For The Love Of Chair

The above council chair belongs to the Reverend Ricky Burgess. It remained empty through much of last Wednesday’s council session because Councilman Burgess was threatened with forfeiture of office if he spoke or participated in any way regarding the business at hand on that day. The same threat was leveled at three other councilmen, but only Ricky took it seriously enough to forego his legislative obligations and abandon his chair. The other three, Council President Doug Shields, Councilmen Bill Peduto and Bruce Kraus, decided they would not be bullied. They thought too much of their elected office, their own council chairs and the institutions those chairs represented. You might call this a very deep-seated Love of Chair.

Who threatened the good reverend? Was it the Mob? Did an angry group of atheists finally take umbrage to the pastor’s penchant for prayer during televised council sessions? Did one of the five known city Republicans attempt to wrest a single council seat for their near-extinct party? A party which has not held one elected city office in almost 100 years?

Nope, oddly enough the intimidation came from the city’s own law department!

You see, council got wind of a blatantly corrupt but kinda standard scheme involving the mayor, a few of the mayor’s top administrators, illegal signage permits for Lamar Advertising who regularly gave the mayor hefty “in-kind” campaign contributions, additional illegal sign permits to another advertising company who gave substantial cash contributions to the mayor, gifts of undisclosed amounts between various parties, awarding of no-bid contracts that turned out to be sweetheart deals at taxpayer expense, diversion of city decision-making powers to non-city officials who would help the scheme progress unimpeded. You know …. The normal kind of second-class corruption that regularly occurs in cities of the second class in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Well, council at first foolishly sought legal advice from City Solicitor George Specter on how best to null and void the latest illegal sign permit. This is the same George Specter who on March 20, 2008 told the legislative body that it was in fact illegal for them to legislate. But even after receiving and enduring that bizarre piece of legal advice along with scores of others equally as wacked out, many on council still felt obliged to involve their solicitor, impotent as he was. In the end, Specter would not or could not and ultimately did not provide council with any viable legal advice in this pressing matter. And with a time-sensitive clock running out, four councilmen including the Reverend Burgess, filed a last-minute appeal with the Zoning Board of Adjustments to try to stop Lamar Advertising in their tracks. The Four hired outside legal counsel Hugh McGough to represent them as Specter was useless. The Four then delivered McGough’s bill to the full council body for payment.

Dum-ta-dum-tum-taaaa! (Drum roll ‘cause the shit’s about to hit the fan)

For a legal department who took nine weeks to render an opinion as to whether or not a sign was in fact a sign, Specter and his minions blasted out an ominous and threatening opinion to The Four in a matter of days. The opinion stated that since four out of nine did not constitute a majority of council, their zoning appeal and accompanying attorney fees were of a private (not public) nature. Never mind that a fifth councilman, Patrick Dowd, did also file. Unfortunatly for The Four, Patrick filed as a private citizen, not as a councilman. And never mind that a sixth councilwoman, Darlene Harris, was advised of and gave her consent for the hiring of McGough even though she could not be physically present at the zoning counter to join in on the appeal. This situation provides an interesting glimpse into the world of governmental arithmetic where four plus one plus another one still only equals four.

Specter reasoned since the zoning appeal action was of a private nature, the accompanying legal bill would also be private. And since payment by the city of a private bill would constitute a personal gain, this personal gain would signal a conflict of interest. Specter warned that if any of The Four so much as spoke of the attorney bill, much less voted on its payment, they would be knee-deep in conflict of interest complicity. The penalty for such an illegal act? They all “SHALL immediately forfeit their office.”

Wow. Could this be true? Well …… not quite. Not quite that cut-and-dry. Specter immediately started his back-peddling upon grilling by Council President Doug Shields.

Shields: “Mr Specter, in your opinion it was alluded to or construed as generally by the members of the council and the public that somehow or another there was a self-executing removal and forfeiture of office at issue here. Is that so? Would you like to clarify that please?"

Specter: “Yes I would. We did note in our opinion that [forfeiture of office is] not self-executing and we did refer to the fact that additional processes would have been necessary. And that there is a constitutionally mandated impeachment process which would come into play and we did say that in our opinion. So it’s not as though you automatically are removed.”

Shields: “Where in your opinion did you address that?”

Specter: “On page 12 …. It reads 'not withstanding the clear mandate of the charter and the statute, it may be that the Pennsylvania constitution may require some process other than the self-executing nature of this penalty.'”

Shields: “May require. It is ‘may’ or ‘does’ it require?”

Specter: “It ‘does’ require.”

Shields: “Well, I think the [incorrect] inference, George, has caused a considerable amount of consternation. I don’t know of anything where there is a self-executing forfeiture provision anywhere, so why was that brought up? Why doesn’t the drafter of this [opinion], Ms. DeSimone, explain exactly what goes on in a forfeiture of office or removal of office?”

Specter: “I take full responsibility for this opinion. It’s not unusual for an opinion to be co-drafted by more than one member of the solicitor’s staff. But in the final analysis, I signed it, and I take full responsibility for it. To the extent that the word ‘may’ caused confusion or worse yet, consternation and fear, I apologize for that.”

Shields: “I’ve got an empty seat here. And the reason why I have an empty seat is Councilman Burgess’ interpretation of [your] opinion is that he can’t sit here but to risk his office. I’ll risk mine. That’s my choice. But what I’m really concerned about is the fact that the opinion is unclear and ambiguous on one of the most essential parts of the opinion. And the message to the council was ‘you vote or discuss this, the interpretation is that you’ll lose your seat. Automatically.’”

“So this is a very serious matter to me as president of this council. I find it very very troubling that we have a document here that is so ambiguous and so unclear. The state ‘may’ do something. The state ‘has to do something’. The state ‘shall’ do something. All would mean a whole different kettle of fish. I have an empty chair as a result of that. And you have, by the rendering of this opinion, caused a bit of a crisis here.”

Specter: ‘To the extent that that word ‘may’, and I now see that it could cause confusion, consternation, and at least in one case fear of removal of office …..To that extent I apologize for the use of that word."

Specter renders a legal opinion that says impeachment ‘may’ take the entire state legislature when in fact he knows it ‘does’?? Instead he alludes and threatens that the moment they open their mouth, if they open their mouths, they’ll be bounced from their council seat?? Right then and there?? And this is just a little, itty-bitty misspeak to which he apologizes??

No ….. This is the whole damn crux of this ugly ordeal. It is just the latest in a chilling pattern by the present administration to threaten, browbeat, silence and/or eliminate another branch of government which has proved to be too much of an inconvenient check-and-balance for them.

Kraus: “I just want to reiterate that the picture of this empty chair at this table and the precedent that we are sending here today. We had a conversation in your office, Mr Specter, and I told you this is not about the money [for the legal fees]. This can be paid. This is about the message that we set. We were the minority, having gone out to fight something that was blatantly illegal. It was found to be blatantly illegal. We did do the right thing. Bodies piled up in that hallway, people were fired and permits were pulled because we stood up and we did what was in the best interest of the people of the City of Pittsburgh. And because we did that, and because we are now voting to have our legal bills paid, Reverend Burgess is not in this seat because of the fear that was set. The message of fear that…. If you DO stand up and you DO try to do the right thing, not only will we hang the legal bills around YOUR NECK for having done it, but we may very well remove you from office for having stood up for the right thing. (Bolded caps mean raised voice) For what was PROVEN to be BLATANTLY AND GROSSLY ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR that WE FOUGHT. If you want to send a message to the people of the City of Pittsburgh that their elected officials are actually ETHICAL and STAND UP for what is right, that we will not only work toward but FIGHT to HANG THOSE LEGAL BILLS AROUND YOUR NECK and remove you from office. YOU send that message today. I challenge this body to send that message today.”

Peduto: “We saw something that was wrong. Something that was illegal activity that was going on and we blew the whistle on it. Throughout the entire process of doing so, we have been attacked, threatened and silenced: Questionable legal memos threatening removal of office just for speaking. Denial of expert legal advice in offering alternative viewpoints. Silencing of minority opinion."

"It’s not about this [legal] bill. It’s not even about the four members of council that decided to stand up. It’s about what effect it will have anytime in the future that a councilmember decides to try and stop something that is illegal and has a conflict that is perceived or real with the solicitor’s department."

"I think if there is any visual symbol of today that should be remembered for all of council it should be that empty seat for Reverend Burgess. And being threatened enough to not be able to carry out your job. I think that empty seat represents an injustice to democracy, to due process, and to the ability of those who believe that they should be able to fight the powerful. And to be able to do so with the tools that make them equal.”

Well, back on March 20th, Specter tried to tell council that they had no business trying to do all of that high-falutin’ legislation stuff. He tried to warn them back then but they just wouldn’t listen.

Ricky Burgess finally paid attention, vacated his seat and shut his mouth. One loudmouth, troublemaker downed by Specter and only three maybe four more to go. Amazing.

Peduto closed with some stern words about a lawsuit. I say it’s about time. Top of the list of discovery items? Pat Ford’s super-duper, super-secret, triple-locked briefcase. All of this done, of course, because of a very deep-seated Love of Chair.

Breaking News: City Solicitor Opinion Says It’s Illegal For Legislative Branch to Legislate

“Sometimes I feel we are living in an upside-down world,” said Councilman Bill Peduto.

It was City Solicitor George Specter’s latest wacked-out legal opinion that prompted Peduto’s comment, which would surprisingly turn out to be one of the kindest offered during the day.

Not to be outdone by URA Director Pat Ford’s assertion of last month that a 20x60 foot sign was not really a sign, Specter raised the bar a number of notches when he proclaimed that it was illegal for the city’s legislative branch to legislate.

Under pointed, sustained and fierce questioning from Councilman Patrick Dowd, Specter stubbornly maintained that legislation pertaining to the day-to-day operations of the city would only be legal if it came from the mayor’s office (the executive branch) and not city council (the legislative branch).

“A point of Basic Government 101 clarification,” a stunned Peduto lectured the city solicitor. “All legislation comes from the legislative branch. NOT the executive branch. This was one of the basics of the American Revolution.”

This day’s scuffle was centered around a bill proposed by Councilman Ricky Burgess which would cut the number of take-home city vehicles from 59 to 29. The 30 high-ranking bureaucrats slated to lose their car perks were all cozy with the mayor and all now very unhappy. City Solicitor Specter hurriedly gave his unsolicited opinion to council warning that it had no legal authority to legislate the cuts.

“If the mayor were to bring forth this same bill …. word for word … would it be legal then?” an irate Dowd asked Specter. Specter shockingly said ‘yes.’

“It’s ILLEGAL if it comes from the legislative branch,” an incredulous Dowd repeated. “All we can do is wait for the executive branch to bring things forward to us? (Long pause) That’s amazing.”

Councilman Burgess picked up the ball from Dowd and ran with it further. “I asked you (Specter) a specific question at the post agenda meeting and you gave me a specific answer. You said only recommendations which followed Act 47 were legal. You said my bill included other administrative items which made it illegal. Do you remember your answer? Do I have to play it back for you? I can. Do you want me to play it back? I specifically asked you and you specifically answered back.”

Burgess could not be stopped. “I can play your words back to you if you wish. Do you want me to do that? Because I am certain of your words. We played your words back over and over and over again. We scripted this bill to abide by your words.”

Burgess was not done yet. “This saddens me. It’s sad for our solicitor to come here on the air, in public, to change his opinion. Why don’t we just go home? Why are we here? Why should we introduce bills?”

Still more from the Reverend Burgess. “You are saying ‘If we don’t like what you do … its illegal.’ I’m offended. I’m not stupid. I don’t like to be treated like I’m stupid. How do we run a city when, if we don’t like things, at any time, we just say, ‘Let’s change the rules.’”

And then the coup de grace. “I’m tired of my colleagues being threatened, my staff being threatened.” Burgess charged.

Dowd, still reeling from the insulting foolishness which had been cavalierly lobbed his way said once again, “I want everyone to know THIS is the decision we hear from the City Solicitor. I want to re-emphasize, I want to be sure we get your statements clear. You are telling us this legislation is illegal but for the point of origin …… This is entirely suspect.”

Dowd continued, “What bothers me now …. Forget the cars, forget the day-to-day management …. You say the only way Act 47 recommendations can be acted upon is if the mayor introduces the legislation … not us. That is absolutely backwards.”

Councilman Bruce Kraus had been patiently waiting his turn. “Do you now understand why [city council] wants our own solicitor? [Council] did not ask for your opinion on this matter yet we have received a TIMELY one from you. Without asking. But we still do not have an opinion from you on the billboard situation. Why is that?”

All of this piling-on would have probably intimidated a lesser man but not City Solicitor George Specter. No, he took it all quietly, waiting instead for a passive-aggressive opportunity to get in his own digs. George politely explained to council that he never meant to infer they had little or no power. To the contrary, just because they can’t legislate like they thought they could didn’t mean they couldn’t request things from the mayor.

“You (council) are certainly entitled to this kind of dialogue. And you can request anything you want. My guess is if you did request …. The mayor would look upon you with favor.”

LOOK UPON YOU WITH FAVOR???!!!

Isn’t that something a king does when he decides not to chop off the head of one of his subjects? Is that really a legitimate, acceptable dynamic between a mayor and a city council anywhere in the free world anytime after the Middle Ages?

It’s not an upside-down world which confounds you, Bill Peduto. It’s a parallel universe.

Mayor Not Satisfied With Condition Of City Government

A Look At Those Who Appear To Have Displeased Him

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl asked for the resignation of ten top city administrators, citing his dissatisfaction with “the condition of city government”. Ravenstahl has suggested that the ten re-submit their job applications for a fresh re-appraisal in order to prove they are the best person(s) for the job(s). Who are these people, what could they have possibly done to get the ax and will they ultimately remain? We take a look at these and other questions below.



Duane Ashley, Citiparks Director
Responsible for all park operations such as farmer’s markets, cinemas in the parks, festivals, walks and runs, community centers, swimming pools.
What went wrong?
Don’t know. Seems Mr. Ashley has been proactive in addressing problems. He led the selection process of hiring a firm to bring advertising dollars from city parks into city coffers. He was part of the effort to have city and county collaborate on park projects. He's a small speck of color in the mayor’s mostly white administration. And he tried valiantly to keep as many city pools open as possible in face of Act 47 cuts.
What does Ashley have to say?
He will re-apply for his job.



Guy Costa, Director of Public Works
Public Works is one of the largest city departments. It is responsible for street resurfacing, park facility and public structure maintenance and rehab, garbage collection, animal control, ice salting, flooding, landslides, and other natural disasters.
What went wrong?
Much easier to list what might have gone right. A very abbreviated, partial list of recent problems with Public Works: 1) The lapse of the city’s contract with the Animal Rescue League and Costa’s efforts to replace them with controversial Triangle Pet. 2) City Redd Up crew was caught wearing campaign T-shirts promoting Councilman Jeff Koch while working on the job. 3) Accusations that only the politically connected get their streets paved. 4) Possibly fast-tracking and therefore steering a lucrative contract to CLT Technologies whose founding investor is District Attorney Stephen Zappala’s uncle. 5) Inability to properly salt city streets during snow storms even though neighboring municipalities are successful under same conditions. 6) Playing fast and loose with pay raises not included in department budget. 7) More contract shenanigans. And the list goes on ….
What does Costa have to say?
He will re-apply for his job but has declined to discuss his relationship with Ravenstahl.



Jerry Dettore, URA Executive Director
The Urban Redevelopment Authority is “more than a redevelopment authority – it is the City of Pittsburgh’s economic development agency.” (Maybe that’s the problem right there)
What went wrong?
Again, the list is way too long going back way too far. The most recent flaps are … 1) Possible abuse of monies in the URA’s Streetface program. 2) Disregarding Hill District concerns when giving Melody Tent site development rights to the Penguins. (Even though it appeared to have been done with Luke's blessings) 3) Fifth & Forbes developer is now dawdling.
What does Dettore have to say?
Feels Ravenstahl has the right to have his own people in key spots. Has not decided if he will reapply for his job.



Ron Graziano, Bureau of Building Inspection Chief
Regulates the construction, demolition and occupancy of all buildings and structures within the City of Pittsburgh.
What went wrong?
Maybe the bureau has not been diligent enough in enforcing city anti-dumping regulations? Did Graziano originally inspect and approve the collapsed convention center beam? And then there was the horrible Hazelwood fire started in abandoned buildings that the bureau dragged their feed in demolishing.
What does Graziano have to say?
Nothing.



Robert McCaughan, Emergency Medical Services Chief
Heads up 175 Paramedics who provide advanced life support pre-hospital care, medically directed technical rescue from accidents and entrapments, river rescue and community safety education.
What went wrong?
It might not be a case of any wrongdoing or incompetence. After all, Ravenstahl just honored McCaughan for being the longest-serving member, with 32 years of service in the bureau. It may just be that city EMS personnel and city firefighters have duties which overlap. Since our city does not have the money to pay for many of its basic services, much less duplicative ones, these organizations will eventually have to be consolidated. Both continue to jockey for turf as each fights for survival. One will wind up losing out in the end and odds are it won’t be the firefighters. Maybe McCaughan’s resignation is Luke officially casting his lot with the firefighters.
What does McCaughan have to say?
Nothing.



David Onorato, Parking Authority Executive Director
The Parking Authority’s mission statement on the city’s web site touts they go “a dimension beyond the basic responsibility to provide and maintain spaces for vehicles.” Their mission also includes “supporting the efforts of City Departments and agencies to ensure the economic progress of our region.”
What went wrong?
There has been one small disagreement. The mayor and City Council wanted parking rates to be lowered in January by an amount equal to the decrease in parking tax. Rather than going “a dimension beyond” their basic responsibility by passing along the savings to the parking public, David Onorato decided that the rates would remain unchanged.
What does (either) Onorato have to say?
David was surprised by the resignation request. He said he’d talk to Ravenstahl about it.



Phillipe Petite, Equal Opportunity Review Commission Manager
The commission places subcontractors with prime contractors through a system of tracking and referral to assure inclusion actually occurs. Additionally, the commission develops opportunities for minority and women owned businesses.
What went wrong?
Not a clue.
What does Petite have to say?
“I definitely think I’m the most qualified.” He plans to reapply for his position.




George Specter, Acting City Solicitor
Specter heads the City Law Department which acts as attorney for the City of Pittsburgh and its officials.
What went wrong?
Plenty. Either Specter gave Ravenstahl bad advice which blew up in the mayor’s face or Ravenstahl disregarded Specter’s good advice and then had things blow up in his face. Either way, it appears the mayor is holding Specter personally responsible for the hits he took during the McNeilly and Regan debacles.
What does Specter have to say?
He’s probably taking the Fifth.



Howard Stern, City Information Services Director
CIS plans, acquires, installs and supports the City’s proprietary and open computing environments as well as develops software programs for Public Safety, Finance and other departmental initiatives.
What went wrong?
Not typically a high-profile position prone to controversy, the worst we can say about Stern’s approach to the information age might be that it was more “dial-up” than Comcastic. In an attempt to “professionalize” the city workforce, Stern placed time restrictions on each employee’s use of the internet. Not much thought was given to the fact that extended internet access might be necessary to perform one’s job. Worse yet, this faux pas was jumped on by Mark DeSantis. And then there was the fact that the City’s new 311 line worked very well at first except for cell phone users. But maybe the straw that broke the Ravenstahl’s back was the city’s computer-driven pavement management system which appeared to have been abandoned in favor of “eyeballing” road conditions by the likes of Motznik and other unbiased parties.
What does Stern have to say?
Not a bit nor a byte.



Greg Tutsock, Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority Executive Director
PWSA produces and supplies the water for City of Pittsburgh residents, maintains and operates the water infrastructure as well as the City of Pittsburgh sewer system.
What went wrong?
The federal government is finally getting serious on compliance with the 1970 Clean Water Act. Yes, nearly 40 years later, Pittsburgh and Allegheny County are just about to start the necessary sewer system repairs and upgrades that are needed to clean up our rivers and streams. We’ve racked up millions of dollars in fines and penalties for doing nothing about it. Literally nothing. Tutsock and company should have acted years ago. Then of course there are all the embarrassing water main breaks.
What does Tutsock have to say?
The s**t may have hit the fan.


It appears the City of Pittsburgh might be better served if many of the above administrators find employment elsewhere. The mayor is undoubtedly correct in cleaning house, but since this is do or die time for our fair city, it is crucial that each position be filled with exactly the right person for the job. Pulling this off once or twice in 90 days would be a job well done. Batting 10 out of 10? Good luck, Mr. Mayor. You will need it.