Q&A: Darlene Harris May Opt to Run for Mayor as Independent?

If you enjoy following Pittsburgh mayoral politics, you may find this video interesting. 12 times during our 2 minute and 41 second conversation, City Council President Darlene Harris stuck to her four word talking point about her intentions.  Here's a link to WTAE video of my Q&A with Harris about her switching her registration from Democrat to Independent in order to qualify to run for mayor in the fall race.  There are some interesting nuggets hidden KMOO #7 and KMOO #10: her pause before her answer about fundraising and her comments about Mayor Ravenstahl.

I'd reported on Wednesday about the prospect of an Independent mayoral candidate running against Democratic primary winner Bill Peduto  and Republican Josh Wander. That story includes a clip of Councilman Corey O'Connor, whose long-term political future is sometimes the subject of speculation, laughing off the idea he'd jump in to this race.  (He can't and he doesn't want to.  He remains registered a Democrat, he now backs Peduto after staying neutral during the primary, and he's getting married next month.)


Here's a transcript of my Darlene Harris Q&A. I numbered her KMOO count for handy reference.


Q: "Are you planning to run as an independent for mayor in the fall?"

A: "I am just keeping my options open." (1)

Q: "Keeping your options open means what?"

A: "Keeping my options open." (2)

Q: "Did you change your party registration, when did you do that , and explain the significance of that?"

A: "Well, there's been a lot going on in the city, and I wanted to make sure that I left all options open." (3)

Q: "Obviously, if for some reason Mayor Ravenstahl left office, you would become acting mayor. If you were acting mayor, is that the only circumstance under which you could run as an independent?"

A:  "I guess that  would be the only way that you could run as an independent."

Q: "Well, I mean you could, as council president. But *would* you, unless you became acting mayor?"

A: "All I'm doing is leaving my options open." (4)

Q: "So you don't rule out running as an independent for mayor, even  if Mayor Ravenstahl serves out his term?"

A: "Just keeping all options open." (5)

Q: "So , keeping your options open means that you're an independent, you changed your registration,  so that you may run for mayor?"

A: "Just keeping the options open." (6)

Q: "And have you collected money for a mayor's race yet?"

A: "Just keeping the options open." (7)

Q: "Raised any money?"

A:  "(2 second pause) Just keeping the options open." (8)

Q: "Have you gotten any encouragement from anyone to do this?"

A: "I just am leaving all options open." (9)

Q: "Is Mayor Ravenstahl encouraging you to do this?"

A: "Absolutely not."

Q: "Is he discouraging you?"

A: "He actually -- we have  had our times."

Q: "In his discouraging you considering this?"

A: "No. He hasn't encouraged or discouraged me. I don't think he even realizes what has happened."

Q: "By when will you make a final decision on whether or not you'll run for mayor as an independent?"

A: "Uh, time will tell."

Q: "When exactly did you change your registration?"

A: "When it was time to do so."

Q: "In other words, prior to 30 days before the primary?"

A: "Exactly."

Q: "So, you've been strategizing for a while?"

A: "Exactly."

Q: "What should Pittsburghers make of this?"

A: "To keep my options open, and we'll see in the future." (10)

Q: "So, basically this would mean that the primary wasn't the last word, so far as you're concerned,   about what the field will be in the fall."

A: "All I have said is, I've left my options open." (11)

Q: "Are  you leaving your options open, councilwoman?"

A:  "I have left my options open." (12)

Read More...

Summary only...

Q&A - Mayor's Plan for Paramedics Strike: Use Firefighters & Suburban EMTs as Replacements

Mayor Ravenstahl tells me he's prepared to use Pittsburgh Firefighters, suburban EMTs (emergency medical technicians) and EMS managers to fill the gaps, if the paramedics union goes on strike.  Here's a transcript of my question and answer session with the mayor.

Q: On the negotiations with paramedics, should Pittsburghers be worried -- are you worried -- about what impact this may have if things turn more sour in these talks?

A: "I'm not worried and residents shouldn't be worried.  I have talked with our public safety folks and am adamant about the fact that we will keep people safe.  If they decide to strike, we have a plan in place to respond to that. And we should not see any interruption of service and I believe that we'll be able to keep people safe."

"So, we're going to hold the line.  We believe that we've negotiated a fair deal.  And we believe we've negotiated a deal that will actually make residents safer in the long term.  That will put more ambulances on the street. It will transfer the rescue work from EMS over to Fire, to use some of those firefighters that have that ability, and free up paramedics and ambulances to do more work. That'll put two more ambulances on the street. Our response times already are not good enough. They need to improve, and this will improve the overall delivery of services in public safety."

"They want to make it about our union versus their union, that's not what this is about. This is about delivery of safety services for all residents. Whether it's a firefighter, a paramedic, a police officer, the resident doesn't care. The resident doesn't care. The resident wants to be safe and this is going to make our city safer."

Q: What about the paramedics union suggesting that somehow the best medical care or response isn't adequately addressed under these changes that you want?

A: "Well, we disagree with that, (number) one, because when you look at the history of rescue work.  First of all, we have a large number, I think it's over 300 firefighters who are trained EMTs. So, these individuals have expertise and training to do it.  And a large number of rescue calls, in fact, don't even require medical service.  A lot of the times they are people who are stuck in elevators. Or, you know, they find themselves in a situation where they can't get out of some place. So these are not emergencies in a lot of cases.  These are not issues that need medical attention. In some cases, do they? Yes, but in that case we have EMTs and others that can do it."

"So, we're not putting this on the table in any way to jeopardize pubic safety. In fact, we're going to enhance it, and that's why we're so adamant about it. Previous studies, Tri Data, for example, called for this to happen. The Act 47 team (the city's financial overseers) put it in their plan, and now here we are, attempting to implement it and we think we're doing the right thing by the taxpayers."

(While discussing the history of the paramedics contract talks, the mayor added this next comment, which prompted my follow up questions.)

A: "…If they go on strike, we're prepared to deal that."

Q: If there's a strike, would EMS managers be sufficient to cover, or would you pull people from the Fire Bureau to cover?

A: "We would do a combination of both. We believe the EMS managers and the paramedics that are there now would team up with a trained EMT that happens to be a firefighter now, and that's how we would handle the situation.  We believe we have enough manpower, at least in the short term, to do that.  It's not uncommon, even under the current system for us to call  mutual aid and have others come in and help. So, if we need to do that, we'll do that just like we do now."

"The pubic safety director and I have had numerous conversations about this.  Obviously, we are concerned if a strike happens, but we are also prepared. And he has given me his word and I believe, just given what he's shown me, that we're prepared to do this in the event of a strike. We hope that doesn't happen, but if it does, we're prepared for it.

Q: So, suburban EMTs and paramedics could wind up responding to Pittsburgh emergencies under this cooperative deal, existing cooperative deal?

A: "Well, and people may be surprised to know, they do now.  They do now in a lot of cases, so that wouldn't change. That happens. It's called 'mutual aid' in the event that we are, you know, our ambulances are out and we don't have the ability to get to a call, suburban communities come in now and help us.  So that's not different.  There are times where we do the same for them, and it's called mutual aid. So, that may happen.  But I want to be clear that that's not any change in current practices.  That happens currently under our existing agreements."

Q: And the firefighters union wouldn't balk at the idea of being pressed into service?

A:  "We've had discussions with them and we expect that they would be cooperative, yeah."

Read More...

Summary only...

Notes & Quotes: From My Interview with Targeted Tweeter, ACLU

First, here is a link to my Channel 4 Action News story on my interview with "Signor Ferrari", one of the anonymous tweeters -- along with BFBarbie -- targeted by PA Attorney General Tom Corbett's grand jury subpoena. It's a follow-up to this story in which I asked Republican gubernatorial candidate Corbett about the the case.

I should also note that Attorney General's office spokesman Kevin Harley tells me:

"This matter will be more fully explained (Friday) morning in Dauphin County Court at the sentencing hearing of convicted felon Brett Cott, who was one of the principals who was convicted in March as part of the bonus (Bonusgate) investigation that we did."

Now the notes from the Q&As.


The person who goes by the alias Signor Ferrari is behind the targeted Twitter account CasablancaPA; here are my notes of what blogger Ferrari said in our phone interview:


Reaction to the subpoena:

Ferrari: "We consider it a violation of the First Amendment… The right to criticize public officials anonymously is constitutionally protected."

On tweeting and blogging:

Ferrari: "We have very closely followed Corbett's investigation of the legislature. We've examined some of his other actions as Attorney General, and we've simply pointed out instances where we feel that he has basically not lived up to his responsibilities."

Target of criminal investigation?

Ferrari: "That's not a question I'm prepared to answer. We intend to remain anonymous and we will not confirm or deny who we are, whether we're connected to the defendants."

Anything to say to Tom Corbett?

Ferrari: "What we have to say to Tom Corbett we have said in our blog and we will continue to say it on our blog."

Why should anyone care about this case?

Ferrari: "Because what happens to us could happen to anyone. This is really not about the identities of these particular bloggers. This is about the right of an american to anonymously criticize a public official."

Closing comment:

Ferrari: "I'm just extremely grateful to the ACLU and very encouraged by the support we've gotten from fellow bloggers and tweeters on the internet."

.

Vic Walczak, the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Pennsylvania Chapter tells me the ACLU is now representing both Signor Ferrari and the other targeted blogger who goes by the name BFBarbie. Here are some quotes from that interview:


Q: He wants to know who the two tweeters are. What's wrong with that?

Walczak: "The tweeters are individuals who have been criticizing Attorney General Corbett and the whole Bonusgate prosecution as being overly political."

"It is a prized American possession not only to only to criticize the government, but to criticize the government anonymously. This is a tradition that goes back to the founding of this country, when you think about Thomas Paine handing out his leaflet ' Common Sense', that was done anonymously. The Federalist Papers, perhaps the most important documents written about government, were written anonymously. It's a right that the Supreme Court has recognized time and time again. …You know, the right to criticize the government anonymously is very, very important in this country."


"If the Attorney General sees this as being somehow criminal, then he's in for a huge first amendment fight, because that would be tantamount to criminal libel, which we got rid of decades ago. …I mean you don't throw people in jail because they criticize you. And that is a very scary thought when you think about somebody who's been nominated by one of the major political parties for governor of this state. If the view is that you can throw critics in jail, or somehow use the criminal justice system against them, that's kind of a scary notion."

On the specific legal concerns:

Walczak: "This would appear to be a misuse of the grand jury process to get information in aid of sentencing. The theory seems to be that the A.G.'s office believes that one or both tweeters are a legislative aide, Brett Cott who has been convicted and is to be sentenced tomorrow. They've filed a pre-sentencing report saying that if Mr. Cott is the one who is the one who is tweeting these criticisms of the A.G. and the prosecution, that that means he's not showing sufficient remorse and that in fact the sentence should be enhanced. So, is this an appropriate use of the grand jury process? We think not."

"The second is it's just a frontal assault on the First amendment. You don't just go and unmask your political critics. You're got to have an awfully good reason to do that, and we certainly we haven't heard one in this case."

What if such a tweeter were, in fact, a convicted criminal?

Walczak: "We don't believe that changes the legal analysis at all here. I mean even if it's a person who has been convicted, they don't give up their constitutional rights. They will give up their liberty at some point, but they certainly don't give up their right to criticize the prosecutor or anybody else."

What's next?

Walczak: "Right now we're in discussions with the attorney general's office and we are hoping to convince them to withdraw these subpoenas. If that doesn't work, then we'll be filing papers, probably a motion to quash the subpoena. And then we'll see what happens."

If I'm someone who doesn't know about Twitter and barely cares who's running for governor, why should I care about this?

Walczak: "I think everybody should care about whether or not the government can somehow punish you or retaliate against you if you say things critical of the government. I mean it's a prized right to be able to criticize your elected officials."

.

Read More...

Summary only...

My Q&A with the Ravenstahls' Attorney

The following Q&A is a transcript of my telephone interview with Luke and Erin Ravenstahl's attorney, Richard Sprague of Philadelphia.


Bob Mayo Q: My request to your earlier was that the mayor sit down and speak with us on camera as he has done in one other case, to talk about these developments. Will he do that?

Richard Sprague A: The answer is I have advised him not to and his wife as well. On the basis that I was retained, really, after they announced that they have separated to then then give them privacy, leave them alone. They've announced they've separated, they're going to work on their own problems but that's a personal matter. It's got nothing to do with the mayor's public activities as the mayor of the City of Pittsburgh, and his wife's private -- as a private citizen, what she does. And for him to appear on other channels, on the radio interviews, is really not keeping private about which I have asked the media to honor. And so I have advised them not to give any further statements or interviews.

Mayo Q: If that was the intention, why was that one venue chosen -- before we move on, just to clarify that?

Sprague A: I met with the mayor. As far I know they were readily available, and I agreed that we would give one statement and he would give a public release today. And since all he's going to be saying in any interview is 'that my wife and I have separated'. The only other thing that I made clear is that he is living in the City of Pittsburgh, so he's meeting the residency requirement. That's the only thing that would be said. How many times does he just say that over and over? I understand every TV channel and radio feeling 'well, why weren't we selected?'. But, you know, tough.

Mayo Q: Moving on. In what capacity has the couple retained you? Are you handling legal separation, a legal divorce?

Sprague A: Fair question. I am not their lawyer on the domestic situation between them. I am strictly their lawyer to try to preserve their right of privacy. I recognize the mayor as a public official won't have quite the privacy that his wife would have since she's a private citizen. But I am trying to get for both of them the recognition, just like any other couple, just like if you were getting a divorce, or getting -- I shouldn't even use that word, because that's not in the offing. It's a separation. If you were separated, you'd want to have privacy, work it out with your wife. You have a one year old child. Those are private concerns, it's got nothing to do with administering the city. So my role is to try to get them their privacy. And secondly, to prevent there being a whole bunch of smears, innuendoes, defamatory things being suggested. Because if that is so, I will bring appropriate legal action. But it's limited to that. I am not their domestic relations lawyer.

Mayo Q: To clarify, under Pennsylvania law. Is there legal separation under Pennsylvania law and in what sense is that term being used here?

Sprague A: Well, the separation is something that the parties have mutually agreed to and worked out between themselves. And that is fine wherever you are... it's just whatever is agreed to. Sometimes it's not agreed to between the parties, one just separates from the other. And other times the parties can mutually agree , and here it was mutually agreed.

Mayo Q: But there's no document filed with the court now or at any other point regarding separation?

Sprague A: Not in this matter.

Mayo Q: And you have referenced earlier about whether there's any prospect of divorce documents being filed. That-- ?

Sprague A: Divorce is not in the offing. The only thing that's in the picture now is they have separated. They are interested in their child, they are interested in working things out between them, and what happens in the future we'll have to see.

Mayo Q: You had referenced earlier in this interview and in our phone conversation when we spoke earlier in the day, concerning your role in protecting them from defamation, from smears, from invasion of privacy. Has there been anything in your view that has approached that? What is the basis for that concern?

Sprague A: No, there's nothing. As a matter of fact, I must say this, because there's been calls from great numbers of the media in Pittsburgh. And you know I'm not out there, I don't know how they're carrying it. But in the interviews by the reporters, including yourself, I think there's been a full appreciation of a couple wanting privacy, and their personal domestic situation. It's got nothing to do with his running of the city.

Mayo Q: Now, in the one on camera interview that the mayor did, he was asked about and answered questions about talk about (topic redacted). That was brought up in that interview --

Sprague A: I've got to interrupt you on that. See, I think that is outrageous to even raise that kind of a -- and I call that a smear. And if you're broadcasting that, and making that statement, then say so and I'll action against you. You understand that the mayor did not respond to that question raising that, saying things will work out. And that, you know, reporters can something -- I can say on this broadcast right now something terrible, saying, well, there's a report about this or that. And that would be terrible for me to do. You deal with a situation that they are separated and leave it like that. If the mayor answered the question you're talking about then he did not follow my advice, which is he is not to dignify anything like that and he's not to talk further. He's told the citizenry that they're separated and has asked for privacy, which I think is appropriate and i think the media ought to respect.

Mayo Q: Is the reporter who broached that subject liable for potential legal action by the mayor?

Sprague A: I'll have to look and see what he said. (pause) And how he said it.

Mayo Q: The announcement by the couple came a few weeks after the general election. Can you address whether or not there was a choice made not to bring this information into the public spotlight until the election was resolved? Was a decision made earlier that they'd be moving forward with this but to defer until after the election?

Sprague A: I understand that question, but that would involve a conversation between me and my client. As I'm sure you're aware, attorney client conversations are privileged and are not discussed.

Mayo Q: So you're not authorized to address that either way on behalf of your client?

Sprague A: That's correct.

Mayo Q: Do you have anything else regarding any aspect the mayor's official role? Or his use of any resources, whatever, in his role in the office of the mayor that in any way relates to this? Or is there no connection or relationship in any way between his official, public, elected role and this sad turn in his private life?

Sprague A: There is absolutely no connection. There, you know , let's face it. People get married, sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. That's a private matter between a couple. In this case, obviously they have decided to separate. They are going to work on their problems. And that has nothing to do with his role as Mayor of Pittsburgh and the request of the couple for -- on that issue, on that issue alone -- privacy. If you like or don't like what he's doing as mayor, take him up on those activities, but leave this couple alone in terms of their personal marriage.

Mayo Q: Is there anything else that you want to add or to emphasize in your role speaking for the mayor, dealing with the media for the mayor in this case that we've not covered?

Sprague A: No, I think that you've asked good questions, you've covered it. I do resent the question that picks up what I consider, you know -- I hear rumors, innuendoes. I don't think that's appropriate. But other than that, I think it's fine. And I think, as I've said, this has got nothing to do with his business as the Mayor of Pittsburgh. People ought to understand, and I think the public does understand the request for on this issue to the media -- 'leave us alone on this issue' -- is very understandable. And I think the public would stand behind the mayor and his wife 100 percent. And I really think except for the media feeling 'well we've got to get something that another media doesn't have' -- your question about why was it broadcast on one station and not on others. You know, that's just the media wanting to be at the center of some matter. The media ought to have the decency just to leave them alone on this issue.

Mayo Q: And again, the reason why I asked the question was that it was within the scope of the one interview that he chose to grant... I wanted to see if that suggested if it was something that you wanted to address. But you're saying even the broaching of that question by his chosen interviewer, you feel was inappropriate?

Sprague A: If he raised that, I think it's absolutely inappropriate. I think on a public broadcast there are some standards that the media should stand to. And that is you don't publicly give 'I hear', or 'there's rumors', or 'there's innuendoes'. I don't think that's proper newsmaking.

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Post Debate Q&A: Acklin Attacks Ravenstahl on Verbanac Ties

It triggered the sharpest exchanges of WTAE's mayoral debate. Independent challenger Kevin Acklin repeatedly questioned Pittsburgh Democratic Mayor Luke Ravenstahl about the influence and role of a private businessman in his administration. Acklin claims that Cranberry businessman John Verbanac is powerful figure who has clients that stand to benefit from influencing Ravenstahl's policies. As he did during an earlier debate, the mayor described John Verbanac as a friend but he ridiculed Acklin's allegations as desperate and false. Verbanac himself later dismissed what he called Ackin's attempt to impugn him as "distasteful and wrong".

Acklin told Ravenstahl he had obtained:

"...very specific documents and e-mails that prove that Mr. Verbanac has had a very intimate relationship with your administration He's written your speeches, he literally puts words into your mouth. He's called the shots on who you hire and fire. He advises you on city policies and developments, including developing your strategic plan. He advised you on the firing of BBI (Bureau of Building Inspection) Director Ron Graziano and also called for the purging of your staff. It was very clear, Mr. Ravenstahl, that you lied to the people of this city..."

...Later...

Kevin Acklin:

"What business interest does John Verbanac have before your administration or with any of these city authorities?"

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl:

"First of all, he has none, I answered the question last week, that he is a friend of mine. Your accusations are wrong. They're inappropriate. And I think they show the level to which apparently this campaign is going to go over the next couple of weeks. Bringing private citizens into conversations, making accusations that are false, like Kevin just did. And I'm not going to get into the minutiae of responding to every single thing that he thinks he can throw against the wall. I would just advise Mr. Acklin to be very, very careful."

Acklin:

"Is that a threat?"

...Later...

Acklin:

"The mayor just lied again. We have information in documents again, including e-mails that prove very clearly..."

Ravenstahl:

"I don't understand your point, Kevin. John Verbanac is a friend of mine, yes."

Acklin:

"Who very much is actively involved in your administration at the same time he literally has business interests in front of the city, that we have documentation to prove. Isn't that the definition of corruption?"

Ravenstahl:

"Not at all. Because I have conversations with a gentleman who's a friend of mine?"

Acklin:

"At the same time he's directing your policies."

The barbs continued after the debate, during my interviews with the candidates. You can click the link below to listen to the raw audio from my mp3 recorder. Below that you can read some breakout quotes from the Q&A.

Acklin:

• "To be clear, these aren't attacks. These are facts..."

• "It's very that Mr. Verbanac has played a strong role in this administration. It's also very clear that he has business interests in front of this city."

• "...These documents came from a former high ranking official and I was a little taken aback by the fact that he (Ravenstahl) lied to us."

• "...It matters because people want honest leadership in government. And you have a situation here with someone with a lot of influence over this mayor's administration (who) also has a lot of interest in business before the city. These documents speak for themselves. "

• "...And if this isn't corruption, I don't know what is."

Ravenstahl:

• "It's laughable. Especially when you consider if he and I were so close, I don't think I would have been a supporter of the Isle of Capri's bid for the casino license."

[Note: Verbanac had ties with Forest City Enterprises, which was teamed with a competing casino license bidder.]

•"I'm not sure exactly what Mr. Acklin is referring to . I think it shows the desperation right now in his campaign. That John Verbanac is a friend of mine -- he is a friend of mine. When I make decisions I speak with a lot of different individuals. Including my staff, including friends..."

• "Once again, It's a desperate attempt by a desperate candidate to try to create some interest in a race. And it's uncalled for. And you'd have to ask Mr. Acklin why he's choosing to stoop to these levels."

• "..He's (Verbanac's) never given a dollar to my campaign. He's never contributed to my campaign. He's no more than somebody I bounce ideas off of... There's no inappropriate relationship there whatsoever."

Franco Dok Harris, the other independent candidate for mayor, said after the debate:

"You hear whispers all the time. We don't have a stack of documents like the Acklin campaign or try to paint any kind of pictures. What we're doing is, we're trying to bring a positive message."

[Note: Excerpts from the documents released by the Acklin campaign appear on Bram Reichbaum's blog, The Pittsburgh Comet.]


In response to my phone messages, I received the following e-mail from John Verbanac:

Bob,

With regard to your inquiry, here is my statement.

" I consider myself to be a valued friend and advisor to this Mayor, his predecessor and a number of current and former public officials, non profit and private business leaders. The fact that a desperate candidate in an effort to bolster his failing campaign would attempt to impugn me or the Mayor is distasteful and wrong and an example of why voters are so disenchanted with politics."

Thank you.

John Verbanac

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dowd Responds on Ravenstahl: No Apologies Necessary

[Mayor Ravenstahl's overwhelming primary win would have made Patrick Dowd's campaign old news -- but the mayor says he's looking for an apology from Dowd. I blogged about the mayor's remarks here. He said "I think Patrick crossed the line in this campaign. I asked for -- a couple of times -- an apology, he didn't want to offer it. Hopefully, in the very near future he will so that we can continue to work together, ideally, to move the city forward."]

Here are some Q&A highights and notes from my interview with Councilman Patrick Dowd. In it, Dowd responds to the mayor's post-election claims about his conduct and describes his attempts to reach out to Ravenstahl on election night.

Q: Did the mayor ask you for an apology?

A: "I don't think I've even had the opportunity to talk to the mayor. I haven't heard any requests for an apology; maybe he's made them in public. I've not heard them and he's not made them directly to me."

Q: Do you owe the mayor an apology?

A: "I'm really pleased with the campaign that we ran. We ran, I think, an issues-based campaign... despite being outspent almost ten-to-one -- probably close to ten-to-one when everything's calculated up."

Q: Do you have anything to apologize for?

A: "I think we ran an issues based campaign, so I don't. It's a public event, it's not something where you take it personally. These are not personal attacks, they're public attacks, they have to do with policy matters. We talked a lot about campaign contributions and the way those contributions contributed to contracts and the letting and giving of contracts in certain ways."

Q: Did you depict the Ravenstahl administration as engaging in pay-to-play politics?

A: "Yeah, absolutely. And I think the record will show that there's a relationship between campaign contributions and contracts. But that's not a personal matter. that's a policy matter."

Q: Did you allege that the mayor was personally corrupt in any way?

A: "Well, to the extent that his administration engaged in unethical or inappropriate pay-to-play politics, then yes, absolutely, as an administration. I think to see this as a personal attack is, I think, to belittle what it really is. We're talking about policy issues and how decisions are made here in the City of Pittsburgh."

Q: Did you cross the line in any way?

A: "No, I think we talked about the important issues. Campaigns are about holding people accountable: a candidate as a challenger , a candidate as an incumbent. It's about holding people accountable, and I don't think we crossed the line."

Dowd told me that he offered Mayor Ravenstahl a sincere congratulations on election night.

Q: Did you call him to concede?

A: "Oh, yeah, absolutely."

Q: You spoke with him?

A:" No, no. He's not returned my call."

What happened? Councilman Dowd says he'd previously proposed that he be given the mayor's cell phone number for an election night call -- but that the Ravenstahl's campaign did not provide it. Dowd says that on election night his campaign manager called Ravenstahl's campaign manager:

"We were told at that time that he wasn't available. They didn't know where he was."

The councilman says his campaign manager waited, then placed a second call to the mayor's campaign manager -- again with no results. Dowd says they eventually tried reaching the mayor's chief of staff, Yarone Zober, because they presumed he would know where the mayor was. Dowd says that Zober did not answer their first call.

Dowd says Zober did pick up their second call.

"He was obviously at the Hofbrauhaus. You could hear the music; it sounded like you were in Bavaria. He said he didn't know where the mayor was, and I said 'could you have him give me a call'. He said he would see."

The councilman says that Mayor Ravenstahl never returned his calls.

Councilman Dowd says he will "reach out again to congratulate" Mayor Ravenstahl and "to try to work with him to make sure that we can help move this city forward in providing the collective leadership that it needs".

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ravenstahl Salute to Robinson, Slight to Dowd... Coattails...Teenage Wasteland

A conspicuous omission begged the question to Mayor Ravenstahl in his post victory speech interviews. Here's a link to video of my Q&A with Mayor Ravenstal during Channel 4 Action News election coverage. It comes about 2 1/2 minutes in:


Q: "You saluted Carmen Robinson, one of your competitors -- didn't mention Patrick Dowd. There's bad blood there?"

A: "My mom always told me 'if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all', so that's what I chose to do tonight. I think Patrick crossed the line in this campaign. I asked for -- a couple of times -- an apology, he didn't want to offer it. Hopefully, in the very near future he will so that we can continue to work together, ideally, to move the city forward."

You can see the full victory speech here at The Pittsburgh Channel.


During his remarks, Mayor Ravenstahl said:

"..finally, I want to give a special note of thanks to Carmen Robinson tonight. She did a fine job in this campaign. I give her a tremendous amount of credit for entering into this mayor's race. I thought she ran a tremendous campaign. She talked about the issues, she talked about what was important to her. Let's give Carmen Robinson a big round of applause this evening."

He closed on this note:

"I can't tell you how excited I am to begin that work, as early as tomorrow morning. To roll up our sleeves and rebuild this city, just like those that were before us did. We just celebrated our 250th anniversary last year. This is a great, great city. This is a city that's on the brink, as I said, of our third renaissance. And I can't tell you how excited I am to be the Democratic nominee for the office of the mayor for a full four year term. I can't wait to work on those eleven points in our eleven point plan. I can't wait to take this suit coat off and roll up my sleeves like each and every one of your do in the city of Pittsburgh every day when you go to work. Because that's what it's all about. This city has been built by the people of this city. This city will continue to thrive as a result of the people in this town..."

Ravenstahl proved not to have political coattails to carry his two key allies in Pittsburgh City Council races. Natalia Rudiak beat the candidate the mayor backed -- Anthony Coghill -- as well as party committee-endorsed Patrick Reilly in District 4. Rudiak is now the Democratic nominee to replace the mayor's friend and mentor Councilman Jim Motznik, who beat Michael Diven in a primary race for district judge. Another Ravenstahl ally on council -- Tonya Payne -- was upset by challenger Daniel Lavelle. At council's Wednesday meetings next year, Motzik and Payne will be missing from the opposite end of the table for face-offs with Bill Peduto and with Doug Shields, whose council presidency appears more secure.

One footnote. I'm not a musician, but I have an ear for melodies. One lingering question kept coming to me during the drive home last night. Whose idea was it for the band to play The Who's "Teenage Wasteland" as mayor entered for his victory speech? The passage they used comes about forty seconds in to this clip.

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Helped or Were Ordered? Q&A with Mayor Luke Ravenstahl

Click to play

This Q&A with Mayor Ravenstahl is from May 1st, the day after the mayor's race debate in which "Ravenstahl apologized for a 'misleading' ad".

You can listen in with the audio link above -- or read the transcript of the Q&A session. The questions are mine, except where noted. Below the transcript, I'll also share some fact checking about state law and Pittsburgh's financial oversight.

Q (Bob Mayo) : "What exactly is it -- that you apologized about something? What was the apology for?"

A (Mayor Ravenstahl) : "Well, what we'll do -- it was basically around, it was basically around the question of reducing taxes. The parking tax and the gross receipts tax. And the question was that we were suggesting that we were taking the entire credit for that. I said last night that the state clearly did help. And we'll actually adjust our ad today to say that we helped reduce the tax, rather than taking credit for it ourself. So, it was just a small, minor nuance, and something that we've taken care of in our campaign advertisement."

Q : "So, the... the state-imposed plan required the reduction of those taxes. Whoever was mayor was required by law to do that?"

A (Mayor Ravenstahl) : "Well, *in theory*, yes. But at the end of the day, we submit the budget, I submit the budget every year with our recommendations. You may remember when council a few years ago actually voted to freeze the parking tax -- I vetoed that. So there have been efforts in the past to try to freeze those taxes. We've continued to -- continued to put budgets forward that have reduced them. And so we were a partner in that effort, and that's all we were trying to communicate in the campaign commercial."

Q (Maria Leaf) : "Did you proofread the script for that ad, mayor, before it ran? I mean, how did this happen that it got on the air like this?"

A (Mayor Ravenstahl) : "Well, you know again, it's something that we think we definitely did reduce those taxes, and I'm not suggesting that we didn't. But in the effort of -- in the effort of cooperation and through the discussion last night, we'll simply add the word we 'helped' or 'worked with' the state to deal with these issues. Everybody knows that we submit a budget every year. I can tell you that I get requests over and over and over again to increase spending. It's interesting that the critics will criticize the budget situation when it doesn't go their way. But then, of course, when something does work and it is doing the right thing, it's the state's --uh, it's the result of the state's work. So, it's part of the political game that gets played this time of year. And we're very proud of what we've done financially. And we played a significant role in leading this city to where it's at."

Q (Maria Leaf): "But would you have changed the commercial if it had not been brought up last night?"

Mayor Ravenstahl : "Uh, probably not. You know, again, I don't think that the commercial was wrong in the way that we reflected what we've done. We have lowered the gross receipts tax, we have lowered the parking tax. I have submitted that in our budget. City Council can also take credit for reducing that tax, because they vote on the budget. And so, the city played a role in that effort and we're proud of it. And we also will acknowledge now that the state did help. They clearly did, and nobody ever suggested that they didn't. And so in the interest of clarity we'll -- we'll adjust the ad."

Q (Bob Mayo) : "Helped -- or ordered and required by law?"

A (Mayor Ravenstahl) : "Uh, helped. Yeah, they -- we helped them, uh, to do that by introducing our budget each and every year. There are things that in Act 47 and in our budgets now that weren't originally in the Act 47 plan. So there is clearly adjustment each and every year. This is something that was off the table, we agreed with. We wanted to see those taxes reduced, and we cooperated and helped the state with those efforts."

Q : Didn't the state legislature write into state law the recovery package that the *legislature* approved --?

Mayor Ravenstahl: "They're -- Sure."

Q: " -- that the taxes had to go down?

Mayor Ravenstahl: "The state law and, you know, and the original act that we passed also called for a 144 dollars a year. It also called for a higher payroll preparation tax. So we can sit here and pick and choose the different issues we want to talk about. There are a lot of things in Act 47 that weren't enacted. This is one that was enacted as a result of our leadership and continued support of reducing these taxes."

Q: "But the legislature didn't mandate the lowering of the taxes? You're saying that a... ?"

Mayor Ravenstahl: "It was in the Act. There were a lot of things that were "in theory" quote, unquote, mandated that didn't happen. And we weren't mandated to save a hundred-million dollars above and beyond what they've asked us to do, but we did that. Something we're proud of and take credit for. So, so when we get the credit or when we get the criticism, it's also part of the credit that should be-- should be recognized as well."

Now, a look back at some history.

Let's start with two quotes from Mayor Ravenstahl:

"I'm not going to break state law," Ravenstahl said.

That's from an October 12, 2007 Trib article which reported:

"A bill freezing Pittsburgh's parking tax likely will die next week on Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's desk.

"It is not his intent to be confrontational with the state Legislature," said his spokeswoman, Alecia Sirk.

The bill City Council approved 8-1 on Tuesday clashes with a state law that mandates a lowering of Pittsburgh's 45 percent parking tax -- the nation's highest -- to 35 percent by 2010."

Next:

"We must abide by the state law mandating the parking tax reduction," Ravenstahl said.

That's from an October 18, 2007 Trib story headlined "Mayor vetoes council's freeze" .


This 2007 Post-Gazette headline puts it succinctly.




The PG story goes on to report:

A legal opinion provided to council in December, signed by Solicitor George Specter, found that the city's charter doesn't permit it to ignore the state-mandated tax cut...

..."An illegal act by the city is unenforceable," said state Rep. John Maher, R-Upper St. Clair. "Pursuing this avenue in this manner is effectively unenforceable theatrics that could have grave consequences should [state-mandated oversight agencies] exercise their responsibility."

Back then, I blogged here about State Senate Majority Whip Jane Orie's warning. She said that doing any else but lowering the parking tax:

• "... violates the spirit and letter of the law. It's in complete violation of the state law. This was negotiated in a bi-partisan fashion."

• "There are ramifications for violating the law, and they could lose state moneys. That alerts them them, you are taking an action in violation, this is what is at risk."

• "Under state law, if they want to play this game---and it's really sad, because they're violating the letter of the law--not only can the state withhold funding. The state, because it's a state created city parking authority, we can force them to reduce the rates."

Orie fired off this letter to the Pittsburgh's oversight board, warning that the city was poised to pass an ordinance "which violates a state law (Act 222 of 2004) specifically mandating a reduction in the City of Pittsburgh Parking Tax". She also wrote that "...the City's Solicitor, George Specter, provided a legal opinion to the City Council in December which clearly stated that the city's charter doesn't permit it to ignore the state-mandated tax cut". (You can click to enlarge the images.)





The state law we're talking about isn't Act 47 or the act that created the oversight board (though both the oversight board and the Act 47 team have roles in making sure the city obeys the law in question). It's the city financial recovery legislation passed by the state legislature that some called "the bailout".









Let's jump back to November, 2004 when the law was passed:

PG: "The elimination of the gross receipts tax and the reduction of the parking tax were required by a state law passed on November 22, 2004. House Bill 197 eliminated the mercantile tax and phased out the Business Privilege Tax on businesses' gross receipts."

Mayor Murphy talked about it here.


Governor Rendell commented here when he signed the legislation.

.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Club Pittsburgh Controversy

UPDATE: Click the image above to hear the Q&A from Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's news conference on the Club Pittsburgh controversy.

Mayor Ravenstahl says political contributions by the owners of Club Pittsburgh were not behind the way the city resolved a zoning cease-and-desist order against alleged sex-related activity at the Strip District business. The club first made headlines this week when a man was found dead in one of the its rentable private rooms. The current wave of reporting is not about the death of 31-year-old Cleophus Pettway, however. Local news organizations have had ongoing coverage examining how the city deals with politically connected businesses, with reporting by The Post-Gazette's Rich Lord breaking new ground on this topic several times over the past year. Lord's story today put's a finer point on information revealed during the mayor's news conference: city officials did not inspect the inside of Club Pittsburgh to follow up on the alleged code violations, but relied solely on the assurances that it was now in compliance.


I managed to get a comment directly from one of the club owners on Wednesday. When I reached Peter Karlovich by phone shortly before 12:30 PM, he told me he's:

• "Very saddened that somone died at the club."

• "Particularly disgusted that the news media is focusing on paperwork and not on a man's death."

• He also said "this is being used as an attack on the mayor and is clearly and transparently an attack on the mayor."

Mr. Karlovich has also joined in the discussion in the comments section at Sue Kerr's blog, Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents.


You can watch video of my Channel 4 Action News report at this link.

Here are some breakout quotes from Q&A with newsmakers about this story:


Mayor Luke Ravenstahl:

• "Every contributor that has ever given money to me is not given preferential treatment. and the story line that continues is unfortunate."

• "Every contributor that gives to us should not be scrutinized or penalized for the fact that they give money. they give money based on their first amendment right."

Council President Doug Shields:

• "I'm not buying this 'well the lawyers dealt with this'. Lawyers go back and talk to people that tell them to talk to people, and these things don't happen in a vacuum."

• "Both property owners, for good or for bad, were done a disservice by the actions taken by the administration."

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Problem Listening to the Costa & Victor Q&A Audio? Try This Video

UPDATE: Check out the video file version of the Costa Q&A and let me know what you think. Because this blog is my personal hobby, I don't use WTAE's raw video -- the audio is from my personal recorder. The "video" is simply a screenshot of Costa with a brief title caption. Meanwhile, the audio files are working again -- but service could go down if the host's bandwidth limits are exceeded. My original posts continue below.


A few minutes ago I discovered that the audio links in my last blog post are no longer working. What went wrong?

I was using an older Google service called GooglePages to host the mp3 files. It seems that the size of the audio files aren't a good match for bandwidth limits of that free service. When I tried to check the files directly, I got the error message you see above.

Maybe I should add video captions to the audio files and upload them to YouTube.

Read More...

Summary only...

Q&A -- Mayor Denies 'Hush Money' In Ford Payment

[Update: a link to video of my Channel 4 Action News report]

Here's a transcript of Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's Q&A with reporters about the payment to former URA Executive Director Pat Ford. The impromptu new conference came during a break in the mayor's tour of Bloomfield's business district. During the session, the mayor proclaimed that this is the last time he will answer any questions about whether his administration is under investigation. The transcript shows that -- while a reporter began to refer to Councilman Shields' request for an inquiry by the state Attorney General into Ford's statements -- during this Q&A, no reporter actually asked the mayor whether he is under investigation.



Q (Jeremy Boren): Did your administration reach out to Pat Ford to find out the specifics of what he was alleging in his resignation letter and if not, why not?

A: The answer is no, and didn't really feel the need to.

Q (Boren): Why not? What if he had some legitimate concerns that needed to be addressed?

A: He had every ability to bring those forward and certainly still does.

Q (Boren): But you didn't think it was important to seek them out?

A: I know what happened and I know the issues that have been raised and I'm confident that nothing was done wrong.

You know, again, I said it before and I'll say it again. At no point in time when he was an employee of the City of Pittsburgh or the URA did he mention any wrongdoing or suggest that there was something done wrong. Of course, now that has changed, and I think there's reason that that changed, based on, you know, his employment status, et cetera. So, you know, I said in the press conference, I think they're bogus claims and they're false, and I still believe that.

Q (Bob Mayo): So, do you say that you do know what he was referring to when he made allegations of deception and corruption?

A: There is none.

Q (Mayo): But you know what he was referring to specifically?

A: No.

Q (Andy Gastmeyer): But can you see why the public is skeptical, mayor? I mean, he basically slaps this administration and you in particular, of course, in the face. And then a week or two after this, you go ahead and agree to a deal that not only pays him through the end of the year, but through June of next year.

A: You know, again, the settlement was reached. The URA board was in agreement that it was in our best interest to protect the taxpayers by reaching this settlement so that we avoided protracted and long litigation. It was a relatively small amount of money in comparison to what the legal costs potentially could have been.

And in addition, It allowed us to put this employment issue behind us. Allow (ed) us to move forward at the URA and do what the URA is -- do what the URA's mission calls for, and that's to rebuild this city. To focus on neighborhood issues, quality of life issues, and so it will allow us to do that.

I'm not going to sit here and suggest that it's something that I liked. I'm not going to sit here and suggest that it was necessarily good news. But it was a decision that had to be made. And it was made considering all of the factors and considering what had to be considered to reach the settlement.

Q (Gastmeyer): The attorney general's office is -- may possibly look into this --

A: (Interrupting) Let me answer this question and let me be clear. And I'll answer it today and I'm not going to answer it going forward, because I don't think that it's fair. My political adversaries continue to throw mud against the wall. Continue to suggest that there are investigations happening. Continue to write letters, continue to play politics. And you all continue to carry their water by asking me that question each and every time.

I'll answer it today and I'll conclude by answering it today. The answer is no. I haven't been questioned. Nobody has been questioned. And I think it's unfair and unrealistic for you all to continue to ask that question over and over and over again, without any facts, without anything other than a suggestion by my political adversaries.

So, until you all have facts and can hold my opponents responsible and accountable, so they can throw things against the wall and then you all come out here and carry their water and you ask me the question, and the answer to the question is no. It's been no for three weeks, it's no today. It'll be no tomorrow, and I'm not going to answer it any further.

Q (Mayo): Setting aside the question of an investigation. Editorials (are) criticizing or questioning whether or not this is, in effect, 'hush money'. You had him saying publicly embarrassing things. He winds up getting paid six months more than his contract would have. Did this contract buy Pat Ford's public silence?

A: It did not. I said before, I don't like it, I didn't like it. But it was a decision that had to be made. It was a decision that was made to protect the taxpayers in terms of our financial obligations on the issue. And it was also an issue that had to be considered in terms of moving the URA forward. I didn't believe, nor did the members of the URA board, that any long, protracted legal battle was in anybody's best interest.

We can stand here and debate on what that means, what that would cost. I can tell you it would be significantly higher than what was ultimately reached. Our obligation was to pay him through the remainder of the year. Regardless, there was no way we could have gotten around that. And so it's essentially, despite what's been reported, a six months settlement. And i think when you compare that to what the ultimate cost could have been and the overall benefit to (avoiding) a long legal battle, I think the decision was made and the right decision was made, as bad as it may be. I don't like settlements. I don't like this settlement. But it was something you had to do.

Q (Mayo): But he resigned, effective the end of the year. That was your only obligation to him What did he have going that warranted an extra six months? He resigned, (Why not) let him walk away?

A: He relinquished any ability for him to file any future claims against the URA, which I think is a very important point and why the settlement was reached. It wasn't so that he couldn't talk. I mean, certainly, he wrote a letter that was very damaging. Said a lot of things in that letter. If it was our interest to hush him, I think we would have hushed him before he wrote that letter. That's not what this was about.

Q (Mayo): But he has a non-disparagement clause now?

A: Right, exactly, so he doesn't damage the URA. That happens all the time, Bob You know that. It's happened before in the City of Pittsburgh. It's happened at the school district. It happens over and over again. There are cases in which the city has chosen not to settle. They could have settled then for a reasonably small amount of money, but they fought. And guess what that costs at the end of the --

Q (Mayo): (Interrupting) How would it--?

A: Can I answer the question, or --?

Q (Mayo): I'm sorry, I thought we were straying from the focus of the question, but please complete.

A: I don't remember what I was going to say.

Q (Boren): Is there a reason you didn't address the settlement on Thursday or Friday personally -- answer questions about it?

A: (Shakes his head) I wasn't around. No.

Q (Boren): Where were you?

A: Not available to the media.

Q (Mayo): Again, the point that I was trying to clarify is: if a guy resigns, and his contract us up, what possible basis would he have to sue? If that's all he had, he was quitting, what's he going to sue over?

A: There are potential -- it's employment law. I'm not an attorney, I can just tell you what we were advised to do, based on the recommendations of our attorneys. I'm not going to sit here today and say whether or not we would win or we would lose, What I can tell you is, whether we won or we lost, a potential a long, drawn out battle -- number one, it would have cost us more. And number two, it would have further damaged the URA. It would have further stymied our ability to do development, and make things happen in our neighborhoods. And so no matter which way you look at the issue, it's a difficult issue. It's one that had to be dealt with. It's one that no matter which way you dealt with , it wasn't pleasant. I'll recognize that. I have before.

You know, the important thing now is, I think we have a new executive director. He's a qualified and capable individual that's doing a good job. Has done a good job in his acting capacity. And it's my hope that the authority now can move on and move forward and put this issue behind us.

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Q&A: Ford's Lawyer Continues to Imply Inquiry by Authorities

Ford, Buchanan, Corbett, Fisher

Pat Ford's attorney, Lawrence Fisher, has had nothing good to say about Council President Doug Shields.

That was apparent in these earlier comments, as well as in his latest, in which he dismisses as political grandstanding Shields' call for federal and state authorities to investigate claims of corruption by Fisher's own client, Ford.

Noteworthy, however, are Fisher's ongoing remarks implying that authorities are already investigating something related to city government -- and that Ford is continuing to cooperate with those authorities. Fisher also continues to offer reporters his own spontaneous observations about the secrecy surrounding grand juries, thus keeping the topic of investigations in the spotlight.

After disparaging Shields for calling on U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan and PA Attorney General Tom Corbett to conduct inquiries into Ford's allegations of corruption, Fisher uncorked this provocative comment:

"He's asking for something that likely is already ongoing".

Before Shields' letter on Friday eclipsed Thursday's news, I was preparing a Q&A post from Thursday's interview with Fisher. Here's an excerpt from that Q&A. I've used a larger text style for emphasis in certain passages.


Q (Bob Mayo): A week or so ago, we reported the fact that Pat Ford has made these assertions about the city and the Ravenstahl administration, and I remember you said specifically "he has the wherewithal to prove them". Now we have this settlement. Is this settlement to hush Pat Ford and make him go away?

A: I really couldn't say. And I'm not going to speculate about why the URA agreed to the settlement in question. But let me say this to you, Bob, and I think this is very important. Nothing about this settlement inhibits my client from continuing to actively cooperate with authorities on matters of mutual interest, nor could any such settlement so inhibit him.

So, you have an agreement whereby Mr. Ford will no longer reiterate the allegations in his letter of resignation, unless and until he is compelled to do so by a subpoena.

Q (Mayo): He, in other words, won't be talking to reporters about it. But you're saying if there is any authority interested in it, he would not be kept from talking to authorities?

A: No one can, by way of an agreement in the settlement of a contract dispute, bind someone from participating with and assisting authorities in matters of the public interest.

Q (Mayo): So, to clarify, in past conversations you were careful to keep things in the past tense -- (saying) that he had "cooperated" with authorities on matters of mutual interest. Is he currently "cooperating" -- currently, since your 'past tense' past comment? Or is there any indication that authorities will be making use of Pat Ford's knowledge in the future?

A: Mr. Ford continues to actively cooperate with authorities on matters of mutual interest.

Q (Rich Lord, PG) : ...In Pat Ford's resignation letter, he asked for payment through the end of this year. He's receiving payment now through the end of June of 2009. Can you say anything about any subsequent claims that you made that may have motivated the city to move the yardsticks or move the goal line on this?

A: Let me say that Mr. Ford is grateful for this generous severance package from the URA and he is pleased to put the matter behind him and move forward with his life. Beyond that, the non-disclosure provisions of the agreement prevent me from discussing in detail claims which were raised and which have been obviously treated with respect, in terms of this agreement.

Q (Lord) : What is Mr. Ford doing now?

A: He's moving on with his life. He is going into a private consulting business and, as I said, he will continue, however to actively cooperate with authorities on matters of the public interest.

Q (Lord) : Do you think he will continue to live in Pittsburgh?

A: I know for a fact that he will not. Mr. Ford has relocated out of state.

Q (Lord) : Are you able to say whether he's gone back to Florida, or to any of the other locales..?

A: He has not gone back to Florida. He has moved out of state.

Q (Mayo): Has he lined up a new job?

A: He will be engaged in a private consulting business.

Q (Mayo): You won't say what city or state he is in?

A: As much as I'd love to use this moment for free advertising on behalf of Mr. Ford, I don't think that's my role, nor do I believe that's proper for me to do that...

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Q&A -- Ford's Lawyer Pressed For Details On Allegations Against Mayor

"I don't know whether or not there's an investigation.
I just know that authorities have contacted my client and he has cooperated."

Here's the Q&A transcript of the impromptu news conference by Pat Ford's attorney, Lawrence Fisher. Once again, the questions come from a variety of local reporters, myself included. Looking for the mayor's news conference Q&A? It's at this link.

First, a brief recap:

URA Executive Director Pat Ford's parting shot in his resignation letter accused Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's administration of 'a culture of deception and corruption'. Mayor Ravenstahl dismisses the claims as absolutely not true. "I was blindsided by Mr. Ford's attack and resignation letter. It was, in my opinion, outrageous, very malicious. On a personal level, I am very hurt, and I'm also very angry and sad", said Ravenstahl. The Mayor dismissed Ford's attorney's words suggesting his administration is under some sort of investigation.

"We have never -- not once -- been contacted, let me be very clear, by any federal investigator, by any investigator of any kind, whether it's me or any member of my administration" said the mayor. He added "we have yet to be asked one question. I know there's been rumors. I've been made aware of the rumors that are out there, but I can only state the facts -- that that has not taken place. We have not been questioned, nobody has been approached."

Minutes before Mayor Ravenstahl entered, Ford's attorney was escorted out of the conference room by the mayor's bodyguard. In his own Q&A with reporters later, attorney Lawrence Fisher appeared to be standing by everything his client has said.

Said Fisher, "well, I'm sorry that he feels that the comments were malicious, but the truth is an absolute defense to a libel action, isn't it?"

Ford's attorney also said "if a public official (Ford) has been contacted by authorities, and has cooperated in matters of mutual interest, you can determine whether there is an investigation or not."

Ravenstahl says that Ford never made these accusations during his time working for the mayor. "They're designed to attempt to attack me and this administration and I stand here confident that that decision and all other decisions that were made were made appropriately" he said.

Fisher says "the reality the situation is that Mr. Ford has made some serious allegations and he has the wherewithal to prove them".

When pressed by reporters, Fisher acknowledged, however, "I don't know whether or not there's an investigation. I just know that authorities have contacted my client and he has cooperated."


Now, Fisher's Q&A with reporters:


Q: (Inaudible)...allowed to be in there?

A: It is my understanding that the mayor called this press conference to discuss my client. I wanted to hear what he had to say about Mr. Ford. Apparently he doesn't want me to hear that in any way other than filtered through the media.

Q: What about -- in this discussion he says he never did wrong, that nothing was done wrong by the administration, and basically said he's being blindsided (inaudible) outrageous, baseless.

A: Well, I'm sure that's the party line and I'm sure a lot of people behind the scenes helped him craft that message. But the reality the situation is that Mr. Ford has made some serious allegations and he has the wherewithal to prove them. And we'd like the rhetoric to get ratcheted down a bit and we can move on. You know, Mr. Ford would like to move on with his life.

Q: What are the specific allegations. I mean, you said there's a "culture of corruption". That's pretty a pretty big accusation to make without anything to back it up. What's actually -- what's he talking about here?

A: Well, he reads the newspaper just like all of us. And we hear about these contracts that are awarded to political contributors, as opposed to the lowest responsible bidder. Mr. Ford is aware of that, just like anybody in the public. And of course, having worked on the inside, he has a unique view which --- you know, it's not his intention to air anybody's dirty laundry. He has stepped aside. He has stepped out of the picture, and now we hope for some honorable treatment by this administration.

Q: Is that what he's saying then? He's saying, no, but he's saying that there was actual -- that contracts went to political contributors, rather than the lowest bidder or the best bidder?

A: It's been reported in the newspaper to that effect. And I don't imagine that you all would report those sort of things if they weren't true.

Q: Does he have any special knowledge? Does he have anything other than what has been in the papers?

A: At this point, Mr. Ford is not going to air this administration's dirty laundry and I'll leave it at that.

Q: Has Mr. Ford been in contact with any -- with agents from the federal government, the state, the attorney general? Has anybody contacted him about this administration?

A: On that subject I'll say only what I've said before: Mr. Ford has cooperated with authorities on matters of mutual interest.

Q: What does that mean? You've got to define that better than just -- what authorities, and what do you mean "cooperated"?

Q (from a different reporter than in the question above): In light of the mayor's statement that he flat out denied that there was, that anybody from his administration had been contacted about any investigation. He just denied that in the news conference a few minutes ago. He said that's flat out wrong. There's nothing going on. Nothing. He's never been contacted, nobody in his administration's been contacted. So, who's telling the truth here?

A: Mr Ford is -- has cooperated with authorities on matters of mutual interest. That is the truth.

Q: So Mr. Ford has been contacted by investigators?

A: Authorities, yes.

Q: Can you tell us who?

A: If I could say more, I would. but, you know, these are sensitive matters. And it is not our intention to interfere with an investigation.

Q (Two reporters overlapping):
(1st )Yeah, but you said you wanted to lower the rhetoric, and here you are...
(2nd) So, there is an ongoing investigation? You get said there's "the investigation".

A: Well if, if a public official has been contacted by authorities, and has cooperated in matters of mutual interest, you can determine whether there is an investigation or not. I don't know whether or not there's an investigation. I just know that authorities have contacted my client and he has cooperated.

Q: So it could be a case where they've talked to your client and haven't talked to anybody else yet?

A: Well, I think it's been reported by Mr. Lord that others have been contacted by authorities as well. I mean, this is nothing new.

Q: Are you referring to anything other than the allegations that Pat Ford raised about the Pittsburgh Housing Authority? That is to say, are you referring to anything within the Ravenstahl Administration?

A: I am going to stand by my statement. Unfortunately, I wish I could say more. However, this is a sensitive matter and It would not be appropriate for me to elaborate beyond what I've said, which is that Mr. Ford has cooperated with authorities on matters of mutual interest.

Q: Did Mr. Ford resign because he cut a deal with investigators?

A: Mr. Ford has resigned because it was the right thing to do. And because he had had enough of being hung out to dry by this administration.

Q: This administration said they were waiting for the state to make a decision and backed him.

A: I beg your pardon?

Q: This administration has said that they were waiting for the state to make a decision and have backed Mr. Ford throughout, until this point.

A: Between that expression and the reality of situation lies an eternity.

Q: You would have us go out and report that there's some sort of investigation going on, there's some sort of suggestion of corruption here. And yet you make no specific allegations. You've suggested that perhaps there were contracts that were awarded that were improper. But yet you've offered nothing concrete. What are you talking about?

A: Andrew, read your own newspaper. I wouldn't have you report anything. It's not, it's not, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to have you report a thing. You report what you report. I read what you report. And you have reported that there were contracts given to political contributors who were not the lowest responsible bidders.

Q: So, is there anything that Pat Ford has personal knowledge of, other than the published reports about the specific contracts recently awarded by the URA since his departure?

A: It is not our intention to stir up a hornets' nest here. I came here to listen to what the mayor had to say. I didn't have that opportunity, regrettably, and for whatever reasons only the mayor knows. I presume you asked him why I wasn't allowed to listen to what he had to say.

Q: He said you weren't invited.

A: I was not invited. Well, how rude.

Q: He said your earlier comments were outrageous and very malicious. As a lawyer, does that sound like the kind language one would use if they were preparing to, say, pursue libel against you and your client?

A: Outrageous and malicious?

Q: Outrageous and very malicious.

A: Those were -- that's the phrase that he used? Well, I'm sorry that he feels that the comments were malicious, but the truth is an absolute defense to a libel action, isn't it?

.

Read More...

Summary only...