she was an advocate for Alaska’s interests and actively
supported Stevens and the rest of Alaska’s congressional
delegation’s efforts on behalf of the Ketchikan bridge
funding. She is quoted in several Alaska newspaper accounts
as supporting the project.
It was only after she became governor that the pork barrel
politics which gave rise to widespread disaffection with
congressional earmarks that Palin opposed the bridge funding
and publicly spoke against it. Nevertheless, the funding was
approved and deposited into Alaska’s state treasury after
Palin became governor.
But once there, Governor Palin announced a year or so ago that she
would not authorize the money to be used to build the “bridge
to nowhere.” Instead, she said, it would be used to fund
other needed state infrastructure projects. That was the right
thing to do and it met with almost unanimous approval.
Fast forward to August 29, 2008 in Dayton, Ohio, the day
Senator McCain announced his decision to name her as his
vice presidential running mate. In the excitement and
chaos of the moment, Palin asserted at one point in her
acceptance speech that she had rejected the bridge to
nowhere and told Congress thanks but no thanks, drawing
a roar of approbation from the Republican partisans in Dayton.
She was technically correct, but misleading. She should have
said she accepted the funding, but used it for other state projects.
Some of the national news media did what they’re
supposed to do, check into the veracity of public
utterances issued by politicians and refute them
when they’re wrong.
That’s what happened to Palin. If she had told the
complete truth the day she was anointed,her dissembling
would not have come back to haunt her as it has, even
though her statement was partly truthful.
As a result, her credibility, one of her most prized
attributes,has been somewhat compromised, perhaps
irreverisbly.
Inevitably, the McCain campaign's political foes will
use this lapse against her at every opportunity during
the balance of the campaign.
when they’re not upfront with the public. Sooner or later the
truth will out, and when it’s later, it’s always worse
because untruth takes on a life of its own, complete with
unfounded rumors and distortions that could have been
avoided had the truth been told at the outset.
Although it’s not a major setback, and in the end Governor
Palin did the right thing, in this case she initially shaded
the truth and is now paying the consequences.
Several years ago, congressional funding in the amount of
some $400 million for two proposed new bridges in Alaska
was earmarked by one of Alaska’s two Republican U.S.
senators, Ted Stevens, arguably one of the most powerful
men in the nation’s capital in recent years.
The costlier of the two bridges was intended to link the
city of Ketchikan, Alaska’s fourth largest city, with
the offshore island on which its municipal airport is
located. The only way air passengers can get to or from
the airport is by ferryboat, about a 15-minute ride.
It would be the equivalent of going by boat from Erie’s Public
Dock to Presque Isle by ferry. (The second bridge would have
served the more populous Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city,
and isn’t especially relevant here).
The Ketchikan bridge, estimated to cost about $350 million,
would have served another purpose besides eliminating the
inconvenient and, in bad weather, hazardous ferry boat
ride to and from the airport. The city, now crowded on
a narrow shoreline between the water and the mountains
behind it has for decades needed more room for commercial
and residential expansion.
Although only a few dozen residents now live on the island,
the bridge would have opened up a whole new area to residential
and commercial development, allowing the city to experience
substantial growth.
Thus, there was a legitimate rationale for
what mockingly came to be known as “the bridge to nowhere”
which was lost in the growing unrest with Congress’s infamous
pork barrel politics. Instead it became a symbol for the
arrogance of lawmakers like Stevens who felt they could do
anything they like with impunity.
In the early stages of the efforts to obtain the funding
for the bridges, Palin was not governor. But as mayor of
a small Alaska city and later as candidate for governor,
she was an advocate for Alaska’s interests and actively
supported Stevens and the rest of Alaska’s congressional
delegation’s efforts on behalf of the Ketchikan bridge
funding. She is quoted in several Alaska newspaper accounts
as supporting the project.
It was only after she became governor that the pork barrel
politics which gave rise to widespread disaffection with
congressional earmarks that Palin opposed the bridge funding
and publicly spoke against it. Nevertheless, the funding was
approved and deposited into Alaska’s state treasury after
Palin became governor.
But once there, Governor Palin announced a year or so ago that she
would not authorize the money to be used to build the “bridge
to nowhere.” Instead, she said, it would be used to fund
other needed state infrastructure projects. That was the right
thing to do and it met with almost unanimous approval.
Fast forward to August 29, 2008 in Dayton, Ohio, the day
Senator McCain announced his decision to name her as his
vice presidential running mate. In the excitement and
chaos of the moment, Palin asserted at one point in her
acceptance speech that she had rejected the bridge to
nowhere and told Congress thanks but no thanks, drawing
a roar of approbation from the Republican partisans in Dayton.
She was technically correct, but misleading. She should have
said she accepted the funding, but used it for other state projects.
Some of the national news media did what they’re
supposed to do, check into the veracity of public
utterances issued by politicians and refute them
when they’re wrong.
That’s what happened to Palin. If she had told the
complete truth the day she was anointed,her dissembling
would not have come back to haunt her as it has, even
though her statement was partly truthful.
As a result, her credibility, one of her most prized
attributes,has been somewhat compromised, perhaps
irreverisbly.
Inevitably, the McCain campaign's political foes will
use this lapse against her at every opportunity during
the balance of the campaign.
Monday, September 1, 2008
The landmines in Governor Palin's path
With his canny decision to name Alaska Governor Sarah
Palin as his vice presidential running mate, U.S.
Senator John McCain has moved his chances of winning
the presidential election from dead in the water to
Olympian heights.
Critics from the left – Both Democrats and Republicans –
are condemning his choice as political. Well guess what?
This is politics. What do they think motivated U.S.
Senator Barrack Obama to choose U. S. Senator Joe Biden
as his running mate instead of Senator Hillary Clinton?
Good will and altruism?
While choosing Governor Palin does not by any means
guarantee Senator McCain’s team will win the presidential
election, it certainly improves his prospects. At this
point, anyone who thinks they know what the outcome will
be is fantasyzing. It depends entirely on how Goveror
Palin performs on the campaign trail over the next two
months.
If her remarkable, but largely unknown history - which is
rapidly being revealed,like peeling back layers of an
onion - is any indication, the prospect is promising.
While Palin has many qualities and characteristics in her favor,
there are a few ticking land mines in her path which
she and the McCain campaign failed to address at the outset,
leaving them to be sniffed out by her political critics,
thus making it appear she’s trying to hide something.
Landmine No. 1.
Governor Palin should have revealed and explained
at her very first public appearance as a candidate,
in detail, the circumstances surrounding the $100,000
investigation underway by her political foes in the Alaska
legislature.
It's designed to probe what role, if any, she played in the
firing of the former Anchorage police chief she had appointed
as the commissioner of public safety in her administration who,
among other things, is the head of the Alaska State Troopers.
She is vulnerable but not culpable in this scenario.
It stems from the fact that her sister was married to
and has divorced a state trooper with a checkered criminal
record, once suspended but never terminated from duty.
His record includes illegally shooting a moose without a permit,
virtually a capital crime in Alaska, driving a trooper vehicle
while drinking beer and probably drunk, tasering an 11-year-old boy
just for the hell of it, and threatening to shoot and kill Palin’s
father with a unsheathed pistol in his lap.
The pretext behind the legislative investigation is that Palin
and members of her staff and family used her office to try to
pressure her appointee, the commissioner of public safety, to
fire the trooper. He refused to do so, and later, based on what
her critics say was a pretext, Palin fired him, explaining only
that she “wanted to move (the department) in a different direction.”
Her critics say it was because he refused to fire the errant trooper.
What’s lost in the controversy is that the trooper clearly
deserved to be fired for his past record and actions. But in
handling the matter poorly and failing to give more plausible
and specific reasons for firing the commissioner, Palin left her
natural foes in the legislature – some of them still resentful
of the sweeping legislative reforms she pushed through last
year - found this way to get back at her.
While Palin and her husband Todd acknowledge they had
discussed the matter with the commissioner separately on
more than one occasion, she denies they ever asked him
to fire the trooper, though that was clearly their wish.
However, a ranking staff member has admitted he tried
to pressure the commissioner to fire the trooper. When
Pain learned of it she suspended him pending the outcome
of the invesztigation, which Palin said she welcomes.
To add fuel to the controversy, the fired commissioner
himself has publicly stated he believes the reason Palin
fired him was because he refused to fire the trooper,
which Sarah steadfastly denies.
Nevertheless, the legislative investigation, results
of which are due out the end of October, while vindictive,
politically-motivated and much ado nothing, will have
to be allowed to run its course, leaving a shadow
of a shadow over Palin's head until it’s resolved in her
favor.
So much for Landmine No. 1. I’ll continue this
post later to discuss a couple other landmines in
Governor Palin's path..
Palin as his vice presidential running mate, U.S.
Senator John McCain has moved his chances of winning
the presidential election from dead in the water to
Olympian heights.
Critics from the left – Both Democrats and Republicans –
are condemning his choice as political. Well guess what?
This is politics. What do they think motivated U.S.
Senator Barrack Obama to choose U. S. Senator Joe Biden
as his running mate instead of Senator Hillary Clinton?
Good will and altruism?
While choosing Governor Palin does not by any means
guarantee Senator McCain’s team will win the presidential
election, it certainly improves his prospects. At this
point, anyone who thinks they know what the outcome will
be is fantasyzing. It depends entirely on how Goveror
Palin performs on the campaign trail over the next two
months.
If her remarkable, but largely unknown history - which is
rapidly being revealed,like peeling back layers of an
onion - is any indication, the prospect is promising.
While Palin has many qualities and characteristics in her favor,
there are a few ticking land mines in her path which
she and the McCain campaign failed to address at the outset,
leaving them to be sniffed out by her political critics,
thus making it appear she’s trying to hide something.
Landmine No. 1.
Governor Palin should have revealed and explained
at her very first public appearance as a candidate,
in detail, the circumstances surrounding the $100,000
investigation underway by her political foes in the Alaska
legislature.
It's designed to probe what role, if any, she played in the
firing of the former Anchorage police chief she had appointed
as the commissioner of public safety in her administration who,
among other things, is the head of the Alaska State Troopers.
She is vulnerable but not culpable in this scenario.
It stems from the fact that her sister was married to
and has divorced a state trooper with a checkered criminal
record, once suspended but never terminated from duty.
His record includes illegally shooting a moose without a permit,
virtually a capital crime in Alaska, driving a trooper vehicle
while drinking beer and probably drunk, tasering an 11-year-old boy
just for the hell of it, and threatening to shoot and kill Palin’s
father with a unsheathed pistol in his lap.
The pretext behind the legislative investigation is that Palin
and members of her staff and family used her office to try to
pressure her appointee, the commissioner of public safety, to
fire the trooper. He refused to do so, and later, based on what
her critics say was a pretext, Palin fired him, explaining only
that she “wanted to move (the department) in a different direction.”
Her critics say it was because he refused to fire the errant trooper.
What’s lost in the controversy is that the trooper clearly
deserved to be fired for his past record and actions. But in
handling the matter poorly and failing to give more plausible
and specific reasons for firing the commissioner, Palin left her
natural foes in the legislature – some of them still resentful
of the sweeping legislative reforms she pushed through last
year - found this way to get back at her.
While Palin and her husband Todd acknowledge they had
discussed the matter with the commissioner separately on
more than one occasion, she denies they ever asked him
to fire the trooper, though that was clearly their wish.
However, a ranking staff member has admitted he tried
to pressure the commissioner to fire the trooper. When
Pain learned of it she suspended him pending the outcome
of the invesztigation, which Palin said she welcomes.
To add fuel to the controversy, the fired commissioner
himself has publicly stated he believes the reason Palin
fired him was because he refused to fire the trooper,
which Sarah steadfastly denies.
Nevertheless, the legislative investigation, results
of which are due out the end of October, while vindictive,
politically-motivated and much ado nothing, will have
to be allowed to run its course, leaving a shadow
of a shadow over Palin's head until it’s resolved in her
favor.
So much for Landmine No. 1. I’ll continue this
post later to discuss a couple other landmines in
Governor Palin's path..
Sunday, August 31, 2008
The Erie Times-News finally catches up
In an AP story out of Harrisburg published in its
Sunday edition today,the Erie Times-News finally caught
up with Pennsylvania's pending energy catastrophe,
the deregulation of electricity rates, a story first
broken here (see below) more than a week ago.
Within the next two years, the deregulation of electricity
rates engineered 22 years ago by former Governor Tom Ridge
will cause them to skyrocket in northwestern Pa. by
50 percent.
____________________________________________________________
Ex-Gov. Tom Ridge's hidden legacy emerges
from the shadows, a ticking time bomb
The long-standing love affair which a majority of
Pennsylvanians have had with former Governor Tom Ridge
is likely to come to a screeching halt for many of
them in the next couple years.
That’s when one of Ridge’s hidden gubernatorial
legacies, a ticking time bomb, emerges after two
decades from the shadows.
A product of the law of unintended consequences,
it’s the impending reversal of the deregulation of
electrical rates throughout the commonwealth which
Ridge sponsored and championed as governor in the
mid-1990s.
The return to unregulated electricity rates
will complete the triple whammy of energy consumer cost
explosions, and exacerbate the adverse economic
impact which has followed the dramatic increases in
gasoline and heating fuels over the past year.
Depending upon location within the state, electric rates
are expected to jump anywhere from 12 percent to 72
percent in 2010 and 2011, with a statewide average of
more than 40 percent.
That’s when the rate caps imposed by the Electricity
Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act - signed
into law by Ridge in 1996 after a robust campaign
promoting it - will expire.
The catalyst for the concerns about a forthcoming crisis in the
skyrocketing consumer cost of electricity is a study recently
released by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC).
It found that if the rate caps were to come off today, electric
rates in Pennsylvania would rise virtually overnight by an average of 43
percent, and impose a calamitous burden on home, commercial and
industry users.
The spike in electric prices is expected to be highest in the western
part of the state, where they look to rise by as much as 67 percent
in Allegheny County, and 50 percent in northwestern Pa., according to
the PUC study.
Some experts believe impending deregulation will precipitate a mass
exodus of industry and commerce from Pennsylvania, cause thousands
of small businesses throughout the commonwealth to fail, result in
massive unemployment, and further impoverish low income residents,
all of which the 1996 deregulation act was designed,
over-optimistically as it turns out, to forestall.
After the fall, the act will allow electricity producers to charge
rates based upon their costs of production and delivery.
Previously, they could not recover those costs through proportional
rate increases because of the ceiling placed on rates by the 1996
act, signed by Ridge after a high visibility promotional campaign.
But with the caps due to come off at staggered intervals throughout
the state in 2010 and 2011, electricity producers will be able to
charge rates which putatively reflect their costs of acquiring the
fuels needed to generate electricity – primarily oil, natural gas
and coal. Those costs have risen exponentially since the electric
rate caps were first applied in 1997.
Normally, the powerful electricity-producing lobby would have been
able to thwart passage of legislation in 1996 regulating and
putting caps on electrical rates. But what gave deregulation its
impetus in the mid-90s was a disarming Faustian bargain between the
popular Ridge administration and the general assembly on one hand,
and the electric industry on the other, the unintended consequences
of which are only now beginning to appear.
It provided that in exchange for acquiescing to rate caps, the
industry would be allowed by the state through the PUC to bill and
recover from consumers the costs of constructing new electrical
generating plants, a practice previously disallowed.
Ridge’s rationale centered on the theory that lower electrical rates
than those in other states would attract new industry to
Pennsylvania, produce tens of thousand of new jobs, and give rank
and file Pennsylvania users more affordable electricity.
In the first years following deregulation, Pennsylvania surpassed
other states in electrical rate-lowering, ranking first in the
nation. In a February 7, 2001 press release Ridge said: “Once again
we were named the No. 1 state for electric deregulation. Why? We
have plenty of juice…we’re plugged in. Customers have greater
choices. And consumers and businesses have saved $3 billion. So if
any companies in California are listening,” Ridge gloated, “come on
over to Pennsylvania. We’ll leave the lights on for you.” Ridge said
at the time deregulation “will create more than 36,000 new jobs in
Pennsylvania by 2004.” That never happened.
Ridge’s theory was based on the optimistic premise that the capped
rates would bring new electric-producing competitors into the state
and lower rates overall through wider competition. The flaw in the
theory was that it self-destructed.
Newcomers couldn’t compete in Pennsylvania with the big existing
producers. Even with the rate caps, existing producers were able to
generate healthy profits since deregulation went into effect 20
years ago because of the absence of new competition.
With the unshackling of the rate caps two years hence, they will
make a killing of unprecedented proportions at the expense of
consumers unless the legislature and the PUC enact and devise
remedies to interdict them against what is expected to be a
powerful lobbying effort by the industry to make sure the rate caps
disappear forever.
How is retribution exacted from a former governor whose failed
vision 20 years after the fact results in punitive consequences on
an unprecedented scale for his onetime constituents?
By elevating him, apparently, to one of the nation’s leading
cabinet level positions and widespread celebrity.
Sunday edition today,the Erie Times-News finally caught
up with Pennsylvania's pending energy catastrophe,
the deregulation of electricity rates, a story first
broken here (see below) more than a week ago.
Within the next two years, the deregulation of electricity
rates engineered 22 years ago by former Governor Tom Ridge
will cause them to skyrocket in northwestern Pa. by
50 percent.
____________________________________________________________
Ex-Gov. Tom Ridge's hidden legacy emerges
from the shadows, a ticking time bomb
The long-standing love affair which a majority of
Pennsylvanians have had with former Governor Tom Ridge
is likely to come to a screeching halt for many of
them in the next couple years.
That’s when one of Ridge’s hidden gubernatorial
legacies, a ticking time bomb, emerges after two
decades from the shadows.
A product of the law of unintended consequences,
it’s the impending reversal of the deregulation of
electrical rates throughout the commonwealth which
Ridge sponsored and championed as governor in the
mid-1990s.
The return to unregulated electricity rates
will complete the triple whammy of energy consumer cost
explosions, and exacerbate the adverse economic
impact which has followed the dramatic increases in
gasoline and heating fuels over the past year.
Depending upon location within the state, electric rates
are expected to jump anywhere from 12 percent to 72
percent in 2010 and 2011, with a statewide average of
more than 40 percent.
That’s when the rate caps imposed by the Electricity
Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act - signed
into law by Ridge in 1996 after a robust campaign
promoting it - will expire.
The catalyst for the concerns about a forthcoming crisis in the
skyrocketing consumer cost of electricity is a study recently
released by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC).
It found that if the rate caps were to come off today, electric
rates in Pennsylvania would rise virtually overnight by an average of 43
percent, and impose a calamitous burden on home, commercial and
industry users.
The spike in electric prices is expected to be highest in the western
part of the state, where they look to rise by as much as 67 percent
in Allegheny County, and 50 percent in northwestern Pa., according to
the PUC study.
Some experts believe impending deregulation will precipitate a mass
exodus of industry and commerce from Pennsylvania, cause thousands
of small businesses throughout the commonwealth to fail, result in
massive unemployment, and further impoverish low income residents,
all of which the 1996 deregulation act was designed,
over-optimistically as it turns out, to forestall.
After the fall, the act will allow electricity producers to charge
rates based upon their costs of production and delivery.
Previously, they could not recover those costs through proportional
rate increases because of the ceiling placed on rates by the 1996
act, signed by Ridge after a high visibility promotional campaign.
But with the caps due to come off at staggered intervals throughout
the state in 2010 and 2011, electricity producers will be able to
charge rates which putatively reflect their costs of acquiring the
fuels needed to generate electricity – primarily oil, natural gas
and coal. Those costs have risen exponentially since the electric
rate caps were first applied in 1997.
Normally, the powerful electricity-producing lobby would have been
able to thwart passage of legislation in 1996 regulating and
putting caps on electrical rates. But what gave deregulation its
impetus in the mid-90s was a disarming Faustian bargain between the
popular Ridge administration and the general assembly on one hand,
and the electric industry on the other, the unintended consequences
of which are only now beginning to appear.
It provided that in exchange for acquiescing to rate caps, the
industry would be allowed by the state through the PUC to bill and
recover from consumers the costs of constructing new electrical
generating plants, a practice previously disallowed.
Ridge’s rationale centered on the theory that lower electrical rates
than those in other states would attract new industry to
Pennsylvania, produce tens of thousand of new jobs, and give rank
and file Pennsylvania users more affordable electricity.
In the first years following deregulation, Pennsylvania surpassed
other states in electrical rate-lowering, ranking first in the
nation. In a February 7, 2001 press release Ridge said: “Once again
we were named the No. 1 state for electric deregulation. Why? We
have plenty of juice…we’re plugged in. Customers have greater
choices. And consumers and businesses have saved $3 billion. So if
any companies in California are listening,” Ridge gloated, “come on
over to Pennsylvania. We’ll leave the lights on for you.” Ridge said
at the time deregulation “will create more than 36,000 new jobs in
Pennsylvania by 2004.” That never happened.
Ridge’s theory was based on the optimistic premise that the capped
rates would bring new electric-producing competitors into the state
and lower rates overall through wider competition. The flaw in the
theory was that it self-destructed.
Newcomers couldn’t compete in Pennsylvania with the big existing
producers. Even with the rate caps, existing producers were able to
generate healthy profits since deregulation went into effect 20
years ago because of the absence of new competition.
With the unshackling of the rate caps two years hence, they will
make a killing of unprecedented proportions at the expense of
consumers unless the legislature and the PUC enact and devise
remedies to interdict them against what is expected to be a
powerful lobbying effort by the industry to make sure the rate caps
disappear forever.
How is retribution exacted from a former governor whose failed
vision 20 years after the fact results in punitive consequences on
an unprecedented scale for his onetime constituents?
By elevating him, apparently, to one of the nation’s leading
cabinet level positions and widespread celebrity.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The road to kingmaking
In her column published August 24, Liz Allen, the
Erie Times-News's newly-anointed "public editor,"
so-called, successor to Kevin Cuneo in that position,
appealed to readers to "help frame the issues" relating
to the upcoming general election on Nov. 4.
The newspaper would use the input, Liz said, to enable
its editorial board to reach decisions with respect
to editorial endorsements.
Since time immemorial, the Erie Times-News and other
self-promoting newspaper more interested in purveying
influence rather than information, have been publishing
editorials endorsing or not endorsing candidates and
ballot issues in the final rundown to upcoming elections.
This is an archaic and arrogant practice which over
the decades has detracted rather than contributed to
the electoral process.
It’s one that has never been acceptable among intelligent
and thinking citizenry, and is growing less and less
palatable as self-serving newspapers like the Times-News,
poseurs of objectivity, make recommendations pro or con
which reflect their own biases, vested and financial
interests, not the general public’s. It's influence-peddling
of the rankest kind.
Here’s what one prominent newspaper founder, owner and
publisher, Al Neuharth whose newspaper, USA TODAY, with
the largest circulation in the nation, more than
two million, has said about this counterproductive
and despicable practice:
“Enlightened newspaper editors and owners have come
to understand that when they endorse a political
candidate their news coverage becomes suspect in
the eyes of readers, even though most reporters
are basically fair and accurate.
“When USA TODAY was founded in 1982, we decided our
role was to inform, educate, entertain, debate, but
not dictate. That built trust among readers and is
one of the reasons the "Nation's Newspaper" has the
largest circulation in the country.
“If decision-makers at newspapers quit trying to be
kingmakers, they and their readers would benefit.”
Amen.
Erie Times-News's newly-anointed "public editor,"
so-called, successor to Kevin Cuneo in that position,
appealed to readers to "help frame the issues" relating
to the upcoming general election on Nov. 4.
The newspaper would use the input, Liz said, to enable
its editorial board to reach decisions with respect
to editorial endorsements.
Since time immemorial, the Erie Times-News and other
self-promoting newspaper more interested in purveying
influence rather than information, have been publishing
editorials endorsing or not endorsing candidates and
ballot issues in the final rundown to upcoming elections.
This is an archaic and arrogant practice which over
the decades has detracted rather than contributed to
the electoral process.
It’s one that has never been acceptable among intelligent
and thinking citizenry, and is growing less and less
palatable as self-serving newspapers like the Times-News,
poseurs of objectivity, make recommendations pro or con
which reflect their own biases, vested and financial
interests, not the general public’s. It's influence-peddling
of the rankest kind.
Here’s what one prominent newspaper founder, owner and
publisher, Al Neuharth whose newspaper, USA TODAY, with
the largest circulation in the nation, more than
two million, has said about this counterproductive
and despicable practice:
“Enlightened newspaper editors and owners have come
to understand that when they endorse a political
candidate their news coverage becomes suspect in
the eyes of readers, even though most reporters
are basically fair and accurate.
“When USA TODAY was founded in 1982, we decided our
role was to inform, educate, entertain, debate, but
not dictate. That built trust among readers and is
one of the reasons the "Nation's Newspaper" has the
largest circulation in the country.
“If decision-makers at newspapers quit trying to be
kingmakers, they and their readers would benefit.”
Amen.
What they need is a break from their breaks
An Associated Press article in the Times-News today reported on the likely agenda of the Pennsylvania General Assembly's upcoming nine-day session, concluding it with this statement: "After all that, lawmakers will need a break." Then they'll go on a three-month holiday "break."
Just the facts please!
Pennslvania legislators don't need anymore breaks. They're nearly the highest paid in the country, with the highest perks anywhere, which they wildly abuse; the largest legislature in the nation with twice as many members as the commonwealth needs per capita; twice as many staff persons as they need who spend most of their time campaigning for the reelection of their employer; have granted themselves and their families the finest retirement and medical benefits anywhere, and only meet in session two or three days out of the week when they're not out on a "break."
They don't have to worry about health benfits or high gas prices because the taxpayers pay for them all through an exhorbitant health program legislators designed for themselves, and auto travel allowances they voted to give themselves. Give ME a break!
Just the facts please!
Pennslvania legislators don't need anymore breaks. They're nearly the highest paid in the country, with the highest perks anywhere, which they wildly abuse; the largest legislature in the nation with twice as many members as the commonwealth needs per capita; twice as many staff persons as they need who spend most of their time campaigning for the reelection of their employer; have granted themselves and their families the finest retirement and medical benefits anywhere, and only meet in session two or three days out of the week when they're not out on a "break."
They don't have to worry about health benfits or high gas prices because the taxpayers pay for them all through an exhorbitant health program legislators designed for themselves, and auto travel allowances they voted to give themselves. Give ME a break!
Pennsylvania's "farmland preservation" boondoggle
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; 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.
For example, last year about this time, 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 earlier, 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.
Expect to see any day now a dreary re-run of this fictional
narrative masquerading as fact.
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. It 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, even millions of dollars
subsidized by taxpayers at all levels of government, local,
state and federal.
This transformation is the regrettable but unintended
consequence (at least for the mindless masses who have
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 3,000.
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 developmen
t 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 County.
How 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 were
initiated last year to curb 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 preservation.
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 3,000-plus farms and mor than 400,000
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
many hundreds of millions of dollars, now approching
$1 billion, millions of state and national taxpayers
have paid for the disproportionate benefit of a very few.
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; 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.
For example, last year about this time, 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 earlier, 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.
Expect to see any day now a dreary re-run of this fictional
narrative masquerading as fact.
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. It 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, even millions of dollars
subsidized by taxpayers at all levels of government, local,
state and federal.
This transformation is the regrettable but unintended
consequence (at least for the mindless masses who have
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 3,000.
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 developmen
t 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 County.
How 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 were
initiated last year to curb 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 preservation.
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 3,000-plus farms and mor than 400,000
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
many hundreds of millions of dollars, now approching
$1 billion, millions of state and national taxpayers
have paid for the disproportionate benefit of a very few.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Area State Legislators: Should House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese step down over bonusgate scandal?
In an earlier post last week I noted that I had sent e-mails
to the five state House members - three Democrats and two
Republicans - who represent this area whether they would
publicly call for Rep. Bill DeWeese, D-Greene County, to
step down as majority leader for his role in the current
bonusgate scandal now being investigated by the state
attorney general (See August 25, Erie Times-News columnist
trumps newsroom).
So far, ten of DeWeese's fellow House Democrats downstate
have called for him to step down.
Here's the question I posed to area legislators:
As you know, your House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese was
not one of the eight legislators, all Democrats, indicted
recently by the Grand Jury investigating the so-called
Bonusgate scandal.
However, that investigation by the state attorney general's
office is continuing, and it's a virtual certainty that
others will be implicated.
So far, ten of your Democrat colleagues in the House of
Representatives have asked Rep. DeWeese to step down
as majority leader even though he wasn't indicted because
he is/was very close to some of the principals who
have been, and because this scandal occured, so to speak,
"on his watch."
It's generally believed that it is inconceivable Rep. DeWeese
did now know about the bonus gate activities in which case
he is culpable by association; or, if he didn't, he's an
incompetent leader.
Can you tell me whether you believe Rep. DeWeese should
step down as majority leader or,as one of your House
Democrat colleagues has suggested, resign from the
legislature and abort his reelection campaign?
RESPONSES
Of the five area state legislators, three have responded
to my question. They are Reps. Pat Harkins (D), Rep. John Evans (R)
and Rep. Curt Sonney (R). Reps. Flo Fabrizio and John Hornaman,
both Democrats, have not responded.
Here's Rep. Evans's response:
Dear Mr. LaRocca
"As a Republican member of the House, I do not have a vote for
Democratic leadership positions. Only members of the Democratic
Caucus have the ability to address the viability of Rep. DeWeese's
leadership. Thank you for your concern regarding this matter.
John Evans
In a subsequent response,Rep. Evans added these comments:
Dear Mr. LaRocca,
Perhaps there is a reason that only Democrats are calling
for him to step down. They elected him as their leader.
Your question would be a different story if you were
talking about our Republican leader Sam Smith, as I
voted for him to be the Republican leader. It makes
no difference what any Republican thinks about removing
Deweese as leader since we can do bsolutely nothing about
his leadership status. I hope this addresses your
question.
John Evans
Here's my response:
Dear Rep. Evans,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You may have a point.
However, I believe the point you're missing is the role
of legislator as a filter of information for his and her
constituents.
Legislators are our eyes and ears in Harrisburg.
Especially in light of the fact that here in Erie
County the only daily newspaper covering all or
most of three key counties does not staff the
legislature or central state government in Harrisburg
from the Northwest PA perspective.
Whether or not there is sorely needed legislative reform
going forward depends upon whether the mass of public
opinion is behind it. That will only happen if you and your
colleagues inform the public of the critical need for reform
(about which I'll have more to say to you later)in light of
the corruption which the attorney general has uncovered,
with still more to come, perhaps implicating some Republicans.
If you and your colleagues remain silent on the issues
and feed me and the public coordinated responses that
don't address them realistically, there's nothing to
launch and sustain reform. Fortunately, ten Democrat legislators
downstate have not taken that position.
Joe LaRocca
Here's Rep. Sonney's response:
"Thank you for your website submission from Aug. 8th. As a
Republican I'm sure that Rep. DeWeese could care less about
my thoughts on him stepping down. You asked if I believe if
he should step down from his leadership role? Absolutely!
As you mentioned in your email, it happened "on his watch"
therefore, he should be held responsible for the actions of
his caucus' members and staff. Furthermore, you asked if he
should end his re-election campaign, fortunately we live in a
great country that allows the people of his district to decide
who will represent them in Government. I would hope that the
good citizens that he currently represents will not send him
back to Harrisburg."
Here's Rep. Harkins's response:
Mr. Larocca,
Thank you for your interest in Mr. DeWeese.
I have been working on a number of issues in my district
the past month(Education, Healthcare, Property Tax
Reform) that not being in Harrisburg I have not had the
chance to talk to the rest of the Democratic Caucus
to see what is actually going on. What do you think I
should do?
Pat Harkins
In response to Rep. Harkins's question to me above,
"What do you think I should do?" I replied as follows:
Dear Rep. Harkins
As I indicated, Rep. DeWeese has not been indicted for an
alleged crime, so this is not a case of presumption of innocence.
The question is whether Rep. DeWeese knew what was going on with
respect to bonus gate, even if he wasn't a participant, which
he may have been.
If he did know or participated, he's complicit. If, as
he says, he didn't, then he's an incompetent leader.
That's an issue for his House followers to judge. In
either case, I believe he should step down. Apparently,
at least ten of your Democrat colleagues agree.
I personally believe Rep. DeWeese is complicit based on
eveything I've read, including his own published statements
in one or all of the state's four major newspapers: the
Harrisburg Patriot News, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the
Philadelphia Inquirer and the Allentown Call (Forget the
Erie Times-News. They're clueless).
I don't see how House Democrats can claim any credibility
going forward if DeWeese remains in the caucus leadership
in any capacity. Democrat credibility may not be salvageable
in any case, depending upon what happens with the ongoing
investigation.
My experience is that corruption is contagious, doesn't
respect political boundaries, and it's possible
that some Republicans may be implicated, in which case
the entire House's credibility is at stake. Unless those
presumably like you who were not implicated make a vigorous
and transparent effort to clean House, so to speak, its
future looks even more dismal.
As can be seen, all three legislators who responded
to my query danced around the question.So I again posed the
question: This time Rep. Harkins replied:
Joe, as I said before I have not been in Harrisburg to speak with the
rest of the Democratic Caucus or Rep. DeWeese. We have nine session days
scheduled for the fall session and the election is on Nov. 4th. and if
the voters in his district feel they want to vote him out that is their
prerogative.
If the man has not been indicted or convicted of a crime I
have no reason to ask him to resign. I am as frustrated as you that only
Democrats have been indicted in this probe and the more I see the more I
suspect that there is a political motive involved here. After the
November 4th. election we Democratic House members will meet to
reorganize and at that time we will see who would be best to lead our
caucus. If this is a political ploy to weaken the Democrats in November
I am very concerned with who might try to lead the Republicans and serve
as speaker of the House. Stay tuned!
Rep. Pat Harkins
I responded:
Dear Rep. Harkins:
Thanks for your amplification. I believe the test of whether
it's a political ploy depends enirely on whether the attorney
general finds that some Republicans are implicated. As I said
earlier, I believe large scale corruption such as this is
contagious and crosses party lines.I will be very surprised,
as well as suspicious, like you, if some Republicans are not
implicated.
I don't understand why you feel you need to consult with
the other members of your caucus. This is a matter of
individual conscience. Apparently ten members of your
caucus downstate individually believe he should step down
as majority leader and have publicly said so.
You say that "if the voters in his district feel they want
to vote him out that is their prerogative." However, regardless
of whether Rep. DeWeese is indicted and/or convicted of a crime(s), his
failure of leadership, which is undeniable, greatly transcends
his district and has both statewide and national impications
because of the adverse effect bonusgate has had in corrupting
Pennsylvania's treasury and electoral processes.
Your constituents and the constituents of every other legislator
outside DeWeese's district have a compelling stake in whether he
continues to wield leadership power statewide.
Sincerely,
Joe LaRocca
to the five state House members - three Democrats and two
Republicans - who represent this area whether they would
publicly call for Rep. Bill DeWeese, D-Greene County, to
step down as majority leader for his role in the current
bonusgate scandal now being investigated by the state
attorney general (See August 25, Erie Times-News columnist
trumps newsroom).
So far, ten of DeWeese's fellow House Democrats downstate
have called for him to step down.
Here's the question I posed to area legislators:
As you know, your House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese was
not one of the eight legislators, all Democrats, indicted
recently by the Grand Jury investigating the so-called
Bonusgate scandal.
However, that investigation by the state attorney general's
office is continuing, and it's a virtual certainty that
others will be implicated.
So far, ten of your Democrat colleagues in the House of
Representatives have asked Rep. DeWeese to step down
as majority leader even though he wasn't indicted because
he is/was very close to some of the principals who
have been, and because this scandal occured, so to speak,
"on his watch."
It's generally believed that it is inconceivable Rep. DeWeese
did now know about the bonus gate activities in which case
he is culpable by association; or, if he didn't, he's an
incompetent leader.
Can you tell me whether you believe Rep. DeWeese should
step down as majority leader or,as one of your House
Democrat colleagues has suggested, resign from the
legislature and abort his reelection campaign?
RESPONSES
Of the five area state legislators, three have responded
to my question. They are Reps. Pat Harkins (D), Rep. John Evans (R)
and Rep. Curt Sonney (R). Reps. Flo Fabrizio and John Hornaman,
both Democrats, have not responded.
Here's Rep. Evans's response:
Dear Mr. LaRocca
"As a Republican member of the House, I do not have a vote for
Democratic leadership positions. Only members of the Democratic
Caucus have the ability to address the viability of Rep. DeWeese's
leadership. Thank you for your concern regarding this matter.
John Evans
In a subsequent response,Rep. Evans added these comments:
Dear Mr. LaRocca,
Perhaps there is a reason that only Democrats are calling
for him to step down. They elected him as their leader.
Your question would be a different story if you were
talking about our Republican leader Sam Smith, as I
voted for him to be the Republican leader. It makes
no difference what any Republican thinks about removing
Deweese as leader since we can do bsolutely nothing about
his leadership status. I hope this addresses your
question.
John Evans
Here's my response:
Dear Rep. Evans,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You may have a point.
However, I believe the point you're missing is the role
of legislator as a filter of information for his and her
constituents.
Legislators are our eyes and ears in Harrisburg.
Especially in light of the fact that here in Erie
County the only daily newspaper covering all or
most of three key counties does not staff the
legislature or central state government in Harrisburg
from the Northwest PA perspective.
Whether or not there is sorely needed legislative reform
going forward depends upon whether the mass of public
opinion is behind it. That will only happen if you and your
colleagues inform the public of the critical need for reform
(about which I'll have more to say to you later)in light of
the corruption which the attorney general has uncovered,
with still more to come, perhaps implicating some Republicans.
If you and your colleagues remain silent on the issues
and feed me and the public coordinated responses that
don't address them realistically, there's nothing to
launch and sustain reform. Fortunately, ten Democrat legislators
downstate have not taken that position.
Joe LaRocca
Here's Rep. Sonney's response:
"Thank you for your website submission from Aug. 8th. As a
Republican I'm sure that Rep. DeWeese could care less about
my thoughts on him stepping down. You asked if I believe if
he should step down from his leadership role? Absolutely!
As you mentioned in your email, it happened "on his watch"
therefore, he should be held responsible for the actions of
his caucus' members and staff. Furthermore, you asked if he
should end his re-election campaign, fortunately we live in a
great country that allows the people of his district to decide
who will represent them in Government. I would hope that the
good citizens that he currently represents will not send him
back to Harrisburg."
Here's Rep. Harkins's response:
Mr. Larocca,
Thank you for your interest in Mr. DeWeese.
I have been working on a number of issues in my district
the past month(Education, Healthcare, Property Tax
Reform) that not being in Harrisburg I have not had the
chance to talk to the rest of the Democratic Caucus
to see what is actually going on. What do you think I
should do?
Pat Harkins
In response to Rep. Harkins's question to me above,
"What do you think I should do?" I replied as follows:
Dear Rep. Harkins
As I indicated, Rep. DeWeese has not been indicted for an
alleged crime, so this is not a case of presumption of innocence.
The question is whether Rep. DeWeese knew what was going on with
respect to bonus gate, even if he wasn't a participant, which
he may have been.
If he did know or participated, he's complicit. If, as
he says, he didn't, then he's an incompetent leader.
That's an issue for his House followers to judge. In
either case, I believe he should step down. Apparently,
at least ten of your Democrat colleagues agree.
I personally believe Rep. DeWeese is complicit based on
eveything I've read, including his own published statements
in one or all of the state's four major newspapers: the
Harrisburg Patriot News, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the
Philadelphia Inquirer and the Allentown Call (Forget the
Erie Times-News. They're clueless).
I don't see how House Democrats can claim any credibility
going forward if DeWeese remains in the caucus leadership
in any capacity. Democrat credibility may not be salvageable
in any case, depending upon what happens with the ongoing
investigation.
My experience is that corruption is contagious, doesn't
respect political boundaries, and it's possible
that some Republicans may be implicated, in which case
the entire House's credibility is at stake. Unless those
presumably like you who were not implicated make a vigorous
and transparent effort to clean House, so to speak, its
future looks even more dismal.
As can be seen, all three legislators who responded
to my query danced around the question.So I again posed the
question: This time Rep. Harkins replied:
Joe, as I said before I have not been in Harrisburg to speak with the
rest of the Democratic Caucus or Rep. DeWeese. We have nine session days
scheduled for the fall session and the election is on Nov. 4th. and if
the voters in his district feel they want to vote him out that is their
prerogative.
If the man has not been indicted or convicted of a crime I
have no reason to ask him to resign. I am as frustrated as you that only
Democrats have been indicted in this probe and the more I see the more I
suspect that there is a political motive involved here. After the
November 4th. election we Democratic House members will meet to
reorganize and at that time we will see who would be best to lead our
caucus. If this is a political ploy to weaken the Democrats in November
I am very concerned with who might try to lead the Republicans and serve
as speaker of the House. Stay tuned!
Rep. Pat Harkins
I responded:
Dear Rep. Harkins:
Thanks for your amplification. I believe the test of whether
it's a political ploy depends enirely on whether the attorney
general finds that some Republicans are implicated. As I said
earlier, I believe large scale corruption such as this is
contagious and crosses party lines.I will be very surprised,
as well as suspicious, like you, if some Republicans are not
implicated.
I don't understand why you feel you need to consult with
the other members of your caucus. This is a matter of
individual conscience. Apparently ten members of your
caucus downstate individually believe he should step down
as majority leader and have publicly said so.
You say that "if the voters in his district feel they want
to vote him out that is their prerogative." However, regardless
of whether Rep. DeWeese is indicted and/or convicted of a crime(s), his
failure of leadership, which is undeniable, greatly transcends
his district and has both statewide and national impications
because of the adverse effect bonusgate has had in corrupting
Pennsylvania's treasury and electoral processes.
Your constituents and the constituents of every other legislator
outside DeWeese's district have a compelling stake in whether he
continues to wield leadership power statewide.
Sincerely,
Joe LaRocca
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Special prosecutor in legislative corruption scandal unwarranted
The Associated Press reported Monday that the Democratic nominee
for Pennsylvania state attorney general, John Morganelli, has
called for appointment of a special prosecutor to take over the
legislative corruption investigation launched by the incumbent
AG Tom Corbett a Republican. Morganelli is currently district
attorney in Northhampton county.
So far in the wide-ranging investigation. a grand jury has indicted
eight sitting legislators, one former legislator and three staff
members linked to them, all Democrats. Corbett has publicly stated
that the investation is on-going, that Republican legislators and
staff are also targets, and that more arrests are pending.
It was reported last week by the Harrisburg Patriot-News that Corbett
has begun interviewing Republican legislative staff as part of
the on-going investigation.
Although Corbett bungled the felony case against former State Rep.
Linda Bebko-Jones, D-Erie, recently who plea bargained down
charges that she forged signatures on her reelection petition
see August 25 post, Justice perverted), it would be a huge mistake to
hand over his ongoing investigation on legislative corruption
to a special investigator.
As pointed out in the AP article, that would require reenactment
of an expired law authorizing appointment of a special prosecutor.
More importantly, it would effectively put the investigation of
legislative corruption into the hands of the legislature,
currently controlled by Democrats. The result would be the
fox guarding the chicken coop.
While Republican Corbett has so far failed to produce any information
linking fellow Republicans in the legislature to the biggest legislative
corruption scandal in the commonwealth's history as promised, unless
and until there's credible eveidence that Corbett's not being evenhanded,
he should be free to pursue the investigation unfettered.
for Pennsylvania state attorney general, John Morganelli, has
called for appointment of a special prosecutor to take over the
legislative corruption investigation launched by the incumbent
AG Tom Corbett a Republican. Morganelli is currently district
attorney in Northhampton county.
So far in the wide-ranging investigation. a grand jury has indicted
eight sitting legislators, one former legislator and three staff
members linked to them, all Democrats. Corbett has publicly stated
that the investation is on-going, that Republican legislators and
staff are also targets, and that more arrests are pending.
It was reported last week by the Harrisburg Patriot-News that Corbett
has begun interviewing Republican legislative staff as part of
the on-going investigation.
Although Corbett bungled the felony case against former State Rep.
Linda Bebko-Jones, D-Erie, recently who plea bargained down
charges that she forged signatures on her reelection petition
see August 25 post, Justice perverted), it would be a huge mistake to
hand over his ongoing investigation on legislative corruption
to a special investigator.
As pointed out in the AP article, that would require reenactment
of an expired law authorizing appointment of a special prosecutor.
More importantly, it would effectively put the investigation of
legislative corruption into the hands of the legislature,
currently controlled by Democrats. The result would be the
fox guarding the chicken coop.
While Republican Corbett has so far failed to produce any information
linking fellow Republicans in the legislature to the biggest legislative
corruption scandal in the commonwealth's history as promised, unless
and until there's credible eveidence that Corbett's not being evenhanded,
he should be free to pursue the investigation unfettered.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
News bias at the New York Times
I sent the following query to David Stout at the
New York Times, whom I knew briefly when I worked
with him at the Erie newspaper back in the 60s. It's
in connection with the New York Times's regular feature,
Talk to the Newsroom, in which designated
Times editors and reporters respond to questions
from readers about their respective roles at the
newspaper, a kind of behind-the-scenes view.
The column was written by Stout over period of several days
a couple weeks ago. His current position at the Times is
"continuing news editor" whereby he rewrites, edits and
updates articles appearing in the Times on a continuing
basis throughout a news cycle. My query and Dave's response follow:
"Q. As an obviously committed and ethical journalist, how
do you deal internally and intellectually as you write and
rewrite news copy, with prevailing criticism from credible
quarters, including some by The Times's public editor, that
The Times has a pronounced liberal or leftist bias, not only
on its editorial and Op-Ed pages, but in its news columns as
well, sometimes on Page One?
— Joe LaRocca, North East, Pa."
"(A) Joe, your question is more complicated. It's true that our
editorial page is known, in general, for a center-to-left
orientation, as opposed to a center-to-right leaning.
"But our Op-Ed page has certainly presented conservative
viewpoints as well, unless I completely misunderstand David
Brooks and William Kristol and, before them, William Safire.
Of course, I expect some readers to distrust me because I
work for The Times — and others to give me the benefit of
the doubt for the same reason. I expect some readers to
see a motive in what I write, or don't write.
"I wrote an article about the execution in Texas of a man who
killed a store manager in a robbery seven years ago. It was
a brief article, in no sense a reconstruction of the case,
and I did not mention the victim's name. Therefore, a reader
told me in an e-mail, I was obviously sympathetic to the killer,
and shame on me and The Times.
"Now, how does one respond to an accusation like that?
Of course, how I see the world — and the news — is influenced
by my life experience. It is not influenced by what I think
the high-ranking editors think I should think. But I know some
people will think otherwise, no matter what. It's part of the job."
I believe Dave responded as candidly as he could under the
circumstances. I believe him when he says his writing "is not
influenced by what I think the high-ranking editors think I
should think. But I know some people will think otherwise, no
matter what. It's part of the job."
But there's a pervasive mind-set at the Times which subtley colors
the conscious or sub-conscious zones of its newswriters and editors
to which some of them succumb to one degree or another. As Dave
said, it's a complicated question.
While working in Alaska as a news journalist back in the 70s and 80s,
I was the chief field correspondent for the Times in Alaska for a number of years, writing mostly for its national, business and travel news desks. I knew I had to tailor the stories I wrote for the Times to conform to its ideology or they
wouldn't be published.
Since I had a high rate of publication there despite heavy
competition from staff writers for space in the newspaper,
I must have succeeded in tilting my stories to the Times
editors' satisfaction.
That is,I admit, a form of professional prostitution, and any
newsperson who doesn't acknowledge his or her susceptibility
is a liar.
But I justified it on grounds that if I didn't go with the
Times tilt, none of the reporting and writing I did which I felt
was important for its readers to be exposed to would see the
light of day. Half a loaf is better than none.
Dave's comment pertaining to the New York Times's Op-Ed page
is somewhat of a dodge. I did not say, of course, that the OP-Ed
Page is EXCLUSIVELY liberal or leftist. But David Brooks and
Bill Kristol are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The Op-Ed Page is PREDOMINANTELY liberal, featuring other
leftist writers like Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Bob Ebert,
Maureen Dowd, Tom Freidman, Nicholas Kristoff and others. It's a
bias which is unfortunately all too often garishly reflected
on its news as well as its editorial pages.
TheTimes recently took a lot of heat for publishing an Op-Ed article submitted by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, then refused to publish a response by the Republicn nominee John McCain unless he rewrote it to conform to certain guidelines prescribed by the Times.(Sounds like the practices of another smaller, more obscure Times newspaper).
New York Times, whom I knew briefly when I worked
with him at the Erie newspaper back in the 60s. It's
in connection with the New York Times's regular feature,
Talk to the Newsroom, in which designated
Times editors and reporters respond to questions
from readers about their respective roles at the
newspaper, a kind of behind-the-scenes view.
The column was written by Stout over period of several days
a couple weeks ago. His current position at the Times is
"continuing news editor" whereby he rewrites, edits and
updates articles appearing in the Times on a continuing
basis throughout a news cycle. My query and Dave's response follow:
"Q. As an obviously committed and ethical journalist, how
do you deal internally and intellectually as you write and
rewrite news copy, with prevailing criticism from credible
quarters, including some by The Times's public editor, that
The Times has a pronounced liberal or leftist bias, not only
on its editorial and Op-Ed pages, but in its news columns as
well, sometimes on Page One?
— Joe LaRocca, North East, Pa."
"(A) Joe, your question is more complicated. It's true that our
editorial page is known, in general, for a center-to-left
orientation, as opposed to a center-to-right leaning.
"But our Op-Ed page has certainly presented conservative
viewpoints as well, unless I completely misunderstand David
Brooks and William Kristol and, before them, William Safire.
Of course, I expect some readers to distrust me because I
work for The Times — and others to give me the benefit of
the doubt for the same reason. I expect some readers to
see a motive in what I write, or don't write.
"I wrote an article about the execution in Texas of a man who
killed a store manager in a robbery seven years ago. It was
a brief article, in no sense a reconstruction of the case,
and I did not mention the victim's name. Therefore, a reader
told me in an e-mail, I was obviously sympathetic to the killer,
and shame on me and The Times.
"Now, how does one respond to an accusation like that?
Of course, how I see the world — and the news — is influenced
by my life experience. It is not influenced by what I think
the high-ranking editors think I should think. But I know some
people will think otherwise, no matter what. It's part of the job."
I believe Dave responded as candidly as he could under the
circumstances. I believe him when he says his writing "is not
influenced by what I think the high-ranking editors think I
should think. But I know some people will think otherwise, no
matter what. It's part of the job."
But there's a pervasive mind-set at the Times which subtley colors
the conscious or sub-conscious zones of its newswriters and editors
to which some of them succumb to one degree or another. As Dave
said, it's a complicated question.
While working in Alaska as a news journalist back in the 70s and 80s,
I was the chief field correspondent for the Times in Alaska for a number of years, writing mostly for its national, business and travel news desks. I knew I had to tailor the stories I wrote for the Times to conform to its ideology or they
wouldn't be published.
Since I had a high rate of publication there despite heavy
competition from staff writers for space in the newspaper,
I must have succeeded in tilting my stories to the Times
editors' satisfaction.
That is,I admit, a form of professional prostitution, and any
newsperson who doesn't acknowledge his or her susceptibility
is a liar.
But I justified it on grounds that if I didn't go with the
Times tilt, none of the reporting and writing I did which I felt
was important for its readers to be exposed to would see the
light of day. Half a loaf is better than none.
Dave's comment pertaining to the New York Times's Op-Ed page
is somewhat of a dodge. I did not say, of course, that the OP-Ed
Page is EXCLUSIVELY liberal or leftist. But David Brooks and
Bill Kristol are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The Op-Ed Page is PREDOMINANTELY liberal, featuring other
leftist writers like Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Bob Ebert,
Maureen Dowd, Tom Freidman, Nicholas Kristoff and others. It's a
bias which is unfortunately all too often garishly reflected
on its news as well as its editorial pages.
TheTimes recently took a lot of heat for publishing an Op-Ed article submitted by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, then refused to publish a response by the Republicn nominee John McCain unless he rewrote it to conform to certain guidelines prescribed by the Times.(Sounds like the practices of another smaller, more obscure Times newspaper).
Who's picking whom at the Erie Times-News?
Erie Times-News writers, editors and proofeaders need to brush up on who/whom usage. In his column today, Ed Mead wrote:
"Kennedy has always been ready to support the Democratic Party, whatever it does or whomever (SHOULD BE WHOEVER) is running.
In his article today in which he wrote Governor Rendell predicted John McCain would not pick Tom Ridge as his runnning mate, John Guerriero wrote:
"But Horton said it doesn't matter who (SHOULD BE WHOM) McCain picks as his running mate because the Erie delegate said he thinks Obama will win Nov. 4. Many polls now show a close race between Obama and McCain."
Guerriero's article is typical of the one-sided coverage the Times-News has given to the Obama/McCain contest. While it's cleverly nuanced, it's worth incalculable thousands of dollars in political advertising and promotion to the Democratic presidential nominee's campaign, while at the same time detracting from the McCain campaign.
"Kennedy has always been ready to support the Democratic Party, whatever it does or whomever (SHOULD BE WHOEVER) is running.
In his article today in which he wrote Governor Rendell predicted John McCain would not pick Tom Ridge as his runnning mate, John Guerriero wrote:
"But Horton said it doesn't matter who (SHOULD BE WHOM) McCain picks as his running mate because the Erie delegate said he thinks Obama will win Nov. 4. Many polls now show a close race between Obama and McCain."
Guerriero's article is typical of the one-sided coverage the Times-News has given to the Obama/McCain contest. While it's cleverly nuanced, it's worth incalculable thousands of dollars in political advertising and promotion to the Democratic presidential nominee's campaign, while at the same time detracting from the McCain campaign.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Erie Times-News columnist trumps newsroom
It's revealing that a major statewide political story
with potentially profound local implications was broken
locally by a gossip columnist, and underscores the
ineptitude of the Erie Times-News's feeble news department.
Last week Ed (Mathews)Mead broke the news locally that the
prolonged investigation by the state attorney general
has spread from Democrat wrongdoers in the state
legislature to their Republican counterparts, as
promised earlier by the AG.
It comes as no surprise to Pennsylvanians in Pittsburgh,
Harrisburg, Philadelphia and elsewhere throughout the
Commonwealth, as their newspapers had been writing
about this new development several days earlier. But not
a peep from the Times-News until Ed's column last week.
A couple weeks ago I sent e-mails to the five legislators
from the Erie area - three Democrats and two Republicans
- asking them whether they would publicly call for House
Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, a Democrat of Greene County,
to step down from his post.
They are Pat Harkins, Flo Fabrizio, John Hornaman, Democrats;
Curt Sonney and John Evans, Republicans.
Already, ten Democrat legislators from downstate have
pubicly called for DeWeese to resign as majority leader.
While DeWeese is not one of the eight Democrats in the
legislature who have so far been indicted in the wake
of the investigation - with more apparently to come,
including Republicans - the corruption unearthed so
far came under his watch, and betrays, if nothing else,
a failure of leadership. That alone should trigger his
resignation.
It's also virtually inconceivable that DeWeese knew
nothing of the illegal goings-on over the past few
years that funneled more than $1 million of taxpayers'
funds to Democrat election campaigns,and corrupted the
state's electoral process, since it involved other
members of the House leadership, and it's possible
that he may also come under indictment as the
investigation proceeds.
But even if he doesn't - DeWeese is masterful at
covering his tracks - he should be thrown under
the bus by his legislative colleagues for allowing
these alleged crimes to occur under his leadership.
So far, I've received responses to my e-mails only
from one local Democrat and one Republican, Pat
Harkins and Curt Sonney respectively.
One can only surmise from the deafening silence on
the part of the other three that they don't want
to rock the boat because they fear they too may
become implicated as targets in Attorney General
Tom Corbett's deepening investigation. Why else
would they keep mum?
with potentially profound local implications was broken
locally by a gossip columnist, and underscores the
ineptitude of the Erie Times-News's feeble news department.
Last week Ed (Mathews)Mead broke the news locally that the
prolonged investigation by the state attorney general
has spread from Democrat wrongdoers in the state
legislature to their Republican counterparts, as
promised earlier by the AG.
It comes as no surprise to Pennsylvanians in Pittsburgh,
Harrisburg, Philadelphia and elsewhere throughout the
Commonwealth, as their newspapers had been writing
about this new development several days earlier. But not
a peep from the Times-News until Ed's column last week.
A couple weeks ago I sent e-mails to the five legislators
from the Erie area - three Democrats and two Republicans
- asking them whether they would publicly call for House
Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, a Democrat of Greene County,
to step down from his post.
They are Pat Harkins, Flo Fabrizio, John Hornaman, Democrats;
Curt Sonney and John Evans, Republicans.
Already, ten Democrat legislators from downstate have
pubicly called for DeWeese to resign as majority leader.
While DeWeese is not one of the eight Democrats in the
legislature who have so far been indicted in the wake
of the investigation - with more apparently to come,
including Republicans - the corruption unearthed so
far came under his watch, and betrays, if nothing else,
a failure of leadership. That alone should trigger his
resignation.
It's also virtually inconceivable that DeWeese knew
nothing of the illegal goings-on over the past few
years that funneled more than $1 million of taxpayers'
funds to Democrat election campaigns,and corrupted the
state's electoral process, since it involved other
members of the House leadership, and it's possible
that he may also come under indictment as the
investigation proceeds.
But even if he doesn't - DeWeese is masterful at
covering his tracks - he should be thrown under
the bus by his legislative colleagues for allowing
these alleged crimes to occur under his leadership.
So far, I've received responses to my e-mails only
from one local Democrat and one Republican, Pat
Harkins and Curt Sonney respectively.
One can only surmise from the deafening silence on
the part of the other three that they don't want
to rock the boat because they fear they too may
become implicated as targets in Attorney General
Tom Corbett's deepening investigation. Why else
would they keep mum?
Rep. Bebko-Jones case: Justice perverted
In a recent editorial, the Erie Times-News lauded the
state attorney general’s office for its handling of
the case of former State Rep. Linda Bebko-Jones,
who entered into a plea agreement on felony charges
for falsifying signatures on her re-election
petition, noting among other things that Bebko-Jones
has been in poor health since her indictment.
It's a classic case of justice perverted based upon not
what one has done, but whom one knows.
While I feel sorry for Ms. Bebko-Jones's sad dilemma,
there are ample public resources that would have
been available to sustain her medically and
otherwise - like those available to thousands
of her former constituents - had a faceless
bureaucrat in the state attorney general's office
not arbitrarily and irrationally adjudged the
punishment applied under her watered-down plea
bargain "appropriate.”
What the editorial neglected to mention is that
Bebko-Jones also received a lump sum $65,000
severance payment that would otherwise had
been forfeited if the original felony charges
had not been waived under the feckless and
ludricous plea bargain negotiated by her attorney
and the attorney general's office. It also
neglected to mention that she will likewise
retain the extravagant health and medical
benefits legislators have granted unto themselves.
While Bebko-Jones's 14 years as a state legislator
are cited by the editorial in her defense, who
knows what other questionable deeds she may have
perpetrated over the years under the thin cloak of
presumed legislative immunity? Capable of one,
capable of others?
There's no doubt that in going along with the
plea agreement, the state attorney general's
office pandered to the celebrity political
clout reflected upon Bebko-Jones's attorney,
David Ridge, by his famous brother Tom Ridge,
Corbett's fellow star Republican.
Does this mean that Mr. Corbett will also plea
bargain down the felony charges in the indictments
laid against the ten Democrat legislators so far
in the on-going legislative bonus gate scandal,
with more apparently to come, some Republicans
included, so that they too may retain their
plush legislative retirement plans, severance
pay and health benefits?
If not, Mr. Corbett could justifiably be accused
of applying a double standard. With his injudicious
handling of the Bebko-Jones case, the attorney
general has started up - or down, depending upon
one's perspective - what lawyers and judges like
to call "a slippery slope."
Perhaps all the legislators indicted in the bonus
gate scandal should retain David Ridge as their
attorney. (Not to worry, David. I won't demand a
cut of your lucrative fee, if they do).
There's no need to enact new law to govern legislative
corruption cases as suggested by the Times-News editorial.
All that's needed is for the attorney general's office
to enforce rather than eviscerate existing law on a
case by case basis.
state attorney general’s office for its handling of
the case of former State Rep. Linda Bebko-Jones,
who entered into a plea agreement on felony charges
for falsifying signatures on her re-election
petition, noting among other things that Bebko-Jones
has been in poor health since her indictment.
It's a classic case of justice perverted based upon not
what one has done, but whom one knows.
While I feel sorry for Ms. Bebko-Jones's sad dilemma,
there are ample public resources that would have
been available to sustain her medically and
otherwise - like those available to thousands
of her former constituents - had a faceless
bureaucrat in the state attorney general's office
not arbitrarily and irrationally adjudged the
punishment applied under her watered-down plea
bargain "appropriate.”
What the editorial neglected to mention is that
Bebko-Jones also received a lump sum $65,000
severance payment that would otherwise had
been forfeited if the original felony charges
had not been waived under the feckless and
ludricous plea bargain negotiated by her attorney
and the attorney general's office. It also
neglected to mention that she will likewise
retain the extravagant health and medical
benefits legislators have granted unto themselves.
While Bebko-Jones's 14 years as a state legislator
are cited by the editorial in her defense, who
knows what other questionable deeds she may have
perpetrated over the years under the thin cloak of
presumed legislative immunity? Capable of one,
capable of others?
There's no doubt that in going along with the
plea agreement, the state attorney general's
office pandered to the celebrity political
clout reflected upon Bebko-Jones's attorney,
David Ridge, by his famous brother Tom Ridge,
Corbett's fellow star Republican.
Does this mean that Mr. Corbett will also plea
bargain down the felony charges in the indictments
laid against the ten Democrat legislators so far
in the on-going legislative bonus gate scandal,
with more apparently to come, some Republicans
included, so that they too may retain their
plush legislative retirement plans, severance
pay and health benefits?
If not, Mr. Corbett could justifiably be accused
of applying a double standard. With his injudicious
handling of the Bebko-Jones case, the attorney
general has started up - or down, depending upon
one's perspective - what lawyers and judges like
to call "a slippery slope."
Perhaps all the legislators indicted in the bonus
gate scandal should retain David Ridge as their
attorney. (Not to worry, David. I won't demand a
cut of your lucrative fee, if they do).
There's no need to enact new law to govern legislative
corruption cases as suggested by the Times-News editorial.
All that's needed is for the attorney general's office
to enforce rather than eviscerate existing law on a
case by case basis.
Ask not where's the outrage, ask where's the coverage
In an editorial recently, the Erie Times-News asserted
that reform of the Pennsylvania General Assembly's
legislative practices is so "serious" and the
investigation into them by the attorney general is so
"important, but has itself consistently failed to give those
issues the serious coverage they deserve.
The editorial said "The bonus scandal may not
have raised as much outrage yet as the pay raises."
The bonus scandal has diverted millions of taxpayer
dollars to partisan political election campaigns,
illegally kept bona fide third party candidates off
the ballot and thoroughly corrupted Pennsylvania's
statewide electoral process. It's far more outrageous
than the despicable midnight pay raise debacle.
Yet except for a scathing column or two by Pat Howard,
it has received little meaningful coverage by the
Times-News, which accounts for the dearth of public
outrage in this area.
As the only daily newspaper in Pennsylvania's fourth
or fifth largest city, the Times-News has long shirked
its responsibility to staff the legislature and the
governor's office in Harrisburg on a fulltime basis,
relying mainly on anemic AP coverage and occasional
rewrites or pick-ups of other newspaper's articles
for its meager coverage of the state legislature's
and the governor's enormous impact on our daily lives.
Why, for example has Governor Ed Rendell expressed
no outrage over bonusgate or the lack of legislative
reform? Is it because so far only legislators within
his political party have been implicated?
At the very least, The Times-News should make the half
dozen area legislators of both parties within its
coverage area accountable for their actions in
Harrisburg and investigate what role, if any, they
may have played in the bonusgate scandal.
Did they, for example, with their votes or silence,
actively or clandestinely, support the vile decisions
and actions by their leadership - especially by the
unctuous majority Leader Bill DeWeese - which led to
the indictments, with many more to come?
that reform of the Pennsylvania General Assembly's
legislative practices is so "serious" and the
investigation into them by the attorney general is so
"important, but has itself consistently failed to give those
issues the serious coverage they deserve.
The editorial said "The bonus scandal may not
have raised as much outrage yet as the pay raises."
The bonus scandal has diverted millions of taxpayer
dollars to partisan political election campaigns,
illegally kept bona fide third party candidates off
the ballot and thoroughly corrupted Pennsylvania's
statewide electoral process. It's far more outrageous
than the despicable midnight pay raise debacle.
Yet except for a scathing column or two by Pat Howard,
it has received little meaningful coverage by the
Times-News, which accounts for the dearth of public
outrage in this area.
As the only daily newspaper in Pennsylvania's fourth
or fifth largest city, the Times-News has long shirked
its responsibility to staff the legislature and the
governor's office in Harrisburg on a fulltime basis,
relying mainly on anemic AP coverage and occasional
rewrites or pick-ups of other newspaper's articles
for its meager coverage of the state legislature's
and the governor's enormous impact on our daily lives.
Why, for example has Governor Ed Rendell expressed
no outrage over bonusgate or the lack of legislative
reform? Is it because so far only legislators within
his political party have been implicated?
At the very least, The Times-News should make the half
dozen area legislators of both parties within its
coverage area accountable for their actions in
Harrisburg and investigate what role, if any, they
may have played in the bonusgate scandal.
Did they, for example, with their votes or silence,
actively or clandestinely, support the vile decisions
and actions by their leadership - especially by the
unctuous majority Leader Bill DeWeese - which led to
the indictments, with many more to come?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
