Notes on Don Imus

My note to MacYapper

I'm a reporter, not a commentator. It's not my job or habit to offer personal opinions, but I feel compelled to make a rare exception after reading John McIntire's MacYapper post about Don Imus.

MacYapper: "The dude was trying to be funny. Unlike Michael Richards, his tirade was, I believe, born of an attempt at humor, not pure racism. He tried, he failed. Now he apologizes. Profusely. Ad nauseam."

John, the fact that the remark was "born of an attempt at humor" doesn't make it one iota less racist. It's simply a perfect specimen of something that a person who is racist would think is funny. Saying "it's a joke" never removes any of the sting of hate from such comments--it simply provides a view into what's inside the person who is speaking. You don't squeeze an orange and have vinegar come out.


MacYapper: "the fact that these kinds of phrases are tossed around in the black community and by black comics doesn't make it acceptable for the I-man to utter. But that's why such phrases are in our heads. And that's why, in an attempt to riff and be funny, that kind of phrase mind come out of somebody's mouth."

Please--let's not pity the poor, confused, easily-influenced and misled white national talk show host who doesn't know any better, as though it's those darned rappers and black comics who put "such phrases in our heads". Heaven knows, he and we have never heard insults and jokes spoken by white racists all our lives, have we? He's never made a choice to think and speak his own words, right?

Here's a little flashback I'll share with you. Back in the 80s, my wife and I were vacationing in New York City and passing through the lobby of 30 Rockefeller Center. An odd, overbearing man came up to us as we were reading a building directory. He pointed to the map and said "here's where you find the gays, and here's where you find the blacks"... except he didn't used the word "gays" and he didn't use the word "blacks". He used words I won't write here. As the man moved on, a group of star-struck teenaged girls was following him, giggling. "Who was that?" we asked. They answered, "It's 'Imus In The Morning'!"

Read More...

Summary only...

Calendar Note: Mayor Forms Group

"The group will meet six times a year"

The PG reports that "Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl today announced the formation of a commission dedicated to keeping young professionals here. The Propel Pittsburgh Commission has been in the works for months..."

The Post-Gazette's Rich Lord also writes "The group will meet six times a year and will submit quarterly reports to the mayor and council on policy matters important to young professionals".

Meanwhile, as reported here last month: "Pittsburgh's Ethics Hearing Board still hasn't held one meeting since its five members were confirmed last July".

Read More...

Summary only...

Point/Counter-Point: The McNeilly Settlement

The Pittsburgh Channel has details from my Channel Four Action News report. Here's a point/counter-point from comments made outside Council Chamber.


Jim Malloy, President, Fraternal Order of Police:


"Council made a decision today. I disagree with that decision. I don't think that you reward somebody with 85-thousand dollars when they freely admit that they violated the contract, they violated the rules and regulations."


"They never attempted--and I talked to Commander McNeilly--I explained to her. We were in the federal courthouse. If she thought there was skullduggery going on in the administration, all she had to do was walk down the hall and see the U.S. Attorney and tell them. They'd have sent a task force down to investigate, like they do everything else."


"She didn't do anything except what she wanted to do. She helped write the rules and regulations, but she in turn ignored them when it met her need. That's what I object to. You write these agreements, you work on these contracts, and what we're opening the door to now is that."


"Police officers, they're sworn to keep the privacy of individuals to themselves. You all understand exactly what policemen do out there. They get involved in the intimate parts of many people's lives. And they live with those secrets and keep their mouths shut. Are we saying now that because Cathy McNeilly could the rules and regulations, so can they? I hope not. I think that there's an obligation on the part of a police officer to abide by rules. And there's a greater responsibility when you write the damn things, you must abide by the rules."


".... I think when somebody comes up to you and says 'yeah, I violated the rules, sure, I violated the contract, but I did it for good reasons'--let the court decide whether those reasons have value or not. Not because you're afraid you're going to line the pockets of her attorneys. They're going to spend over a quarter-million dollars on this case, and never put a glove on to get in the ring."


"...I mean, if you do that with every case that comes to city council, and you just simply blindly follow the law department and say 'yeah, well, they think we can lose this case'. You can lose any case, you can win any case. You guys have been around this business long enough to know that some you win, some you lose. But at least you get in a fight."



Bill Peduto, Pittsburgh City Councilman:


"I'm convinced that if we would have pursued this in court that we would have lost. The Whistleblower Law is there for a reason. It's to protect employees. Even those that make decisions that go against union rules."


"Always remember that the U.S. Constitution trumps any agreements. The civil rights of Catherine McNeilly were violated, and if we went to court, we would have lost more than just the 85-thousand dollars that we had to agree to today, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars we're going to have to agree to in legal fees. This city would have lost its integrity."


"From the very beginning, when Dennis Regan was first nominated for public safety director, I said it was the wrong decision. When the investigation went out against Catherine McNeilly, and then the actions were taken against her, I said it was the wrong decision, it would end up costing the city money. These were a series of missteps, of very serious issues that needed to be addressed outside of politics. Unfortunately, the only response from the administration at that time was that I was being political."


"...If that trial were to continue, we would lose. We'd lose a lot more taxpayer dollars than the 300-thousand or so that we're going to lose. This city would have lost its integrity by denying an employee their civil rights--guarantees that are provided to every single citizen in this country."


"Union rules do not trump the U.S. Constitution . They don't trump the Whistleblower Law. That is why we have the Whistleblower Law, so that somebody--an employee-- who feels that there is no other course of action, who feels that the entire system is up against them, has the ability and the right to go and pursue what they know to be right in their heart."


"...Yes, she broke the rules of the union agreement, but we took away her civil rights. Something that's guaranteed to everybody through the U.S. Constitution. We had no chance to win this. We had to fold the tent now, with 300-thousand dollars or so on the table of taxpayers money, because of missteps that were made throughout this process."

Read More...

Summary only...

What Do Other Ethics Panels Do?

Here are some quick facts for comparison.



Allegheny County's "Accountability, Conduct and Ethics Commission has its own website via the county. Its members were appointed in December, 2002. A reference in this document shows they met the very next month. They publish their meeting minutes and annual reports online, and those records show that the the county's Ethics Commission members meet an average of seven times a year. In their first full year, they met eight times. Their meetings are open to the public in accordance with Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act. I covered their January 25, 2007 meeting. When they had to hold a portion of their meeting in executive session, they followed the letter of the Sunshine law: announcing the reason during their public session first, and then inviting the public back in at the conclusion of the closed-door executive session. Member names and their complaint form are available online.



Pennsylvania's State Ethics Commission has extensive information available on its website. Meetings of its members are not only open to the public, they're available via streaming video on the state's site.





Philadelphia installed its new Board of Ethics members in November, after action by voters last spring to create an independent panel. A news release dated December 18, 2006 refers to members' "fourth public meeting in its first three weeks of operation". Their website has a special section dedicated to spotlighting their "WhistleBlower Protection Policy".

(Links updated April 3, 2007.)

Read More...

Summary only...

Ethics Panel Update: Tracking The Latest

Out Of Town Duties
No Problem

A member of the still-dormant Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board says that her fellowship at Harvard for the past three months is no impediment to her obligations to the watchdog agency which has yet to meet. The fellowship continues until June.

Kathy Buechel confirms her fellowship there. It took a week of leaving messages by phone and e-mail at both Harvard and in Pittsburgh before I heard back from her. Buechel told me by phone this week that she hadn't responded to the messages last week because she was on vacation. She says she spends two-to-three workdays a week here in Pittsburgh, and weekends as well. It's a nearly 600 mile commute one-way to Cambridge, MA, where Buechel is a Visiting Practitioner at the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University.

"Pittsburgh's Ethics Hearing Board still hasn't held one meeting since its five members were confirmed last July". That was my report in late January, which included a sound clip of Mayor Ravenstahl telling me back at the time that "they are going to be meeting here in the very near future".

It's still true today.

The city's Ethics Hearing Board is supposed to investigate allegations of misconduct by elected officials or city government employees.

Even though David Scott--the only attorney named to the panel--resigned around the end of 2006, Bob O'Connor's appointment still hasn't been replaced. Mayor O'Connor and City Council had decided last spring to revive the five-member panel that's been in the deep freeze since the 1992.

Following my inquiries in late January, the mayor's office said the ethics board would hold it's first meeting the following week. It did not. There was, however, an orientation held for just two members. There weren't enough present for the quorum needed by law to hold a meeting. (PG, Trib, this blog.)

This has been going on since last spring, as you can see here.

We reported in February that Mayor Ravenstahl's office says "he has the executive power to call the meeting".

The other ethics board members--Sister Patrice Hughes, the Rev. John C. Welch, and Rabbi Dr. Daniel Schiff--all tell me they have had no contact from the mayor's office or from each other since my last Channel 4 Action News report. All say that they are waiting for the Mayor to take the lead.

When Buechel did return my call this week, she revealed that the city had contacted her during the same week that I was leaving messages trying to reach her. The city's call was to tentatively schedule her orientation by the law department for today.

Read More...

Summary only...

Counterpoints? The Mayor and McNeilly's Lawyers

Skirmishes Over The Settlement

Minutes after the McNeilly news conference (reported here, along with a video link), I received a statement from Mayor Luke Ravenstahl via e-mail. It appears in full at the end of this post.

In the statement, the mayor makes these points:

•"It is important to note that Ms. McNeilly was not disciplined for speaking her mind. Rather, she was disciplined for releasing to the public a police officer's confidential personnel file."

•"Under the Court's decision, a City employee has the right to speak publicly about publicly important matters, consistent with the First Amendment and the State's guiding statutes."

• "... the exercise of such rights is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's legitimate interest in the enforcement of its workplace rules and regulations..."

That third excerpt echoes language in the McNeilly agreement, but the first line does not. I phoned the mayor's spokesman Dick Skrinjar to check on whether the release was intended as the public acknowledgement described in the the deal with McNeilly.

He told me that the mayor's interview with us on Monday was actually that acknowledgment. He added that Monday's remarks, the written statement, and everything the mayor's said on this matter since October comply with the settlement.

So, back I went to check by phone and e-mail for McNeilly's lawyers' reaction.

Tim O'Brien responded that "the mayor's comments are rehash of the city's arguments in court that were flatly rejected by the court. We expect them to comply in good faith with the spirit and letter of the agreement.'

Vic Walczak of the PA ACLU answered via e-mail: "Sounds like the mayor didn't learn much from this civics lesson. But rather than getting a failing grade, like you would in school, here he's costing City taxpayers lots of money. Let's hope he takes a little time to study up on the Constitution before he does something like this again."

Here's the mayor's complete statement:



"I am pleased that we have finally arrived at a conclusion to the McNeilly matter. Entering into a settlement was the option that best preserved the interests of the City, its taxpayers and Ms. McNeilly. A protracted legal battle would only have served the interests of the lawyers, generating additional legal fees for Ms. McNeilly's attorneys. "

"It is important to note that Ms. McNeilly was not disciplined for speaking her mind. Rather, she was disciplined for releasing to the public a police officer's confidential personnel file. That act was prohibited by Police Department rules created to protect the privacy rights of our officers. Chief Harper meted out the discipline he believed to be warranted to manage the Police Department effectively and I supported his decision. "

"Now that the Federal Court has offered additional clarity and guidance with regard to the Police Department guidelines, Pittsburgh has no problem complying. In fact, we have been complying since Judge Ambrose issued her decision. Under the Court's decision, a City employee has the right to speak publicly about publicly important matters, consistent with the First Amendment and the State's guiding statutes. Chief Harper, Ms. McNeilly and I acknowledge, however, that the exercise of such rights is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's legitimate interest in the enforcement of its workplace rules and regulations as needed for government to work properly and efficiently."

Read More...

Summary only...

Q-and-A: The Mayor On The McNeilly Settlement

The mayor sends the deal to council

Here's a question-and-answer session with Mayor Ravenstahl on the city's planned deal to end Commander Catherine McNeilly's Whistleblower/First Amendment lawsuit. (You can see video of my Channel 4 Action News story here.) I joined in an interview by KQV's Elaine Effort that was already under way. The mayor was answering her question about what he had learned from dealing this case.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl: It was a decision that the chief made that he felt was appropriate at the time, when the initial investigation was completed and I supported him in that endeavor. As we know now, the judge and the court felt differently. And we respect that, and have moved on, and felt this was in the best interest of everybody to move forward from this point.


Q: Have you signed off on a settlement with Commander Catherine McNeilly?

A: We've introduced legislation to council, yes, to settle the McNeilly case.


Q: It's reported that includes--according to a published report--a mayoral acknowledgment city employees have free speech rights. What exactly do you acknowledge, and how is that different from where we had been before?

A: All the specifics will be discussed once the legislation is introduced to council tomorrow. and I felt more than comfortable making that statement because I believe in it. And as far as I'm concerned every employee has the right--I've said this from the beginning--has the right to voice their opinion on anything related to city government and I fully support that.


Q: Was Catherine McNeilly a whistleblower in this case?


A: Well, once again we've--the case has been well-documented. We've determined at this point that the chief made a decision, the court felt differently. and it was in the best interest of the residents of the city and the taxpayers, it was in my interest, not to line--further line--the pockets of attorneys and pile up legal fees at the expense of taxpayers. So we felt it was fiscally prudent to settle this case and move on.


Q: To clarify, in addition to the settlement with Commander McNeilly, is there going to be a second phase--a second hit to taxpayers for this? Legal bills for her attorneys, separate from the settlement with her?

A: Well, we will-- sure, there will be legal fees associated as well. And it's my understanding that will take place sometime later, separate from this settlement that we have here today.


Q: Why do it in two parts?

A: I believe that's a question the attorneys can probably better answer than I. There are legal questions that--in terms of what those fees are--and we need to make sure that we are paying for only the fees that were encumbered. And we want to make sure that we do so in a very thorough manner, without simply agreeing to a number without having some third party or third entity come in and take a look at what's appropriate.


Q: What's different as we stand here today than back in January, right after the judge granted her that initial ruling in her favor? What's different that has changed your mind?

A: I don't know that anything's changed my mind. When you have and receive a judgement from a judge and she made it quite clear that it looked as if the commander would be successful in this trial, and had to make a decision. And like I said, it's more important for me to protect the financial interest of the residents and the taxpayers of the city, and not simply line the pockets of an attorney, and that's what we made a decision to do. We respected the judge's decision. I've said that then, and I'll say that now, and we look forward to moving forward.


Q: Wouldn't that suggest, though, that you didn't think the city's case was going to hold up? I mean, because you wouldn't have had to pay her attorneys' fees if you had won.

A: Well, we--the chief made a decision based on a rule that was broken. The judge clarified and felt differently, and we said then we respected that opinion, and we're moving on and we'll go from there.


Q: Do you have to have the judge sign off on this? Do you take this agreement into court?

A: I believe that has already taken place.


Q: She's already signed off?

A: I believe that she's been involved in the entire process to this point.


Q: Is it likely that what the city may pay in legal bills, apart from the settlement with her, may be that much and more?

A: I can't speculate on that at this point. I really don't know.


Q: Would it be less than a million or more than a million?

A: No, it will be far less than a million dollars.


Q: Will it be another hundred-thousand?

A: I don't know. I really don't know.

Read More...

Summary only...