Sign of the Times: Lamar Responds

The following news release came in earlier today:

Lamar Advertising Appeals Decision Involving Grant Street Signage

PITTSBURGH, Pa. (For Immediate Release) -- Lamar Advertising today filed an appeal to the Commonwealth Court from Judge Joseph James’ order of June 24, 2009 involving the electronic signage at the Pittsburgh Parking Authority Grant Street Transportation Center.

“We are taking this step to protect Lamar’s legal rights in this matter,” said Stan Geier, Lamar Vice President and General Manager. “We spent a considerable amount of money on the display after we received permission from the city. If the city no longer supports the project, as a good corporate citizen Lamar will respect that decision. However, if that is the case, we are entitled to recover our expenses from the city of Pittsburgh.”

Lamar began construction of the display in February 2008 based on a permit that it received from the city in December 2007. In April 2008 the city of Pittsburgh issued a stop-work order.

The appeal will preserve Lamar’s legal rights to a recovery of its project expenses.

“We received a permit for construction of this display, following a well-established procedure with the city of Pittsburgh and with the support of the city administration,” Geier said. “Relying upon that permit, we invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the display in early 2008. We have been damaged by the city’s decision to change its mind. We cannot simply let the matter drop.”

Because of the legal delays, Geier said Lamar will begin removing electronic components of the display from the Transportation Center. The company will attempt to re-use the components in other projects, which would mitigate the amount that it will otherwise seek to recover from the city of Pittsburgh.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lamar Billboard Saga

Is it end-of-chapter or end-of-story?

Judge Joseph James has upheld the Zoning Board ruling denying permission for construction of a multi-million dollar billboard  downtown --- a billboard that's already mostly completed.  (See the PG and the Trib stories.  Bram Reichbaum's Pittsburgh Comet has the entire ruling online.)

Controversies connected to the handling of the Lamar electronic billboard are woven into a number of big Pittsburgh political and goverment stories of the past couple of years.

This link will let you check out many of my past blog posts on the topic. After clicking the link, scroll to the bottom of the screen.

This PG story also notes that Mayor Ravenstahl has just changed the makeup of the Zoning Board that ruled against the billboard.

More to come.

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lamar vs Pittsburgh: The Next Round in the Billboard Battle

The illustration on the city's website doesn't show the partially completed LED billboard on the Grant Street Transportation Center.
The photo on the Neighbors in the Strip website does.

There's movement on two fronts in the pending court fight over the future of Lamar Advertising's electronic billboard downtown.

A quick aside, if you're new to the story:

As told here, A zoning board ruling was a big defeat for that huge, partially completed electronic billboard in downtown Pittsburgh; a ruling that appeared to kill the nearly seven-million dollar project.

See also:

Billboard Back Story: Brewing Controversies

Chessboards & Mushroom Clouds At City Hall

Now, the new developments:

The Ravenstahl administration recently informed City Council that instead of the city defending the Zoning Board's split vote ruling against the sign, it was hiring a private law firm to do the job instead.

Pittsburgh City Council approved that decision (including payment of legal fees up to $15,000) and announced its intention to hold a closed door executive session meeting with the private attorneys taking on the job. At last word, that meeting's yet to take place.


Meanwhile, Common Pleas Court Judge Joseph James on March 3rd issued an order for briefs to be filed 20 days from that date. Lamar filed its brief on March 23rd. The law firm hired by the city filed its appearance and brief one day later, on the 24th.

The judge had ordered briefs on two topics: "1. What is the standard of review when Zoning Board of Adjustment is split one-one and both members file separate opinions; 2. Should the record be expanded to include testimony of an employee of the City Planning Department".

The private attorneys hired by the city to defend the Zoning Board ruling are Blaine Lucas and Krista-Ann Staley of the firm Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir.

It the Lamar brief, attorney Sam Kamin argues that "this is not an appeal from the issuance or denial" of the sign permit", but instead ""the action requested of the zoning board was the revocation of Lamar's Sign Permit". The Lamar brief cites past court cases to argue that the zoning board's tie vote constitutes a refusal to revoke the sign permit, not a refusal to approve the electronic billboard. Lamar also argues that the split vote means the status quo should be maintained -- and it considers the status quo to be that the sign and its permit remain.

It also argues that Zoning Board Chair Watson's opinion (supporting Lamar) should be the controlling one for review by the court. That would mean Lamar doesn't have to provide more evidence to make its case. The advertising company argues that Zoning Board Member Mitinger's opinion and findings (against Lamar) "reject uncontradicted evidence regarding the City's 'past practice' of permitting 'swaps' of non-conforming advertising signs for LED signs". So, if Judge James accepts Mitinger's opinion, Lamar wants the chance to present evidence to him for a fresh review of the matter.


Private attorney Blaine Lucas wrote the brief on behalf of the city's ruling against Lamar's sign. (While it's dated March 23, the Court Records Department time stamp indicates it was filed March 24 at 9:19 AM. Lucas' brief notes that the record in this case consists of 802 pages of testimony and exhibits.

Like Lamar's Kamin, Lucas argues that a tie vote of a governmental body constitutes a negative decision and preserves the status quo. Where do they part company? They differ over what exactly the status quo is in this case. Implicitly, the city is arguing that the status quo is that there is no permit for the electronic billboard. It also argues that the Mitinger opinion (against Lamar) is the one that controls the court's review.

On behalf of the city, Lucas opposes Lamar's wish to reopen the record to include public statements by a senior planner with the city's Planning Department about earlier informal city agreements about replacing non-conforming signs. Lucas writes "the only thing that requiring the testimony of Mr. Sentz would open is the proverbial 'can of worms'. Mr. Sentz also stated at the public meeting in question that under principles of urban design, a large L.E.D> sign would not be appropriate at the end of a major government business street. A multitude of other witnesses offered their opinions on a variety of issues related to the signs in dispute here or on signage issues generally. Should the record also be reopened to allow all of this testimony?"

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lamar Loses on Electronic Billboard

It's a big defeat for that huge, partially completed electronic billboard in downtown Pittsburgh; a ruling that appears to kill the nearly seven-million dollar project.

The city's Zoning Board has denied Lamar Advertising's appeal, asking for permission to finish the LED sign, as well as a electronic message ticker.

In its ruling, the Zoning Board says:

-Lamar must have been aware of the city's prohibition of such sign,
-that Lamar "cannot credibily claim that it acted in good faith" in getting a permit.

This is a split decision by the three-member Zoning Board. One member ruled against Lamar, and one did not. The third member recused himself from the vote, because he's done business with Lamar.

The bottom line: the ruling against the electronic billboard prevails.

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Doug Shields: Q&A on Pat Ford

In the last post, Pat Ford's attorney Lawrence Fisher singled out Council President Doug Shields for criticism. Here's my Q&A with Shields.

Q: "Your response to the news of Pat Ford's attorney saying the review has been terminated, there won't be an investigation, and that Pat Ford, he says, is exonerated?"

A: "Well, the reaction to that is that I still have a lot of questions out there as to what is going on in the city. I don't know what they looked at, I don't know who they spoke to. But it is what it is at this point. As far as any comments on my take on all this or political grandstanding, there's a couple of inconvenient facts in the way. Number one, the city solicitor's opinion made it very clear that Mr. Ford was absolutely wrong in his analysis of what that billboard's about. It is not a minor change. The city solicitor made it clear that Mr. Ford had previously done these Lamar deals and, as you'll recall, that those were not legal actions then. And the word that he used was 'prospectively'-- meaning going forward -- that we shouldn't do these things. Those are the facts."

"And whether there was influence peddling or not, it's really down to the issue of 'are we abiding by the city zoning code?' and the answer was 'no' and it's as simple as that. And all the other matters that came Mr. Ford's way were not of my making, but were of his own making. And putting himself in a position where there was a question of his integrity. There was a question on the table of who's influencing whom. And actions that were taken by the zoning administrator and others at the direction of the URA director was improper as far as I'm concerned. There's no way that the URA director should be directing the Department of Planning. Those are facts. Those are all established facts. And I don't see it as any grandstanding on when you've got a fact matter out there with regard to abiding by the law."

Q: "So, you're saying that apart from the matter about personal gifts -- you're saying that his role in the way the billboard matter went forward raises questions?"

A: "Well, one thing's absolutely clear. During the six hour post agenda, the facts, or so-called facts that Mr. Ford was asserting to the council were incorrect. That's a fact. I don't understand. You know, this is part of the problem with government today, generally. Whether it's in the congress or the state house or at the local level. It seems that there's a wink-and-a-nod system out there; that we're going to let things slide. That it doesn't really matter and nobody wants to go and read the law and understand how to run a city. There's a certain amount of arrogance on the part of governmental official about what they should be doing and what they actually do. And I would consider all of this matter part of that whole scene that we see in Pennsylvania today."

Q: "Finally, his lawyer said that they've notified the URA that Pat Ford intends to request a return to work. Is it appropriate for him to return?"

A: "That's a decision between the URA board. I will say this: that I think despite the finding of the ethics commission, I think that the relationships between the council and others that deal with the URA, this is clouded by this. And I don't know how productive that is. If Mr. Ford wants to take the position of being 'okay, I did something wrong', i.e. interpreted the zoning code wrong, then it should be admitted and apologized for there, and move on. But if it's going to be an acrimonious relationship, if it's going to be personal battles and so forth, then the value of his being in that office is diminished."

Q: (Elaine Effort, KQV): Say he is allowed to come back, if the Lamar billboard issue comes forth...?

A: "The Lamar billboard's going to be the Zoning Board of Adjustment in early September, I think the 4th or the 7th, something like that. And my interpretation of the code is that they don't have the use exception available to them under the code. And then we'll see what happens there and then people can judge for themselves, as to the veracity of what those of us on council objected to in the process of putting that board up. There's a no-bid contract at the Parking Authority, Mr. Ford was the chair. There was a sign off at administrative review that was incorrect, as said by the city law department. All these things came to a head. They were not of my making. They were presented to me, and I acted accordingly. I'm here to basically mind the public purse and mind the public trust."

"There's an old saying, 'once you reach the limit of your logical argument, then you resort to name calling". It seems to me that someone's looking to do some name calling around here. And I presume that they ran out of their logical argument a while back."

To be posted next: Q&A with Mayor Luke Ravenstahl.

.

Read More...

Summary only...

2nd Pittsburgh Blogger Talked To US Attorney?

It seems that Bram Reichbaum of The Burgh Report and The Pittsburgh Comet isn't the only blogger to reveal having talked to U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan about the Pat Ford case.

Check out this link to the satirical website "I Luv Luke".

.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Attorney & The Blogger

Here's a followup to Wednesday's post, "Pat Ford Update: Federal Prosecutors Interview Blogger": some breakout quotes from my interviews with Pat Ford's attorney and blogger Bram Reichbaum.

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

Pat Ford's Attorney, Lawrence Fisher:

• "Let me say this to you. The reason why I agreed to meet with you today is because I was concerned about the insinuation in today's Post-Gazette article that perhaps Mr. Ford was somehow the subject or the target of a federal investigation, and I can tell you I am quite certain he is not."


• "He is neither the subject nor the target of any federal investigation. If anything, Mr. Ford would be discussing items of mutual interest to both himself and to investigators and authorities.


• "And all we've said so far is that Pat Ford is cooperating with authorities. And you know of course, and Marcie Cipriani reported that he had met with Stephen Zappala. Beyond that, I can't discuss the details of his cooperation with authorities, but I can tell you that Mr. Ford's cooperation with authorities is one of mutual interest. In other words, he is assisting authorities in routing out corruption in the Housing Authority."

• "You have this so called blogger who feels that there was something improper about a gift to Mr. Ford's wife which was of nominal value. And however much he hopes that federal authorities are investigating that, they are not."

Bram Reichbaum, Blogger:

• "Actually, I ran into Ms. Buchanan and I recognized her and I introduced myself and told her who I was. She was generally familiar with my role in the original revelations that are related to some of this. We got to a little conversation and I volunteered that if there's anything I can do to help, if you want me to present some information, I'd be happy to do that. And she said that it might be helpful, and a couple of weeks later, it was scheduled."


• "...I asked them and what they said is 'we don't comment on anything like that, we speak through indictments'. So, figure than when there's something to learn, we'll all learn it."


• "Pat Ford's name is the one most closely identified with a lot of those situations, so his name came up more. It was impossible to tell who could be the target of any inquiry."

• "I'm a blogger, so I do some reporting and some commentating, and I feel strongly about a lot of those issues because it's my city and there's laws as to how it's supposed to be governed and what decisions are supposed to be made, as far as giant signs and even neighborhood planning. And it just seems like the laws are being forgotten and that concerns me. So, that's why I cooperated."

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pat Ford Update: Federal Prosecutors Interview Blogger

U.S. Attorney Buchanan, Alecia Sirk & Pat Ford

I was going to blog an update on the State Ethics Commission review of Pat Ford case and what Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has to say about Ford's desire to return to the Ravenstahl administration. But before we get to that, there are some major new developments.


The PG reports that a local blogger has been interviewed by two federal prosecutors, an FBI agent, and a HUD investigator about a range of city government dealings related to Urban Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Pat Ford. The Post-Gazette story describes blogger Bram Reichbaum of The Pittsburgh Comet and The Burgh Report as a pivotal figure in bringing to light the gifts received by Ford and Ford's wife, former mayoral press secretary Alecia Sirk. The gifts were from Lamar Advertising executive Jim Vlasach, who is Ford's friend. They came to light during the controversy over Ford's approval of Lamar's planned downtown electronic billboard, which was initially okayed without going through normal city review procedures.

The PG's Rich Lord reports:

"Mr. Reichbaum said he went to (U.S. Attorney Mary Beth) Buchanan's office after a conversation with her in which she indicated interest in city matters about which he has written on The Pittsburgh Comet and The Burgh Report, two blogs."

Ford's been on paid leave since April 9th, pending the outcome of a Pennsylvania Ethics Commission review of those gifts. The review was requested by Ford himself and the URA board.

As I posted here, Ford expects to hear very soon whether the State Ethics Commission has decided to close its review of his case or launch a full investigation. Ford's attorney Lawrence Fisher has said "it remains Pat Ford's fervent intention to return to his responsibilities as URA director as soon as his good name is restored by the State Ethics Commission."

Tuesday I asked Mayor Ravenstahl if Pat Ford can come back on board quickly if the ethics commission clears him. The mayor responded:

"I'm going to wait until they come back with their decision. We'll take a look at what that decision is and then make our decision accordingly. I'm not going to speculate on what ifs at this point."

"But of course, when that comes back and my understanding is the same as yours that it should happen perhaps this week, then we'll take a look at it, analyze it, and deal with it when the decision is made."

The State Ethics Commission cannot discuss investigations, but one commission official has again outlined for me their standard procedures for all cases. From those practices, we can glean this:

• There will be no announcement to the media of the Ford decision.
• If the Ethics Commission staff recommends that the matter should be closed, the staff will make that recommendation to a single commission member.
• The member's decision would then be voted on by the full ethics commission in a closed executive session.
• That executive session can be held via phone at any time or in person on the same day as the ethics commission's next public meeting on July 21st.
• Ford himself (and his attorney) would be notified sometime soon after next week's meeting.

• It's up to the ethics commission staff to determine whether there is reasonable cause to go to a full investigation.
• The commission itself does not take part in a decision to launch a full investigation.
• If a formal investigation is launched, Ford will be notified within 72 hours of that action.

Ford's attorney Lawrence Fisher tells me that he expects the ethics commission review will conclude no later than this Friday, based on his reading of the state code. He says the law requires that they notify Ford if the case is not going forward, but does not set a deadline for doing so. The 72 hour deadline only applies to notice of the launching of a full investigation.

Fisher says that when Ford is cleared, he will issue a public statement on Ford's behalf.

If you'd like to catch up on this story, you can read these links to my past blog posts on the topic.

Pat Ford Ethics Review & Paid Leave Update 2

Pat Ford Ethics Review & Paid Leave Update

Sirk's Attorney Calls E-Mail "Bogus"

Billboard Back Story: Brewing Controversies

Also of interest:

Chessboards & Mushroom Clouds At City Hall

City Government Shakeup

Sirk On Blogging No More

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pat Ford Ethics Review & Paid Leave Update 2

Pat Ford & Lawrence Fisher

Here's an update on the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission's review of URA Executive Director Pat Ford. Since April 9th, Ford has on paid leave pending the commission's look into gifts that he and his wife, former mayor's Press Secretary Alecia Sirk, received from Lamar Advertising executive Jim Vlasach.

Ford's attorney Lawrence Fisher tells me:

"It remains Pat Ford's fervent intention to return to his responsibilities as URA director as soon as his good name is restored by the State Ethics Commission."

Fisher says he was advised via phone by the Ethics Commission's Executive Director John Contino that the preliminary inquiry of Ford began around May 19th. That would be about 40 days after Ford himself and the city's Urban Redevelopment Authority requested the review.

As I reported on May 2nd, before any formal investigations, by law the state ethics commission first opens a preliminary inquiry, which can take up to sixty days. I'm told that it normally does take that long. At that point, the ethics commission's executive director makes a determination whether to move forward with a full investigation.

The Post-Gazette reported (in the body of an unrelated June 9th article) that "Mr. Fisher said the commission is expected to dismiss the matter or launch a full investigation by July 18".

That would be sixty days after may 19th, and is consistent with the timeline I've reported.

Attorney Fisher told me last week that he and Ford had gotten no request from the ethics commission for any interview, "nor any written questions requiring any response".

.

Read More...

Summary only...

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

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.

.

Read More...

Summary only...

Chessboards & Mushroom Clouds At City Hall

It's hard to choose which of the two pictures above is the best to foreshadow the ongoing escalation in exchanges between the Ravenstahl administration and City Council.

Is this story about something more than a simple snit over paying a legal bill? Four Council members are being told that what began with their challenging that controversial electronic billboard could end with their forced removal from office.

One gets the sense that there are powerful and volatile combinations in play beyond the view of the news of the day.

Check out this blog post about where this legal clash involving Lamar Advertising, City Council, and the Ravenstahl administration was heading. That showdown was asking for depositions and subpoenas of the Mayor, Chief of Staff Yarone Zober, and URA Executive Director Pat Ford on one side, and of five City Council members and their staffers on the other.



Meanwhile, Lamar Advertising's lawsuit against the four City Council members still has not been formally withdrawn...(as of this blog post early Tuesday morning). Doing so was part of the settlement negotiated between attorneys for Lamar, City Solicitor George Specter, and Councilman Patrick Dowd's privately hired attorneys.

When I asked Lamar Advertising's attorney Sam Kamin about this last week, he told me initially that the lawsuit was moot. When I asked him how long it could sit there -- dormant but not officially withdrawn -- before it expired, he answered in terms of years. He assured me there was "nothing nefarious " involved, then closed by saying that in response to my inquiry he intended to formally withdraw the lawsuit as Lamar Advertising had agreed to do in its signed settlement before the Zoning Board.

Note, by the way: the lawsuit by Lamar advertising against Shields, Peduto, Kraus, and Burgess says clearly that those four were (are?) each being sued as members of City Council. Only Patrick Dowd was also being sued as an individual. Among other things, the suit alleges that they violated the Sunshine Act. That's something that a public official can be accused of doing, but not a private citizen.

.

Read More...

Summary only...

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:

Read More...

Summary only...

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,
• his Lamar executive best friend Jim Vlasach, with whom he negotiated.
• and Mayor Ravenstahl's Executive Secretary Yarone Zober.

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."
Legal documents show council members were asking the zoning board to subpoena all records -- quote--

"pertaining to gifts, remuneration, or 'in kind' services provided by Lamar to any official or employee of the City of Pittsburgh..."

The basis?

• The documents say -- quote-- "Mayor Ravenstahl, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Vlasach are all believed to be personal friends."
• The discovery was targeted to -- quote -- "consider whether Lamar applied improper influence to these public officials with respect to the led application approval".

Work on the Lamar electronic billboard is stopped until it clears the normal planning and zoning public process. Meanwhile, published reports [by the PG's Rich Lord] say two different, out-of-town companies also got approval for billboards through Ford without the normal approval process. Mayor Ravenstahl confirms he stopped by Ford's dinner meeting with those execs.

Ravenstahl: "To say hello."
Q: "You just said 'hi' and left?"
A: "No, I mean we just communicated and Pat mentioned that they were in town and I went up to say hello, just like I talk with anybody that's interested in doing business with Pittsburgh. "

Two Oregon-based Liberty Pacific media execs at that dinner meeting later contributed a total of $25,000 to Ravenstahl's campaign.

Q: "Any campaign aspects discussed in the meeting?"
Mayor Ravenstahl: "No."
Q: "Did those donations in any way influence how the their billboards got approved?"
A: "No. I had nothing to do with the approval of the billboards."

.

Read More...

Summary only...

City Government Shakeup

Alecia Sirk and Pat Ford

UPDATE: Video.

The breaking news tonight is a shakeup in city government involving a power couple in Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's administration.

Here's the text of my live report on Channel 4 Action News at 5:30 PM. The Pittsburgh Channel now has the video online.

City URA Executive Director Pat Ford is part of Mayor Ravenstahl's inner circle and has held a variety of top posts. His wife Alicia Sirk is the mayor's press secretary. They say their friendship with the Lamar advertising executive goes back some time and has nothing to do with the billboard deal.

But the Mayor's chief of staff has just informed us that Alecia Sirk resigned today.
It's in relation to the issues in the story you are about to see..

The URA's Pat Ford has requested a temporary paid leave of absence -- granted, effective immediately -- to allow a review by the appropriate agencies into the gift matters in the report you're going to see now.

[Video]

This is city official Pat Ford -- who struck the deal that bypassed Pittsburgh's permit process to allow Lamar Advertising to put up an electronic billboard on the Grant Street Transportation Center now being built.

His wife Alecia Sirk -- Mayor Ravenstahl's press secretary -- blogged about the couple's friendship with Lamar executive Jim Vlasach a couple of years back.

She calls her husband 'our hero'.., and wrote JV -- that's the Lamar exec -- had gifted her with a sound system.

• "...The best part was that i got a christmas gift! jv brought me surround sound for my dvd player!"

"it is like knock you over one of the best things evah."

Local political blogs The Burgh Report and The Pittsburgh Comet got a tip about it, even though the original files are no longer on the net.

Blogger Bram Reichbaum: "we feel that the appearance of an impropriety is clear. There's certainly enough out there for a perception of impropriety. That's not for us to determine."

Ford is not available for comment, but told our news partner, the Tribune-Review:

• "The gifts ... are of nominal value."

• "I've been in public service long enough now to know what's appropriate and what's inappropriate behavior."

• ".. I also am professional enough and mature enough to know when to separate business with a friendship."

Sirk isn't available for comment today, but she told Blogger Bram Reichbaum that "she didn't regard anything that she had written about in her blog as inappropriate and there was nothing inappropriate about the relationship."


[Back on camera]

The mayor's chief of staff Yarone Zober says the State Ethics commission will review the controversy.

Published reports quote Ford as confirming repeated gifts from his friend,including cigars, ties, and other gifts, which he says are of nominal value.
The Lamar executive did not return our call for comment.
Lamar is suing city council members who are challenging the done deal.
Reporting live, Bob Mayo, Channel 4 Action News.


Later this evening, Joanna Doven of the mayor's office issued this news release:

MAYOR ANNOUNCES PERSONNEL CHANGES


(PITTSBURGH) April 9, 2008 Mayor Luke Ravenstahl announced today a series of personnel developments.

The Mayor has accepted the resignation of press secretary, Alecia Sirk, effective immediately.

Additionally, and in response to a series of media announcements today, Pat Ford, executive director of the Urban Redevelopment Authority, has asked for and been granted a leave of absence. Mr. Ford has further requested a full review of the issues raised relative to the exchange of gifts by the appropriate agencies.

Mr. Ford’s board seat on the Housing Authority will be filled by Fred Frank.

For additional information related to these personnel developments, please call Yarone Zober at [phone number]. All other media inquires are to be directed to Joanna Doven.

Read More...

Summary only...