Showing posts with label Ravenstahl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ravenstahl. Show all posts

Friday, October 12, 2012

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Read More...

Monday, November 8, 2010

UPDATED with Council Reaction: Mayor Ravenstahl's Budget Message Breakout Quotes


UPDATE 2: Reactions from City Council members to Mayor Ravenstahl's address which warned of a coming "financial nightmare" in 2016 :

Council Finance Chair Bill Peduto:

• "Under his scenario which he presented today which is using one sided numbers, sure you can make that argument. But is it reality? No. Not unless we choose to go down that path. That's a path I will never travel."

• "We had a scolding, if nothing else,of city council -- and it wasn't even based on reality."

• "He's still trying to push an idea, even at the point of today, which was harmful to Pittsburgh."



Council President Darlene Harris (via written statement):

• "We have no intention of selling ourselves short, and no plan to initiate debt that will destroy future generations."


• "We also have no intention of foregoing billions of dollars of revenue over the next 50 years so that investment bankers can drain the life out of our City."

•"...In the coming weeks we will be actively working - day and night - to produce a decent, working solution to the immediate crisis, and thereafter this body intends to address the very core of the issue - the pension funds themselves.


Councilman Doug Shields:

•"I was little chagrined, to say the least, to hear that it's all council's fault, number one. Number two, there is a viable plan that the council enacted on the table."

• "I never saw a mayor come into the chamber and essentially insult the council."

• "It was like, 'okay, I'm coming into council to yell at the council about something, to basically throw this in the council's face, and blame them for everything."


Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak:

• "He said the actions of a few. I think there was clear majority that rejected the one option. there are still other options on the table."


UPDATE 1:
Here are some key quotes from Mayor Ravenstahl's budget message delivered to City Council. (I posted a version of this earlier via mobile e-mail, but thumbtyping via BlackBerry leaves something to be desired in the way of formatting.) I've also expanded some quotes.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl:

• "It appears that Pittsburgh must return to the years of deficit spending..."

• "Council...is forcing us into a financial culture that looks too much like our past".

• "I submit five year plan today that does not raise taxes. That does not make draconian cuts to basic city services."


• "...makes sure that Pittsburghers can get through the next five years unharmed, even when confronted by pension payments that double and triple..."

• "We will do that by using our fund balance to ensure that we survive through 2015."


• "In 2016, the first year following the five year plan, our fund balance will be depleted."


• "(In 2016) we will be forced to make a $91 Million payment to the state pension system.."


• "...that is a quarter of our city's entire budget...more than it costs to operate any city departmentt."


• "After 2016, I cannot tell you how Pittsburgh will..deliver..core services without severe cuts & tax increases."


• "Pension payments after 2016 are even more staggering."

• "With a fund balance that is dried up, Pittsburgh will have to make a $127 Million pension payment in 2017. "


• "...our city walks with its eyes wide open into a fiscal nightmare."


• "I saw this day coming and prepared city for it as best I could."


• "...presented City Council with a solution that could have saved us from this..."


• "...some members of City Council chose the short term, irresponsible approach..."


• "...it is not too late to prevent an eventual Pittsburgh bankruptcy."


• "...if five members of council choose to do the right thing."


• "We can still avert pension crisis by making a large cash infusion into our pension fund immediately..."


• "...and fighting for a new revenue stream to increase our pension payments..."


• "...ignoring these solutions...will in time force us....back to the dark days..."


• "That is not what I wanted. It is not what is best for Pittsburgh..."

• "Nonetheless, if that is the path Council chooses, we must live with it, regardless of how disastrous the long term consequences will be."


• "The budget and five year plan I present today balances."


• "It maintains services without raising taxes through 2015".


• "...but Pittsburgh will not be able to absorb the costs of state takeover in 2016 or beyond."

--
Sent from my mobile device

Read More...

Monday, February 15, 2010

On This Date In The War On Snow


H
ere's a link to my Channel 4 Action News report tonight examining Mayor Ravenstahl's 2008 plan for snow removal in the wake of citizen complaints at the time. The plan was announced two years ago today.

I did contact Mayor Ravenstahl's Press Secretary Joanna Doven, asking to interview the mayor himself for the story but was told he was not available. She did provide this map of street salting routes which was developed as part of the plan. She explains that "red means state road, yellow means primary, blue means secondary, and green means tertiary. Each division has a list of priority roads".


Here are three of my questions for the mayor, along with the answers from Public Works Director Rob Kaczorowski, as seen in my TV report:

Q: When was the state-of-the-art snow removal and (computerized) routing system --"RouteSmart" -- put in place, and is he satisfied with how that system is working?

A: "RouteSmart at that point, wasn't useful to us. Actually the part of the legwork that we did took us about two years. It's completed and this is all fieldwork that was done by two people."

Q: Did the city benchmark Pittsburgh against other cities -- and what best practices elsewhere have been adopted?

A: "I couldn't find a city that had actually the type of terrain and challenges that we have here in the City of Pittsburgh -- parking on both sides of hilly, narrow streets."


Q: Does the city now install snow plows on refuse trucks -- and did it do so during this year's big storm?

A: "We found out in the early seventies when it was tried that it led to numerous accidents and it was actually more detrimental than helpful."


Below is Mayor Ravenstahl's news release from February 15, 2008.


MAYOR HEATS UP DPW'S RESPONSE TO WINTER WEATHER
Date: February 15, 2008
Contact: Alecia Sirk, Press Secretary


PITTSBURGH (February 15) Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is fired up about the the Department of Public Works inconsistent removal of snow and ice, the remnants of which have left some side streets impassable.

After fielding complaints from a number of residents, the Mayor cancelled his afternoon meetings Thursday for a tour of City neighborhoods, to see for himself where travel routes were still frozen.

"I am putting my full attention on getting these issues resolved," Mayor Ravenstahl said. Sure, Mother Nature can deal us a rough hand in the winter months. But we should not make excuses, we should make changes."

Mayor Ravenstahl convened a meeting with top City officials after returning to the office and, effective today, the Mayor has announced the implementation of a snow and ice mitigation plan for Pittsburgh:

1. The promotion of Rob Kaczorowski to Deputy Director of Operations for the Department of Public Works, a move that will require no pay increase. The Deputy Director, to serve under DPW Director Guy Costa, will be charged with supervising and managing all operations for the Department, including snow and ice removal. Current Deputy Director Mike Gable will be named Deputy Director of Administration, charged with supervising the administrative aspects of Pittsburgh's largest non-public safety related department.

2. The purchase of the best state-of-the-art snow removal and routing system available. The system will be in place no later than December 2008. Staff will also be benchmarking Pittsburgh against other cities to identify and evaluate best practices that could be useful for Pittsburgh.

3. The installation of snow plows onto refuse trucks for use on larger, primary streets, freeing up other trucks to clear the side streets.

4. The requirement that existing snow and ice removal routes will be adhered to, barring a major emergency, regardless of who calls the Department or the City.
"For decades, plows have been inefficiently being moved from one part of the City to another based on calls to City and Council offices, wasting time and missing entire sections of neighborhoods," Mayor Ravenstahl said. "The existing snowplow and deicing routes will be followed for the remainder of this winter, sticking to their plans and cleaning every neighborhood, street by street and block by block."

Then changes come just before a week in which at least three days of flurries are predicted.

"We can do better and we will do better, " Mayor Ravenstahl said. "All of our resources should be mobilized when our residents need us. With these changes, I will see to it that the City doesn't melt down when faced with snow and ice."


.

Read More...

Sunday, January 3, 2010

The Sunshine Law & City Council's New Year's Eve Veto Override Attempt


Okay, I think I've solved this.

• There's nothing in the City's Home Rule Charter that bans council from holding a meeting on less than 24 hours notice. You can check the pdf file here.

• There is something in the Rules of Council (incorporated into the City Code) that says the city clerk should give council members (not the public) at least 24 hours written notice of a special meeting.

• That 24 hour notice requirement can be waived by a vote of 6 out of 9 council members.


...BUT...


• A special meeting of City Council called with less than 24 hours public notice would violate Pennsylvania's Sunshine Law.


Here's the quote. The PA Sunshine Law says:

" An agency shall give public notice of each special meeting"..."at least 24 hours in advance of the time of the convening of the meeting specified in the notice".

Section 709 adds that a "Public notice is not required in the case of an emergency meeting" -- but it strictly defines an emergency as:

"A meeting called for the purpose of dealing with a real or potential emergency involving a clear and present danger to life or property. "


So, hypothetically, if Council had mustered the six votes, first to hold the meeting on short notice and then to override Mayor Ravenstahl's New Year's Eve veto, what could have happened?

The Sunshine Law says a legal challenge to the meeting could be filed within 30 days. If a judge ruled the meeting broke the Sunshine Law, he or she would have the option of invalidating any action taken at that special meeting. Note the passage uses the words "may" and "discretion". It's not an automatic loss.

"Should the court determine that the meeting did not meet the requirements of this chapter, it may in its discretion find that any or all official action taken at the meeting shall be invalid. "
(That's in Section 713, titled "Business transacted at unauthorized meeting void". )


What's the punishment the council members involved would have faced? A hundred dollar fine:

Section 714. Penalty
"Any member of any agency who participates in a meeting with the intent and purpose by that member of violating this chapter commits a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding $100 plus costs of prosecution."

[Update: Chris Potter also fact-checks these topics in a comment here and in his City Paper blog posts .]

A couple of open questions:

1) Are there any previous cases anywhere in which legislative bodies were stymied from taking override votes because of the timing of vetoes?

2) Does anyone see anything in the law or in court rulings that addresses the legality of a veto or an override vote in a case like this? Let me know.


Below are some document links, if you want to check them out.








"The Clerk shall give written notice to the members of any special meeting not less than twenty-four hours previous to such meeting."
See Article V: Legislative, Chapter 151: Council, § 151.01 Regular And Special Meetings, , section (c).


"No rule shall be suspended except by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members elected and such vote shall be taken without debate."
See Rule VIII h.



See Sections 709, 713 714.


.

Read More...

Friday, January 1, 2010

Mayor Ravenstahl's New Year's Eve Veto

Notes & quotes from my New Year's Day interviews

Council Finance Chair Peduto
Councilman Dowd
&
Mayoral Chief of Staff Zober


Those of you who follow me on Twitter may have read my tweet-by-tweet reports of The New Year's Eve Veto. (See here .) Mayor Ravenstahl's maneuver is sparking bitter divisions. His opponents call him "undemocratic"; his supporters are comparing the other side to "fascists". The bill would have forced developers getting big taxpayer subsidies for large projects to pay workers prevailing wage rates. The mayor's tactic killed a bill unanimously approved by council. Since mayoral critics were more readily available than the mayor's staff last night, I'll start this post with the Ravenstahl administration's side.


Mayor Ravensthal's Chief of Staff Yarone Zober chose to meet me New Year's Day at the East Liberty site under consideration for construction of a new Target store. Zober used the site as an illustration to critique the prevailing wage bill:

• "..Whether it puts at risk things like nine acres of development, 500 jobs that could be created here, a hundred-million dollars of investment, put that all at risk."

Zober said the mayor had tried to talk with council members, but that:

• "The bill was rushed through. So much so, that there's so much vague and ambiguous language in this bill."

The mayor's chief of staff says that Ravenstahl tried to talk to council members, but they were frightened by potential political retaliation if they opposed the bill. Zober emphasized that the mayor's veto came within the 10 days required by law:

• "Everyone should have been quite aware of where this bill was, and council could have scheduled a meeting if they'd wanted to."

• "If we want to talk about undemocratic, there was a meeting that was held by council yesterday without required notice, against a city ordinance."
• "We followed the rules, we followed the democratic principles and, frankly, council did not."
• "Look, this is no 'gotcha' game. This is about making sure great investments can happen in neighborhoods like this."
• "There are things we can do to make this bill better. Less vague, less ambiguous, and allow developers and investors the right to figure out what they're doing when they come and invest in Pittsburgh."


Councilman Bill Peduto met me in the Shadyside business district for our interview. He appeared as much sad as angry as he talked about Mayor Ravenstahl's New Year's Eve veto tactic, which stymied any council override:

• "You are denying the American democratic process in that situation. You are basically saying this is a totalitarian society."
• "That's not good political maneuvering, that's stripping away the democratic process and taking the public out of it."
• "Under the new council session, it will be debated, it will be passed."

Peduto argued that the mayor's ends don't justify the means he used, adding:

• "there are others who would say the means are the way of judging a person's character."

Councilman Peduto also criticized a colleague:
• "You had Councilman Dowd who announced as he was standing there (in council chamber) that 'I am not present' for this vote, so that he could stay aligned with the mayor."
• "I don't know what Councilman Dowd is doing and I don't know why he's doing it. I feel disappointed by Councilman Dowd, and other than Joe Lieberman, (he's) probably one of the greatest political disappointments I've had in my life."

• "He began to heckle the council president during the hearing itself, and then moved to another part of the council chamber and continued to shout from that part of the chamber as well. In 15 years of working in that building, one the lowest points if not the lowest point I can think of."

On Monday, 2010 City Council members are expected to choose between Peduto and Councilman Rev. Ricky Burgess in a vote for Council President. Peduto comments:

• "Are we going to have a council that is a rubber stamp for the mayor, or are we going to have an independent body that can make its own decisions?"
• "What I saw from the other side was complete confrontation -- a confrontation against the democratic process that we're sworn to uphold. I would consider it one of the lowest marks in my 15 years in city council."

On claims Mayor Ravenstahl's charges that the prevailing wage bill was vague, ambiguous, in need of more input, and has the potential to hurt Pittsburgh:

• "The mayor was silent on it for the seven weeks that it was before us. He never had an opinion, he never reached out to council."
• "He waited until the very last minute, when council didn't have the ability to fulfill it's democratic process and obligations, and then he made his position known. that's no way to govern, that's no way to lead."

Councilman Patrick Dowd wasn't available for an on camera interview. Dowd explained that New Year's Day is his wedding anniversary and that last night's meeting took him away from his family.

Here are some notes from our phone conversations. Most of this was not recorded, so I don't have a full transcript.

Dowd compared Mayor Ravenstahl's New Year's Eve veto maneuver to a chess game, saying:
• "Tactically, he beat us."
and adding:
• "Shame on us for not anticipating" it.

• Dowd faults his fellow council members for what he describes as a "total ignoring of the rules" by meeting and attempting a veto override. The city code require 24 hours public notice before a council meeting, or a six vote majority to waive that rule.

• I noted that Dowd had been part of the 9-to-0 unanimous vote for the prevailing wage bill, and asked why he himself didn't provide the 6th vote to waive the 24-hour notice requirement. Dowd answered there are "ways to deal with this, and it's not by bending the rules".

• Dowd dismissed the attempted veto override as a "goofy maneuver" and said he presumed the prevailing wage bill would simply be reintroduced for 2010.

• The councilman recalled that during debate of the legislation others on council "outmaneuvered" his attempts to amend the bill. Councilman Dowd calls it :
• "poetic justice they were outmaneuvered" by Mayor Ravenstahl.

• Dowd quotes:

• "..you can't bend the rules. And that's what fascists do -- and in the 30s, particularly. And that's what my colleagues were trying to do last night."

• "Two wrongs don't make a right".

.

Read More...

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

My Q&A with the Ravenstahls' Attorney


T
he following Q&A is a transcript of my telephone interview with Luke and Erin Ravenstahl's attorney, Richard Sprague of Philadelphia.


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

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


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

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


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

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



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

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


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

Sprague A: Not in this matter.


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Sprague A: That's correct.


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

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


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

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


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

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


.

Read More...

Monday, November 23, 2009

Luke & Erin Ravenstahl's Statements on Separation

The following e-mail arrived tonight from the mayor's office:


(PITTSBURGH) November 23, 2009

Today, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Erin Ravenstahl issued the following statements:

Mayor Ravenstahl:

“For some time, like many couples, Erin and I have been working hard to build a successful marriage and have faced the challenges associated with that. Sadly, Erin and I have decided that it is in our family’s best interest to formally separate.

As public people, we recognize that we must share this information. We have strived to work through our challenges and to do so as privately as possible. However, now reaching the decision to formally separate, we felt we should let Pittsburgh know.

Erin and I are now focused on continuing to enjoy a relationship, albeit a very different one, for the continuity and benefit of everyone involved, most importantly, our son Cooper. Our relationship is, and will continue to be, amicable.

We do not know what the future will hold for us. We have no immediate plans to pursue a formal divorce. We simply ask that Pittsburgh understand and respect our family’s privacy as we deal with this very personal matter.”

Erin Ravenstahl:
“Luke and I have made the very difficult decision to formally separate. I am a private person, so sharing this very personal matter publicly is difficult for me, but I understand that this is something that Pittsburgh should know.

I will always be Luke’s friend and continue to share with him our love of our son, Cooper. We will continue to make sure that he is raised in a loving and supportive family. For his sake, and the sake of our entire family, I thank Pittsburgh for respecting our privacy and allowing us to deal with this as well as we can under difficult circumstances, made all the harder by the public nature of our family.

Luke and I will not be making any further public statements on our separation or our family. Because our privacy on this is so very important to us, we have sought professional assistance, retaining the services of attorney Richard A. Sprague, to help us to address privacy matters. We both will be referring all questions from the media to Mr. Sprague.

[Updated with link to Sprague biography at law firm site.]
.

Read More...

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Mayoral Debate Video Now Online


WTAE's The Pittsburgh Channel now has our entire mayoral debate online. You can view it in five segments by clicking on the links below:


Read More...

Thursday, October 22, 2009

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



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

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


...Later...

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





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


Acklin:
"Is that a threat?"


...Later...

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Franco Dok Harris, the other independent candidate for mayor, said after the debate:
"You hear whispers all the time. We don't have a stack of documents like the Acklin campaign or try to paint any kind of pictures. What we're doing is, we're trying to bring a positive message."

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


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

Bob,

With regard to your inquiry, here is my statement.

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

Thank you.

John Verbanac

.


Read More...

Thursday, July 16, 2009

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...

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Act 47 Team Letter to Council

click to enlarge

[As commenter Monk pointed out, copying and pasting from BlackBerry's Mail into GMail made a scrambled mess of the text. My apologies.]

H
ere's the text of the letter:

June 29, 2009

The Honorable William Peduto
Chair, Finance Committee
Council of the City of Pittsburgh
City-County Building, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Dear Chairman Peduto:

We appreciate your ongoing work with us to develop a final Amended Act 47 Recovery Plan.

Pursuant to Council’s expressed intent last week, our subsequent discussions with you and your colleagues, and with the guidance of the Mayor, we have developed the attached package of amendments to the Amended Recovery Plan. Please note that in addition to the amendments, we will make certain conforming changes to the Executive Summary, Introduction and other portions of the Amended Recovery Plan to make them consistent with these amendments.

We would be most appreciative if you would introduce this package of amendments to the Amended Recovery Plan and the relevant ordinance at tomorrow’s City Council session. If enacted without modification, these amendments have our consent as Act 47 Coordinator.

Thank you again for your tremendous leadership, good counsel and advice in bringing us to this point.

Sincerely,

James H. Roberts Dean Kaplan

c: Members of City Council
The Honorable Luke Ravenstahl, Mayor
Yarone Zober, Chief of Staff to the Mayor
Scott Kunka, Finance Director
Bill Urbanic, Council Finance Director




--
Sent from my mobile device (and later reformatted).

Read More...

Friday, June 26, 2009

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...

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Your Tweets on Mayor Before Council

Readers provided a lot of feedback via Twitter as I did my live tweeting of Mayor Ravenstahl's appearance before City Council:








Read More...

Tweeting the Mayor Meeting with Council

Here's my Twitter coverage of Mayor Ravenstahl's appearance before City Council to discuss the Act 47 financial recovery plan. For those not used to reading tweets, the entries below are in reverse chronological order, with the most recent listed first. Please pardon the typos, these are thumb-typed in a rush.


I did correct one embarrassing typing error: some comments were attributed to Councilwoman Burns instead of Harris. Of course I know better. That's an interesting subconscious slip; using the name of a former North Side council member instead of the current one. At least I didn't call Doug Shields "Jeep".

The tweets follow:

  1. Mayor tells reporters his side comment was to the effect the proceeding was a joke. Remark was in a moment of frustration.
  2. Peduto says it's not a threat, but council will not pass plan as is. Done w mayor.
  3. Mayor at Council meeting for more than 2 1/2 hours. Still going.
  4. Shields tells mayor he wants to work with him to fight in Harrisburg for city.
  5. Shields: says this mayor cares about this city -- he has no doubt about that.
  6. Shiellds: this plan is a little screwy if you ask me.
  7. Councilman Kraus, I am told, thinks he heard the mayor mutter that kraus "is a joke".
  8. Mauor expresses concerns that expections are being created there can be widespread changes in the Act 47 plan. Doesn't think it's the case.
  9. Some here think the mayor's muttered side comment was "this is such a joke".
  10. Kraus apparrently thought he overheard mayor mutter "joke" as Kraus was talking. Kraus called him on it, Mayor said he was talking to Huss.
  11. Mayor to Kraus: he was highly offended by council's criticism of his being away on vacation last week. Kraus said problem was timing.
  12. Peduto notes his sense is that council will not support the Act 47 plan as is.
  13. Dowd tells Ravenstahl he cannot suport raising taxes as the plan's "failsafe option"m
  14. Mayor says plan provides options .... Says not passing it is "a blueprint for disaster".
  15. Dowd: concerns about whether mayor can implement in time to get budget without tax increasesm
  16. Burgess says that will put city in "state receivership.". Calls for meeting with council, mayor, Act 47 team to reach unity.
  17. Burgess says if don't adopt plan by June 30, may as well not adopt it ever. Says not approving by then leads to union arbitration costs.
  18. Burgess says his concern is unity. Suggests working together to craft agreement.
  19. Councilman Burgess says he doesn't like to do policy "under the lights".
  20. Peduto: the plan is bad for Pittsburgh if council doesn't amend it.
  21. Peduto tells finance director council will put the options the mayor describes into the plan in writing because "they're not in there".
  22. Peduto: Act 47 "failsafe plan" increases local taxes. Mayor says he's pursuing leasing parking garages instead.
  23. Peduto to Mayor: do you support closing the Greenfield fire station. Mayor: "yeah".. But says at end of day it's Act 47's plan.
  24. Pedutoh plan leaves only options of raising property taxes and wage taxes and real estate transfer taxes on city residents.
  25. Peduto to Mayor: legislators say $145 a year isn't going anywhere. Peduto says voting this plan today will raise taxes on city residents.
  26. Peduto to mayor: hope you had nice vcation. Mayor jokes "firefighters are asking for 5th week of vacation, I can't even has one"..
  27. Mayor's chief of staff Yarone Zober tries to interject during Shields' questioning of Ravenstahl. Shields tells Zober he's out of order.
  28. Mayor: I'm sitting her talking to you nowm Shields: under motion to compel. Mayor: it has nothing to do w/ motion to compel.
  29. Shields complains of mayor's past "resounding silence". Mayor : "I'm here". Shields how do you build relationship if don't meet?
  30. Shields says mayor did not answer his repeated requests to discuss problems. Tells mayor unity is built before, not after.
  31. Mayor: not his plan, would he draw on differently...it's the Act 47 team's plan. He's asking council to approve it.
  32. Mayor to Shields question on call foe council unity: mayor says need to act to approve this plan. Says will work w/ council afterward.
  33. Council Prez Doug Shields to Mayor: bottom line is the plan has a $15M hole. Says Act 47 and ICA doesn't have weight to carry city's case.
  34. I'm going to ease off of tweet-by-tweet coverage now, but if anything big comes up, I'll let you all know.
  35. Harris: we've had 5 years for the state to come in and do something and they haben't done enough.
  36. Councilwoman Harris continues to press City Solicitor Specter: show in writing where June 30 is deadline for Act 47 and contract talks.
  37. Mayor: says if if state legislature were to approve increase in LST tax from $52 to $144 and payroll prep tax on non-profits., won't be back
  38. Mayor: doesn't necessarily disagree. But says he's a political realist. Says still facing uphill battle in Harrisburg.
  39. Mayor notes local services tax apply to everyone who works in cituy, not kust city residents. Payne says she'd like commuter tax.
  40. Councilwoman Payne: hopes he's not saying will still raise taxes, but not just those city residents alone pay.
  41. Huss: says he'd rather deal with provisions of plan than eliminating jobs.
  42. Councilwoman Smith: asks for info on impact of potential public safety retirement. Director Huss and administration provide.
  43. Kraus: tells mayor wants cooperative relationship, door is open but says mayor hasn't used it yet.
  44. Mayor: choices are extremely limited... Again points to his proposal to monetize assets to put large influx of cash to pension fund.
  45. Mayor: we have to think outside the box. Need $ for pension fund.
  46. Mayor to Kraus: nobody is losing their jobs here. Kraus: says his concern is ability to recruit and retain workers, including police.
  47. On labor issues, in response to Kraus, mayor supports plan as is. Says plan should be approved by June 30th.
  48. Councilman Kraus to mayor: says he personally has had no communication from him. Doesn't want to hear by press release.
  49. Mayor: if don't approve plan, everything city's accomplished will go up in smoke.
  50. Says guarantees he won't support tax increases . Says if none od other options are implemented, will be back with cuts.
  51. Mayor: depends more on council leadership more than anything he as mayor will do.
  52. Dowd to mayor: you need the $15M by the time you present budget by Sept?
  53. Kunka: any combination of these totalling up to $15M will do job.
  54. Dowd: how do you do this in 2010 without avoiding tax increase? Mayor defers to finance director Kunka.
  55. Tells council not to delay approval......failure could bring state sanctions.
  56. Option E: staff reductions, services cuts, tax increases that he does not support.
  57. Another option: surcharges. Poss. On garages, hospital bed fees, head tax on college students.
  58. Another option; apply payroll prep tax to non profits.
  59. Another option: increase local services tax from $52 a year to $144 a year. (Would need state legis. approval.)
  60. Mayor element one: "monetize assets"....that's selling or leasing parking garages.
  61. Mayor: four elements to his plan to raise revenue to meet long term obligations.
  62. Mayor will not support tax increases that are solely on city residents.
  63. Mayor: Not like cuts other cities are seeing now. Need to be able to make difficult decisions now.
  64. Mayor says city workfoce is overworked and underpaid. Plan woulg give bonuses, modest raises.
  65. Mayor says time to approve Act 47 plan is now.
  66. Mayor says his powerpoint presentation will answer. Says has sufficent savings to get through next 5 years. Plenty of work still to do.
  67. Dowd to mayorh do you support this plan, if so, why? Can you implement. Will you have a tax increase?
  68. Dowd tells mayor plan is a mountain of service cuts combined with tax increase or increases.
  69. Mayor says he has presentation, but Dowd wants to start with Q&A.
  70. Mayor allowed to table with staff.
  71. Dowd asks for Mayor alone, not staff. Burgess says if that happens, he'll invoke right to block mayor speaking.
  72. Burgess motion to approve Act 47 plan fails for lack of 2nd. Dowd moves to reject, asks mayor to come to table.
  73. Peduto: no issue more important -- affects everything, including public safety for next 5 years. Mayor will go first.
  74. 10:59: mayor back in room, last public speaker wrapping up.
  75. Darren Kelly (sp?) Of fire union: points to closing of fire station, elimination of deputy chief positions.
  76. 10:50: mayor and his bodyguard just stepped out and headed into his office as unrelated citizen public comment continues.
  77. 10:40: Mayor sitting in audience as citizens speak out on other concerns during public comment period.
  78. O'Hara says pool of potential applicants is falling. Says council should think about safety implications.
  79. Police Union prez Dan O'Hara: public safety is first, not looking to raid coffers. If you vote for plan as is, city will see deterioration.
  80. Finance chair Peduto apologizes but keeps King to the 3 minute comment for now. Union will get to say more later.
  81. Fire union prez Joe King: there is not a time limit for you to pass this by June 30th. Says current Act 47 plan would still be in place.
  82. 10:18. Mayor Ravenstahl just entered. Meeting about to start. Public comment normally comes first.

Read More...