There's a lively discussion of the "Your Move" E-mails over on the Burgh Report.
Here's what I posted there in answer to some readers' questions about the authenticity of the e-mails and the positions of various council members.
The e-mails were not obtained from anyone who hacked into the city's or the Penguins' servers; that is to say, they came from a participant in the electronic conversation. The mayor's chief of staff confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails when I reviewed their contents with him by phone. That said, confirming that the e-mails were authentic doesn't mean that any one or all of the authors' e-mails are gospel. The authors are speaking their understanding of the facts, the law and of other parties' positions. They be correct or incorrect in their understanding on any given point.
When I interviewed Councilman Dowd on Wednesday, he told me that the first he heard about the banners was in a phone call from the mayor's chief of staff around eight Friday night, asking if he would support them. Dowd told me his response was to request more information--that he wasn't able to take a position either way without learning more. Dowd's quote didn't make it into the news that day because the focus was on trying to learn who was opposed, not who was neutral.
On that same Wednesday:
Councilman Kraus said that he had not taken a position on the banners and
Councilman Burgess said he was in support of finding a way to put them up.
Also on Wednesday:
Councilman Motznik said he supported putting up the banners, but insisted the mayor's office had never informed him of the proposal.
Councilman Deasy said he was in support of the banners.
I did not have the opportunity to ask Councilwomen Harris or Payne their positions.
In response to the comment by Anonymous 05/24/08 12:49 pm on the Burgh Report:
I never heard Mayor Ravenstahl say that "there was only one councilman who had issues".
On Wednesday said there were "a couple". On that same day, Councilmen Shields and Peduto said they were not opposed to putting the banners, and said they told the administration they would cooperate in supporting a way to do so legally.
On Thursday, the Mayor reaffirmed his claim that there were council members opposed to putting up the banners. He also said that he believed the public remarks by the council members on Wednesday showed that they were opposed. In that Thursday interview, for the first time I heard the mayor say that he wanted support from council to have been "unanimous". Also, for the first time he said that council would have had to repeal the moratorium on new billboards in Pittsburgh. A repeal of the moratorium was not discussed in the e-mails.
Moments later, other reporters and I sought responses from Shields and Peduto. They reaffirmed they hadn't opposed putting up the banners--and said they had recommended ways to do so in a meeting late Monday afternoon with members of the Ravenstahl administration.
Showing posts with label Reporter Notes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reporter Notes. Show all posts
Saturday, May 24, 2008
"Your Move" E-Mails Chatter
.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Penguins Banners Bonus Feature
Simulation by WTAE Channel 4 Action News ArtistClick here for the "Penguins Banners? The 'Your Move' E-Mails" post.
If you'd like to read the entire sequence of e-mails on which the story is based, click the "Read More..." link below.
I've removed the e-mail addresses of participants and added a few annotations. The following sequence was reconstructed from many separate e-mail exchanges, then placed in chronological order. The source material was in the reverse-order that's common in ongoing e-mail conversations. Typos from the e-mails have been left as is. Some of those taking part were apparently thumb-typing on their BlackBerries, which tends to result in more typing errors.
Again, if you're interested, click the "Read More..." link in the left hand corner, below.
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ismail, Noor
To: Tymoczko, Susan
CC: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Fri May 16 14:01:35 2008
Subject: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Susan,
I will follow this e-mail up with a call. A quick question for you. Penguins want to put up massive banners/signs for the arena to coincide with the games. The banners/signs may be equivalent to the Cleveland Stadium of LeBron James - it may depict a sponsor(s) such as Reebok, Nike etc.
Please call Ross Johnson at [----] and find out more about what they proposed to do - I am uncertain again whether this is temporary or permanent. Please walk them through the process, if possible. Time is of the essence for them given the pending games - and they would be interested to know what would be the fastest and quickest way to get this done. Keep both Yarone and me posted on the outcome. Thank you.
Noor Ismail, AICP
Director
Department of City Planning
City of Pittsburgh
-----Original Message-----
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 2:05 PM
To: Ismail, Noor; Tymoczko, Susan; [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Thank you very much. These will be temporary and his name is Ross Johnson, not Miller as I previously stated.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tymoczko, Susan
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 3:18 PM
To: Zober, Yarone; Ismail, Noor; David Morehouse
Cc: Ross Miller
Subject: RE: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
I've spoken with Ross Miller. The current proposal is for two, 40 ft. x 100 ft. banners on private property each showing a player with a corporate logo as well; each to be located on a downtown building. I've requested to see a copy of the artwork; for the permit application we will also require the exact street address and a letter from the property owner authorizing the application. We have no provision in the Zoning Code for temporary signs of this type, and in the past we have sent similar proposals to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Once I see the artwork I can make a determination on the type of permit that will be required.
Susan
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Miller [Pittsburgh Penguins]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 4:19 PM
To: Tymoczko, Susan; Zober, Yarone; Ismail, Noor; David Morehouse
Subject: RE: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Please find the banner images attached. The final size of each will be 40ft wide x 85ft high. The images will be printed on Ultra Flex Ultra Mesh Lightweight Supreme material. I am in the process of obtaining a swatch now and will share with the property owners as well as the city.
It is a perforated material that will allow light in and tenants can see out from inside the building. The installer has experience working with this material.
I have spoken with the property owner of PPG Place and we are doing a site inspection on Monday morning with the installer. They will provide an authorization letter and I will obtain the other necessities at that time.
Still waiting to hear back from Fifth Ave. Place...will keep everyone posted.
Ross Miller
Pittsburgh Penguins
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 4:26 PM
To: Shields, Doug
Subject: Fw: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
As per our discussions. This may be happening, with proper approvals and process. Will need your help.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tymoczko, Susan
To: 'Ross Miller'; Zober, Yarone; Ismail, Noor; David Morehouse
CC: Specter, George; Baumiller, Lawrence
Sent: Fri May 16 17:27:31 2008
Subject: RE: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Reviewing the proposed artwork and given the amount of advertising copy included, I cannot say that these are approvable. There is presently a moratorium in place that prohibits approval of new advertising signage; given this circumstance I would suggest consideration of revision to the proposed artwork. I've just spoken with Ross and David, and they are proceeding with some changes.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Zober, Yarone
To: Tymoczko, Susan ; Ross Miller; Ismail, Noor ; David Morehouse
Cc: Specter, George ; Baumiller, Lawrence ; Shields, Doug
Sent: Fri May 16 17:42:23 2008
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
If the moratorium is the greatest of the concerns, I would repectfully ask Council to lift the moratorium with respect to these festive banners. I have spoken with President Shields about this and he seemed to be in general support, though he should be contacted to dicsuss their concerns.
From: Tymoczko, Susan
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 6:12 PM
To: Zober, Yarone; Ross Miller [Pittsburgh Penguins]; Ismail, Noor; [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]
Cc: Specter, George; Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug
Subject: RE: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Just a reminder, in addition to the moratorium issue, new advertising signage is presently not permitted downtown. I'd like to be able to see what's going to be proposed.
Susan
-----Original Message-----
From: David Morehouse
To: Zober, Yarone; Tymoczko, Susan; Ross Miller ; Ismail, Noor
CC: Specter, George; Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug
Sent: Fri May 16 18:34:33 2008
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Just heard from Reebok and they said they are pulling out and the substantial investment from them is not worth it without their copy and that with the short window, they can't afford bureaucratic processes.
This is a shame and I can't believe we can't make this work.
I am very frustrated with this process.
----- Original Message -----
From: Zober, Yarone
To: David Morehouse; Tymoczko, Susan ; Ross Miller; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George ; Baumiller, Lawrence ; Shields, Doug
Sent: Fri May 16 18:54:07 2008
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Just spoke to Council Pres Shields. If we can come up with a collective quick solution, we will have all the support we need from both branches of City government and nobody will be caught up in a sign-gate.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Morehouse
To: Zober, Yarone; Tymoczko, Susan; Ross Miller; Ismail, Noor
CC: Specter, George; Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug
Sent: Fri May 16 18:59:36 2008
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
What is the solution?
-----Original Message-----
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:04 PM
To: [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]; Tymoczko, Susan; Ross Miller [Pittsburgh Penguins]; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George; Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Here it goes:
We need the law department to agree that by introducing an ordinance, zoning can rely on the introduction as law,
We need a majority of council (which we would have with pres Shields on board) to provide support for the ordinance as soon as tonight so that the sign can be manufactured,
We need an ordinance that effectively says: for the 2008 stanley cup playoffs, the following signs shall be approved.
If Law and Council ok this process, everyone should be on good solid ground to say that pens can proceed with production for installation when?
Need shields and law to sign on now.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tymoczko, Susan
To: Zober, Yarone; [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins] ; Ross Miller [Pittsburgh Penguins] ; Ismail, Noor
CC: Specter, George; Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug
Sent: Fri May 16 19:15:07 2008
Subject: RE: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Would it be possible to do an ordinance that exempts these particular signs from zoning approval? They would still need to get building permits for the installation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shields, Doug
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:17 PM
To: Tymoczko, Susan
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Why not do this relevant to the sites.IIe stadium areas. Also couched in terms of "temporay" banners.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shields, Doug
To: [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins] ; Zober, Yarone; Tymoczko, Susan; Ross Miller [Pittsburgh Penguins]
CC: Specter, George; Baumiller, Lawrence
Sent: Fri May 16 19:18:16 2008
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
I think instead of zoning maybe we go with temporay banners.
From: Tymoczko, Susan
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:21 PM
To: Shields, Doug
Subject: RE: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Do you mean, these signs are to be permitted around the sports stadiums? These are to go on other buildings downtown. Larry Baumiller will call you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shields, Doug
Sent: Fri 5/16/2008 7:22 PM
To: [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]; Zober, Yarone; Tymoczko, Susan; 'miller'; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George; Baumiller, Lawrence
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
I tink zoning is not going to get this done due to time associated from moving zoning law
What have we in the code on banners? We give permits for all sorts of banners. They a re for the most part non profits but we can amend to allow for our sports teams. The city has an equity stake in all of them that's for sure
This is on the books and can be amended more readily than zone changes. Susan?
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:23 PM
To: Shields, Doug; [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]; Tymoczko, Susan;
'miller'; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George; Baumiller, Lawrence
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Whatever works for you and at least four of your colleagues works for us. Susan and Larry have both indicated their approval if Council is on board.
From: Baumiller, Lawrence
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:23 PM
To: Shields, Doug; [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]; Zober, Yarone;
Tymoczko, Susan; 'miller'; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Subject: RE: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
I think that Yarone and I have worked this out. What we can do is propose an amendment to the Zoning Code on Tuesday allowing "large temporary banners for regional events" and exempt them from the current sign moratorium. Since the signs are temporary, we can refrain from placing sign limitations on the banners.
This legislation will take effect immediately because of the pending ordinance doctrine associated with Zoning Code Amendments. I am on board as long as City Council agrees to pull the legislation after the Stanley Cup finals are over. That way, we won't have any lingering issues.
My cell number is [----] if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Larry
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:25 PM
To: Shields, Doug
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Larry has also cited the fact that it can move ahead if council introduces legislation under the pending legislation doctrine- once introduced, it has the force of law. By the time for final vote, the issue will be moot and the legislation can be tabled.
From: Tymoczko, Susan
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:27 PM
To: Shields, Doug; [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]; Zober, Yarone;
'miller'; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George; Baumiller, Lawrence
Subject: RE: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
A lot of the banners are in the rights-of-way and therefore not subject to zoning - there are separate rules for them, not in our code. Longer term, we should probably get something into the zoning code that addresses temporary banners with sponsorship.
From: Ismail, Noor
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:29 PM
To: Shields, Doug
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
This has advertisement Ûn it and advertising signs are prohibited downtown. Susan and Larry were trying to work this out but the sponsors would not agree to this. Again the moratorium adds another layer to this. Susan is Ûn board if there is a way to address this legally
-----Original Message-----
From: Tymoczko, Susan
Sent: Fri 5/16/2008 7:30 PM
To: Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug; [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]; Zober, Yarone; 'miller'; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Subject: RE: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
I think it sounds like the best solution.
Susan
From: Baumiller, Lawrence
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:32 PM
To: Tymoczko, Susan; Shields, Doug; [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins];
Zober, Yarone; 'miller'; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Subject: RE: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Actually, we could probably put a 30 day sunset provision in the legislation.
----- Original Message -----
From: Zober, Yarone
To: Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug ; David Morehouse; Tymoczko, Susan ; Ross Miller; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Sent: Fri May 16 19:32:58 2008
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
With Pres' support, we can make this happen. A penguins nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Woo hoo hoo. What say the Pres?
-----Original Message-----
From: David Morehouse
To: Zober, Yarone; Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug; Tymoczko, Susan; Ross Miller; Ismail, Noor
CC: Specter, George
Sent: Fri May 16 19:35:35 2008
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Yes. So now I can call them and tell them it's a go?
From: Baumiller, Lawrence
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:36 PM
To: [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]; Zober, Yarone; Shields, Doug;
Tymoczko, Susan; 'miller'; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Let's wait for a yes from Shields.
Lawrence H. Baumiller
Assistant City Solicitor
Sent via BlackBerry
----- Original Message -----
From: Zober, Yarone
To: David Morehouse; Baumiller, Lawrence ; Shields, Doug ; Tymoczko, Susan ; Ross Miller; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Sent: Fri May 16 19:41:38 2008
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
The other prez- Council prez...
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:43 PM
To: Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug; Tymoczko, Susan; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Just spoke to Dowd who raised "issues". If we have Pres Shields in Pittsburgh's corner, then we can do this. If not, we can't.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Morehouse
To: Zober, Yarone; Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug; Tymoczko, Susan; Ross Miller; Ismail, Noor
CC: Specter, George
Sent: Fri May 16 20:47:49 2008
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Any confirmation yet? Printer is on hold and reebok is waiting.
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:00 PM
To: [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]; Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields,
Doug; Tymoczko, Susan; rmiller'; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
President Shields' phone cut out. Still awaiting final answer.
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:44 PM
To: [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]; Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields,
Doug; Tymoczko, Susan; 'miller'; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Lost Doug Shields. Can't proceed without knowing that he is giving go ahead.
-----Original Message-----
From: Zober, Yarone
To: [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins] ; Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug; Tymoczko, Susan; 'miller' ; Ismail, Noor
CC: Specter, George
Sent: Fri May 16 21:59:32 2008
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Its a go from Council Prez Shields. He will confirm by email in next ten minutes. Good work everyone.
----- Original Message -----
From: Shields, Doug
To: Zober, Yarone ; David Morehouse; Baumiller, Lawrence ; Tymoczko, Susan ; Ross Miller; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Sent: Fri May 16 22:00:40 2008
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
To confirm mr zober. Yes we wil find a way
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:01 PM
To: Baumiller, Lawrence; Shields, Doug; Tymoczko, Susan; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
All right! Now we have to get an ordinance drafted ASAP. Larry or Susan- when can we get this done and what percent of banner is ad space?
From: Baumiller, Lawrence
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:01 PM
To: Zober, Yarone; [David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]; Shields, Doug;
Tymoczko, Susan; 'miller'; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Very good.
Lawrence H. Baumiller
Assistant City Solicitor
Sent via BlackBerry
From: David Morehouse
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:10 PM
To: Shields, Doug; Zober, Yarone; Baumiller, Lawrence; Tymoczko, Susan;
Ross Miller; Ismail, Noor
Cc: Specter, George
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Great! Now all we have to do is beat Philly. I'll tell Rebok it's a go and on behalf of Penguins fans, I thank all of you. If we are fortunate enough to make the finals, I think this will make pgh look great.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tymoczko, Susan
To: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Fri May 16 22:22:36 2008
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
They estimated that it was about 2.5 percent, for the reebock only.
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:23 PM
To: Tymoczko, Susan; Shields, Doug
Subject: Re: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
Great.
[Reporters note: the next e-mail is in response to the earlier Friday, May 16, 7:32 PM message suggesting a 30 day sunset provision in the legislation.]
From: Specter, George
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 11:00 AM
To: Baumiller, Lawrence; Tymoczko, Susan; Shields, Doug;
[David Morehouse, Pittsburgh Penguins]; Zober, Yarone;
'miller'; Ismail, Noor
Subject: RE: Banners/Signs Question - for the Arena
That is too long. It should definitely terminate after the Penguins' last game. Of course, there is the long-standing Pittsburgh problem, i.e., if they win the Stanley Cup, people will want to leave them up until at least after the Steelers' first game.
[Reporter's note: the following e-mail is from the mayor's acting press secretary Joanna Doven to Chief of Staff Yarone Zober. It appears to convey a question from a reporter.]
-----Original Message-----
From: Doven, Joanna
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:09 AM
To: Zober, Yarone
Subject: A.Gastmeyer Inquiry
How did the city get around letting the Penguins putting up a huge rally banner at 5th avenue place, with “reebok” all over it? What are the Mayor’s thoughts after the lamar issue?
Joanna Doven
Communications
Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:13 AM
To: 'David Morehouse'; Mazefsky, Gabe; Shields, Doug
Cc: Baumiller, Lawrence; Specter, George; Ismail, Noor; Tymoczko, Susan
Subject: FW: A.Gastmeyer Inquiry
We’re going to pull the plug on the banner efforts. Even talking to Council has caused the following stories. Sorry for everyone’s time and effort. Maybe something like this could be done outside the City, where people know the value of Pittsburgh Pride over politics. Go Pens!
From: Zober, Yarone
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:32 AM
To: Burgess, Reverend; Shields, Doug; Specter, George; Ismail, Noor; Tymoczko, Susan; Baumiller, Lawrence
Cc: Mazefsky, Gabe
Subject: Thanks for efforts on banners
Ultimately, the City should probably have legislation that provides broader powers to suspend rules for temporary banners in the even of unanticipated good news for Pittsburgh (superbowl wins, Stanley cup, ticker tape parades (?), world series victories. Just kidding about the world series victories). Ultimately, this could have been fun, but not worth it on a fast track with a sensitive issue.
Yarone Zober
Chief of Staff
Office of Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
City of Pittsburgh
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Penguins Banners? The "Your Move" E-Mails
E-mails between the Mayor's Chief of Staff, The President of the Pittsburgh Penguins, and the President of City Council shed new light on the banners controversy.
Here's a link to video of my Channel 4 Action News report. The following is an expanded version of the TV story.
With Reebok logos written large, these are the 85 by 40 foot Penguins banners that would have been.
Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is again blaming council, saying opposition there is to blame for the plan falling through:
"Either it was something that they were going to approve or they weren't. To me it was that cut and dry, because of the time associated with it. And we couldn't build that consensus, so it wasn't submitted."
Doug Shields, Council President responds:
"Mr. Peduto and I gave them like three different ways that they would probably get passage of it and that we would support. We made that clear."
Channel 4 Action News artists show here, how the banners could have looked on Fifth Avenue Place, spanning seven stories.
E-mails obtained by Channel 4 Action News show city bureaucrats, not City Council raising red flags about the banners. The following messages were back of a lengthy exchange running from 2 PM to after 10:00 PM last Friday.
The Mayor's Zoning Administrator, Susan Tymoczko:
"Given the amount of advertising copy included, I cannot say that these are approvable".
The Mayor's Planning Director Noor Ismail:
"This has advertising on it and (new) advertising signs are prohibited downtown."
After that, Penguins President David Morehouse e-mailed the mayor's office:
"Just heard from Reebok and they said they are pulling out...
The substantial investment from them is not worth it without their copy."
Morehouse also wrote:
"This is a shame and I can't believe we can't make this work. I am very frustrated with this process."
Shields e-mailed:
"We give permits for all sorts of banners ... We can amend to allow for our sports teams."
Concerning City Council, the mayor's own Chief of Staff Yarone Zober e-mailed at 10 PM Friday:
"It's a go from Council Prez Shields He will confirm by email in the next ten minutes. Good work, everyone."".
Shields e-mailed back:
"To confirm, Mr. Zober. Yes, we will find a way."
At 9:13 AM Tuesday, after news media began asking questions, Zober e-mailed to Penguins:
"We're going to pull the plug on the banner efforts. Even talking to council has caused ... stories."
Zober then e-mailed Council:
"This could have been fun, but not worth it on a fast track with a sensitive issue."
Council Finance Chair Bill Peduto says:
"The Penguins found out that they didn't have Reebok's support in order to produce the banners. So blaming this on council is suspicious at best."
.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
SLAPP?
Bill Peduto claims that the lawsuit Lamar Advertising filed against him and his fellow Councilmen Shields, Burgess, Kraus, and Dowd was a SLAPP. He seems to suggest the city law department opinion about their legal expenses has the sting of a SLAPP, too.
What's a SLAPP?
I didn't recall the term, but apparently SLAPPs have a long and contentious history.
SLAPP stands for "Strategic lawsuit against public participation".
Wikipedia defines it as:
"a form of litigation frequently filed by organizations or individuals to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition."
California passed a law to protect against SLAPPs. So have more than two dozen other states. That includes Pennsylvania, though our state's has been described as a "significantly weakened version passed into law in 2000." It was designed to deal only with environmental law cases, and reportedly was passed "after a coal baron sued an elderly constituent for filing a complaint with the state’s Department of Environmental Protection when her home suffered acid mine-water damage."
That's from this article in Philly area newspaper that quotes a critic complaining that a court ruling created "an unduly narrow interpretation that destroys any value or purpose of the statute."
It seems that SLAPPs are an international phenomenon. Here' s a YouTube video report by CUTV. Concordia University Television is Canada's oldest student-run television station. I'm linking to it here for some interesting background. As they say on the DVD extras, this is for entertainment purposes only, and does not necessarily reflect the views, etc.
Here are some PG articles in which the term "SLAPP" appears.
Developers sue Franklin Park, residents for losses
Suit cites neighbors' 'frivolous objections' to townhouse plan
The dash to SLAPP is chilling
Judge drops neighbors from townhouse lawsuit
Suit cites neighbors' 'frivolous objections' to townhouse plan
The dash to SLAPP is chilling
Judge drops neighbors from townhouse lawsuit
Meanwhile, I ran into Lamar Advertising's attorney Sam Kamin as I was leaving the City County Building after Tuesday's council meeting. He told me he had just finished dictating the court filing to withdraw Lamar's lawsuit against the city council members, as agreed to in the arrangement signed before the zoning board.
A check of the county court's website shows that the lawsuit has now been "Discontinued without Prejudice".
What the significance there is (if any) of the lawsuit being discontinued "without prejudice" in this case, I do not know..
Sunday, May 11, 2008
If Wecht Stands Trial Again, Judge Schwab Intends to Preside
This past week, a federal appeals court put a second trial for former coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht on hold. The panel of judges will decide if a second trial should be forbidden on the basis of double jeopardy. That overshadowed another development: Judge Arthur Schwab's refusal of the latest defense call to remove himself from the case, should it go forward.
Here are some highlights from Judge Schwab's 33 page opinion.
"...The Court denies defendant’s Renewed Motion for Recusal because a reasonable observer, aware of all of the facts and circumstances of record, could not find an appearance of partiality or bias..."
"...There is nothing about this Court’s fair and impartial rulings and statements throughout these proceedings that present, to any reasonable observer who knows all of the facts and circumstances of record, any degree of favoritism or antagonism -- let alone the sort of “deep-seated” or “high degree” of favoritism or antagonism that might qualify as one of the rare exceptions to the general rule..."
"...It is crucial to the proper functioning of our justice system for judges to remain upright in face of political and media clamour that occasionally accompanies high profile cases, and resist the temptation to “capitulate,” so as not to encourage such extraneous pressure on judges in the future..."
"...Defendant’s Brief... attaches an affidavit executed by [dismissed juror] Stanley Albright... which defendant contends contradicts this Court’s statement in open court...that he had requested to be excused. This convoluted ground for recusal suggests, frankly, that this Court lied about Mr. Albright’s condition when it discharged him...for the purpose of securing an advantage for the government..."
"...some additional observations are appropriate in order to correct a few of defendant’s distortions of the record and dispel his untenable claims that this Court was less than accurate about the reasons it discharged Stanley Albright and that the Court was attempting to help the government obtain a conviction by Mr. Albright’s discharge."
"First, this Court has never spoken with Mr. Albright. All communications with the Court were through the Court’s bailiffs on April 2 and 3, 2008, and the Court’s statements in open court were accurately based on what Mr. Albright told one of the bailiffs the morning of April 3rd (as he later confirmed to the other bailiff)..."
"...Second, Mr. Albright’s April 17th affidavit is not materially different from the Court’s explanation in open court, or the letter he faxed to the Court later on April 3rd...."
"...Third, there is nothing on the record that indicates which way Mr. Albright might have been leaning before the Court discharged him, and he does not disclose his vote on any count ofthe indictment in his affidavit..."
"...The Court also shares Mr. Albright’s regret that he was unable to remain with the jury through its final day of service, when the Court declared a mistrial and discharged the jury on April 8, 2008. However, there is no doubt on the record before the Court, including Mr. Albright’s affidavit of April 17th, that he was unavailable for jury deliberations on April 2nd and 3rd, and that the Court exercised sound discretion in discharging him for good cause and directing the jury to continue..."
"...One knowing all of the facts of record could not possibly infer that this Court “wielded the club of contempt” when it directly issued a much needed (and probably overdue) reminder to counsel for both parties to conduct themselves professionally, as Officers of the Court, so as to protect the integrity of the jury pool from the possibility of contamination by the media maelstrom. Cases and controversies before a federal district or appellate court must not be adjudicated in the court of public opinion..."
"...the transcript of the proceedings -- will find some rulings that favor the government, and some that favor defendant. The record also shows that many significant rulings on motions and on disputes as to jury instructions favored the defendant, and that the unhurried, non-coercive jury deliberations were beneficial to him as well."
"...The record contains no hint of bias, prejudice or ill-will toward the defendant or his attorneys. Despite defendant’s continued threats and filings of recusal motions and his abuse of the writ of mandamus, this Court will, as it always has done, faithfully endeavor to follow its constitutional obligations and continue to provide defendant with a fair trial before an impartial jury of his peers..."
"...Defendant has every right to appeal any and all of the rulings and decisions of this Court in the event of an adverse jury verdict upon retrial, at the proper time... Defendant has no right, however, to disrupt ongoing criminal proceedings by engaging in repeated, frivolous attempts to judge-shop by removing the presiding District Judge based solely on defendant’s disagreement with some of the Court’s rulings..."
"...For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s Renewed Motion for Recusal is DENIED."
"SO ORDERED this 8th day of May, 2008.
s/ Arthur J. SchwabArthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge "
Monday, May 5, 2008
Reverend Rossi Goes Hollywood
You'll find a link to my Channel 4 Action News report here.
It's about the DVD directed by and starring Reverend Richard Rossi, whose jury deadlocked and did not convict him of attempting to murder his wife in Butler County back in 1994. Rossi later entered a "no contest" plea to a count of aggravated assault in the case, and served a few months in jail.
You can see the trailer for his movie here...
...and his YouTube reel of acting highlights here.
Credit to Steve Levin of the PG for doing the story about Rossi in Sunday's paper; I had spotted the DVD on the shelf at BlockBuster, but not realized it was made by Rossi.
The line in the PG story that stuck in my mind was something also mentioned on the DVD box. The PG reported:
"...It was voted one of the top guerrilla films of all time ..."
It made me want to do some googling to learn more. With the exception of this news release, the only references you'll find on the internet to this organization are in blurbs praising Rossi's movie:
Auteur independent filmmaker Richard Rossi won the top spot on the International Guerrilla Film Association's list of 100 Greatest guerrilla films for his low budget movie "Aimee Semple McPherson," a biopic about a fabled female evangelist in the Roaring Twenties. The results were announced yesterday at the annual IGFA party in New York.The top five runnerups in order were "Eraserhead," a 1978 David Lynch film, "Night of the Living Dead" (George Romero's horror classic shot in 1968 for $68,000.00), Kevin Smith's $28,000.00 first feature (1994)"Clerks," "400 Blows," a French New Wave film directed by Francois Truffaut in 1959, and "El Mariachi," a 1993 Robert Rodriguez film shot for $7000.00...
...Richard Rossi shot his critically acclaimed movie on a $300.00 consumer camcorder, used clamp-on construction lights purchased at Home Depot for $48.00, and made "Aimee Semple McPherson" under a special Screen Actor's Guild experimental contract for films with budgets under $75,000.00
I can't find the "International Guerrilla Film Association". I did find three groups with similar names.
• International Guerrilla Video Festival: its official never heard of Rossi or his movie.
• International Guerrilla Film Database: its official never heard of the Sister Aimee movie or writer/director Rossi, either.
• There is an IGFA: it's the International Game Fish Association.
I called the contact number on the news release about the IGFA Top 100. The recording answers for Richard Rossi's production company.
If anyone can provide me with contact information for the International Guerrilla Film Assocation, I'll check it out and mention it here.
In the comments section at Topix, A person named Gina Morton describes seeing this remarkable moment of live theater involving Rossi:
I saw Richard Rossi, the director, writer, and actor in this film portray Elmer Gantry on stage at the Stella Adler Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard a couple years back, and in Long Beach. An amazing performance. The executor of the Richard Brooks estate was in attendance and came up on stage and gave Richard Rossi the Oscar from the 1960 "Elmer Gantry" film and said Richard Brooks would be proud. One of the best nights of theatre in LA ever.
.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Prosecutors Blast Wecht's "Relentlessly Dishonest Onslaught"
U.S. Attorney Buchanan & Doctor WechtHere are some highlights from the government's latest brief opposing a Dr. Cyril Wecht's motion for dismissal of the indictment against him. This brief responds to the the defense claims of misconduct by the prosecution. In the conclusion, the government again hints that it may seek a jury from outside the Pittsburgh area for the second trial.
It begins with this:
There is a risk for those who have been subjected to the full extent of Wecht's ongoing campaign of obfuscation, misdirection, half-truth, misstatement and outright falsehood -- a risk of becoming numb to the repeated false assertions or, worse yet, ceasing to be vigilant in the face of the relentlessly dishonest onslaught. However, the government will labor, yet again, to correct the record that Wecht's truthless motion would otherwise distort beyond recognition.
...contains these comments:
...Wecht's accusations are not only false, but knowingly so......Yet sensational accusations like these make good copy, regardless of their truth........On what basis do Wecht's lawyers, as officers of the Court, level this serious accusation of prosecutorial misconduct? No basis whatsoever. Wecht and his lawyers have made it out of whole cloth. It is a fabrication, nothing more.....Wecht's accusation...is based entirely upon lies.....I. Wecht's Entire Motion is Based Upon Falsehoods.......The argument is based upon several outright fallacies.......II. Wecht's Eight Other False Accusations of Prosecutorial Misconduct.......The lack of truth in these accusations is apparent to anyone familiar with these proceedings. One is left to wonder, yet again, for whose benefit is Wecht writing?...
...and ends with this:
ConclusionPerhaps nothing can preserve the public's right to a fair trial in this division of the Western District of Pennsylvania, in light of Wecht's relentless campaign of publicity and slander by false court filings. Yet this latest motion hits new lows -- including repulsive allegations of anti-Semitism, utterly false allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and other baseless ad hominem attacks -- and should be denied.
Mary Beth BuchananUnited States Attorneyby: s/Stephen S. StallingsAssistant U.S. Attorney
.
Q&A Raw Video: Wecht Jurors Speak Out
The Pittsburgh Channel now has the raw video of the news conference by five jurors from the Wecht trial. Click here to watch.
Here are some quotes from my notes.
Juror Kimberly:
• "I felt strongly that the prosecution did not present a strong enough case that there was a plan or a scheme or intent to defraud."
• "I felt completely devalued, that the time and energy and everything I had put in the trial just flew out the window before we were even dismissed from the room." (On the quick decision by prosecutors to put Wecht on trial a second time.)
• "Now I feel that there definitely could be some political motivations behind what's happening with Doctor Wecht."
Juror Dawn:
• "We all sorted through tons and tons of the evidence, and we just not find any intent to defraud."
• "We truly did try, we went though count by count by count, just went through that barrage of paper, and it just was not there."
• "I feel it's politically motivated. There was a day in testimony where (defense attorney) Mr. McDevitt did not get a word in edgewise, objections just kept coming. And it really made me sit back and think, 'what is it that they're not allowing to come out to us?'"
• "The defense was not able to get a lot of information out to us, a lot of it was stopped, and I just feel that he somewhat sided with the government." (Referring to Judge Schwab.)
• "Just in the end, it was not enough to prove guilt."
Juror Linda:
• "I don't know if politically motivated or not, but it seemed to me that the motivations were certainly less than pure. There was something behind it other than seeking justice." (On the motive of the prosecution.)
• " I felt uncomfortable that the call was made by the FBI, as opposed to somebody directly from the prosecution. I just felt that -- by it's nature -- was intimidating." (On the prosecution's use of FBI agents to contact jurors at home to set up post-trial questioning.)
• "I believe that services were provided in good faith and the county was served in good faith." (On Wecht's work as coroner.)
• "I would do anything that it took if I could have an effect on there not being a future trial. I just feel that it would be punitive -- that there's not a chance that another jury would find differently than we did."
Juror Bruce:
• "With all the witnesses that came forth that had immunity, you would have have thought there'd be somebody that would have dropped a bomb or had the smoking gun."
• "There was no intent for him to defraud the citizens of Allegheny County or his private clients."
Jury Foreman Bob:
• "I'm thinking to myself, geez, you had three years to find somebody and this is the best you could do? I mean, they weren't even upset." (Referring to testimony by the alleged victims among Wecht's private clients.)
• "I definitely feel it's a waste of taxpayer's money. I don't understand how they can find a juror that would convict him, to have twelve people to be unanimous."
• "Definitely politics, now that it's all said and done. Not so much that I thought that during the trial, but especially after you think about how quickly (Assistant U.S. Attorney) Mr. Stallings got up and said we're retrying him, how quickly they had a date set."
• "I was shocked. I was surprised that he would make that decision already without even knowing what the counts (of guilty and not guilty votes by jurors) were."
• "I kind of felt it was a slap in the face. that it was almost like you know, we don't even care what time you put into it or what you thought. It wasn't what we want to hear, so we're doing it again."
• "Drop it and walk away." (His advice to prosecutors.)
.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Wecht Case Intermezzo
Here are some selected pages from prosecution and defense briefs filed this week in the case of former coroner Doctor Cyril Wecht.
These provide a window on some exchanges between the opponents as they prepare for the planned second trial.
For each of the selections, click to enlarge.
First, from the prosecution:
From the defense:
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Dueling Billboard Subpoenas That Might Have Been
Dueling subpoenas and depositions could have marked the start of a long and messy legal battle involving City Council members, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, and Lamar Advertising. It appears that won't happen, thanks to a resolution of the conflict over the original permit for a large electronic billboard downtown. Here's a closer look at excerpts from the legal documents I covered in my Channel 4 Action News report. They show what that peacekeeping apparently averted.
In this post you'll find images of now-voided:
• Subpoena requests targeting Mayor Luke Ravensthal, Chief of Staff Yarone Zober, and URA Executive Director Patrick Ford, and
• Subpoena requests targeting communications with news organizations and with bloggers on the part of five City Council members.
These are the public records:
• subpoena and discovery motions from attorneys for City Council members Shields, Peduto, Kraus, and Burgess and subpoena and
• subpoena and discovery motions from attorneys for Lamar Advertising.
They were filed with the city Zoning Board this past week, before City Solicitor George Specter, attorneys for Lamar and attorneys for Councilman Dowd reached their agreement on how to resolve the dispute over the billboard permit.
Again, the subpoena requests and discovery motions are all now considered moot, but they would have covered a wide range of records:
• "including, but not limited to, correspondence, notes, letters, documents, emails, text messages, voice mails, cell phone records, calendars, receipts, check registers, calendars, log books message slips or other statements of correspondence) of communications", including many with "news organizations", "members of the press or blogs".
Note that the section dealing with communication with reporters and bloggers appears to have been much broader than the one that would have targeted only billboard related matters. It appears to have sought all "non-privileged records" of communications with reporters and bloggers.
First, click "Read More..." to expand the post and reveal the documents.
Then you can start clicking on each of the images to enlarge them to readable size.
(You can also click this permalink to see the entire post, images and all, in a separate window.)
.
From the filing by the attorney for Council members Shields, Peduto, Kraus, and Burgess:
From the filing by attorneys for Lamar Advertising:
Friday, April 18, 2008
Sirk's Attorney Calls E-Mail "Bogus"
There's a disturbance in the Burghosphere:
allegations of a "bogus" e-mail and of bloggers being used as "pawns".
The attorney for Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's ex-press secretary Alecia Sirk claims that an e-mail attributed to Sirk by two Pittsburgh bloggers is a fake.
Not so, say the bloggers.
The anonymous blogger known as The Burgher of The Burgh Report provided me with a copy of an e-mail allegedly sent by Alecia Sirk to Bram Reichbaum of The Pittsburgh Comet. The bloggers offered it to refute suggestions that Reichbaum had threatened Sirk and her husband, URA Executive Director Pat Ford. In the disputed e-mail, the author sounds chatty, friendly, and not at all threatened. The e-mail says "thanks" and "pat and i both appreciate that you always come to us".
Ford is on paid leave while the state Ethics Commission investigates gifts that he and Sirk received from Lamar Advertising executive Jim Vlasach. Sirk resigned from her job in the wake of the revelation of the gifts. Ford describes Vlasach as his "best friend". Together, they negotiated the controversial permit which allowed Lamar advertising to begin erecting a large electronic billboard on Grant Street. Ford himself was the one who went to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review with word of the gifts; he did so after blogger Reichbaum privately questioned Sirk about some references to Vlasach in her own discontinued blog, Love of Chair. In one post, Sirk described her delight at getting a gift from Vlasach -- a surround-sound system.
The Trib reported on April 15th:
...Ford said he believes someone connected to the Housing Authority "mysteriously" resurrected his wife's defunct blog, LoveofChair, which detailed Ford's friendship with Vlasach.
He said blogger Bram Reichbaum called Sirk and threatened to release a copy of the blog publicly if she did not tell him about the surround-sound system.
First, let's look at the e-mail sent to me by The Burgher.
From: "The Burgher" [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Date: April 15, 2008 1:04:30 AM EDT
Subject: Proof Bram did not threaten Sirk
The very threatening Bram Reichbaum ...
Check sirk's frightened post-interview email to bram.
(Sarcasm over).
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bram Reichbaum [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Subject: Fwd: Phone Tag
To: The Burgher [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Here is a bit of our correspondence. It looks as though I couldn't have spoken with her until 2:30 or maybe 3:00. You may utilize this for anything.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: alecia sirk [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Date: Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Phone Tag
To: Bram Reichbaum [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Hi Bram-
Don't forget to email me the blog! I'd love to be able and sit around and read it when i'm 70!
thanks, and thanks for calling to ask me about those things. pat and i both appreciate that you always come to us and say HEY, what about this.
have a great day,
a
X
----- Original Message ----
From: Bram Reichbaum [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
To: alecia sirk [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2008 2:28:12 PM
Subject: Phone Tag
I'm trying to all you back. "All circuits are busy now" for the past two hours, and I don't want to bother you on your cell phone.
Gimme a call at [Phone number removed for this post] and I'll pick up.
Bram
Bram Reichbaum affirmed that the above e-mails were authentic when I contacted him. He had forwarded it to The Burgher, who passed it along to me.
Next, I contacted Alecia Sirk using the same address that appears in the disputed e-mail.
----- Original Message ----
From: Bob Mayo [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
To: alecia sirk [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:26:41 PM
Subject: Re: Missed Interview Opportunity
Alecia,
I wanted to check this with you.
Is the following your e-mail to Bram Reichbaum on Monday after his conversation with you about the entry in your blog?
Thanks.
Bob M
Her response:
From: alecia sirk [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Date: April 16, 2008 10:48:40 AM EDT
To: Bob Mayo [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Cc: law fisher [ E-mail removed for this post. ]
Subject: Re: Missed Interview Opportunity
Hi Bob-
My attorney, Lawrence Fisher, would be happy to speak to you about this issue.
This is his cell phone number: [Number removed for this post].
thank you,
a
Today I spoke by phone with Lawrence Fisher, attorney for Pat Ford and Alecia Sirk, and asked him if the e-mail is authentic.
His answer:
• "No. The e-mail is bogus. It's part of the smear campaign in which the bloggers have allowed themselves to be used as pawns."
• "The whole story is ridiculous."
• "The idea that a multi-million dollar project could somehow be swayed by a nominal gift is ridiculous."
• "The continued exploitation of this matter is not productive."
Finally, here are the responses from The Burgher and Bram Reichbaum to the comments of Mr. Fisher.
First, The Burgher:
Thanks, Bob.
I'd like to talk to Bram first, but it seems incredible to suggest that someone hacked into Sirk's email account and sent Bram an email collaborating their conversation before any blog posts or subsequent MSM coverage would inform 3rd parties of the event.
So, in other words, they're claiming Bram is lying.
Actually, more than lying; they're claiming that Bram fabricated an entire email conversation with Sirk, and composed a fake email and sent it to me.
Unless their attorney is misinformed, these are desperate lies.
I'll let Bram discuss that with you, but on my end it seems ridiculous to me considering the number of conversations Bram and I have had where Bram expressed sympathy for Sirk. (I'll forward them).
Also, part of the "allegedly" fake Sirk email is collaborated by Bram's conversation with me (by GMAIL chat, if I remember correctly) around the time of the interview where he mentioned that Sirk thanked him for forwarding the PDF.
(This is off the record until Bram responds. I'm assuming he will assert the legitimacy of the emails. If not, please let me know.)
The Burgher later put the above comments on the record.
Next, Bram Reichbaum:
Gentlemen,
I assume you're talking about the e-mail in which Alecia asks for a copy of Love of Chair, and thanks me for coming to them with my questions?
Yes. Yes, that was authentic.
As a matter of fact, you may have noticed an "X" underneath the text of her e-mail, and above the body of my "phone tag" e-mail to her earlier in the day. That "X" is actually my placeholder for an quote she included underneath her message. Since it was italicized and seemed personal, I withheld it from distribution to you and the Burgher, but if you think there will come a time when it is important to reveal, please let me know.
Burgher, go ahead and forward any relevant correspondence we've had about Sirk/Ford to Bob.
Bram
One footnote: the e-mail address in question does belong to Alecia Sirk. It's the personal Yahoo account from which she sent out the news release about Mayor Ravenstahl's endorsement of Senator Clinton. It's also -- as noted above-- the address from which she told me to contact attorney Fisher.
.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Billboard Back Story: Brewing Controversies
[Looking for my "Media Debate Blowback" post? Click here.]
There's an intriguing back-story that led up to the peacemaking between Lamar Advertising and Pittsburgh Council members who challenged the legality of their permit to erect an electronic billboard downtown. My Channel 4 Action News report lays out details. I obtained copies of legal filings that reveal a battle of subpoenas and discovery motions, averted just in time.
Here's the text of my TV story.
If this agreement on the Lamar electronic billboard going back through channels hadn't been reached, legal documents show council members were pressing for testimony under subpoena by:
• city URA Executive Director Pat Ford, who struck the deal,That won't happen now. But the State Ethics Commission is still reviewing gifts received by Ford and Ford's wife -- Mayor Ravenstahl's former press secretary Alecia Sirk -- from Vlasach. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl: "This process in the infancy stages and we'll see where it goes. I'm not concerned about that at this point, and welcome the investigation at the state ethics commission and look forward to their findings." <
• his Lamar executive best friend Jim Vlasach, with whom he negotiated.
• and Mayor Ravenstahl's Executive Secretary Yarone Zober.