Tale of Two Cities

What are the lessons learned from Tuesday's primary:

1. Money + endorsement = victory
2. There is the East End and the rest of the city
3. Post Gazette endorsements don't mean a lot to the voters
4. Bar Association Ratings don't mean a lot to voters

Luke had lot's of money and the Party machine working for him and he rolled to an easy victory. Dowd got good press, the Post-Gazette endorsement and it didn't matter. Robinson also got a lot of good publicity but combined, Dowd and Robinson couldn't come close to Luke.

In the Judicial race one candidate had the grand slam: Bar Association highest recommendation, the Democratic endorsement, Post-Gazette endorsement and money/tv ads. That was Joe Williams who led the Democratic ticket. Don Walko was second. He had the Party endorsement and a lot of name recognition from his time in state politics. He did not get a good recommendation from the bar association as he has limited experience practicing law. He also didn't seem to spend nearly as much as other candidates on ads. Susan Evashavik Dilucente had the Party endorsement, a good but not excellent recommendation from the bar, the Post-Gazette endorsement and she spent a lot of money on ads. She came in just a hair behind Walko.

The fourth slot was the only one that went to an unendorsed candidate, Phil Ignelzi. He was highly recommended by the bar, endorsed by both papers and spent the most money. That money bought him a lot of votes. Two other candidates who were unendorsed were highly recommended by the Bar and endorsed by the paper, Alex Bicket and Hugh McGough. Ignelzi outpaced Bicket by 11,000 votes and McGough by 20,000. Bicket had ads on TV, but did not spend nearly as much as Ignelzi. McGough focused on a grass roots campaign and did not spend money on TV advertising.

The fifth slot went to Klein who was endorsed by the party, but did not garner a Highly Recommended rating and did not get the Post-Gazette endorsement. He was only about 1000 votes behind Ignelzi and 10,000 votes ahead of the 6th place finisher, Bicket. Bicket did get the Republican nomination so we will see if the endorsement from the paper and a Highly Recommended rating along with TV ads and a high profile spokesperson: Rocky Bleier can be enough to win in the Fall. It makes sense that he could pick up the McGough voters as he will not be running in the fall. If so he would have enough support to win one of the five seats. On the other hand, it stands to reason that Klein may get some of the Marmo votes, as Marmo was the only endorsed candidate to lose. Marmo finished in seventh place, about 2000 votes behind Bicket.

Although I have not studied the East End numbers, my sense is that Dowd beat Ravenstahl in 14 and 7. McGough also had very strong support in this part of the city. The 14th Ward is the most populated and generally has the best voter turnout, but this election is a reminder that popularity in this monied area of the city alone is not enough to win, or even come close, in a city or county wide election. Voters in these areas have a totally different philosophy than other sections of the city. Perhaps we are seeing a small shift with the more progressive City Council candidates winning in the Hill and the South Hills, but this didn't make a dent in the mayoral race.

Pedal Pittsburgh

Today was Pedal Pittsburgh. Based on what I experienced in Mt. Washington the picture is of a guy removing signs just to play a dirty trick on those riders who chose to climb up Josephine and 18th and then do a series of about ten very steep rollers. After a while all signs that we were on an organized ride disappeared. Ultimately signs reappeared near the intersection of Grandview and McCardle. These signs lead us to the near death experience of descending Sycamore Street. Every year I think about how stupid it is to end this ride by going down one of Pittsburgh's steepest and windiest streets. Of course every year I do it again. I am really a Pittsburgh lemming. This year we had an added treat. In a very steep section there is a hairpin turn covered with gravel. We made it to the bottom without incident, but probably without any brake pads left either. As an added treat after we got to Carson Street they turned us onto a street by Terminal Way that is steep down hill, Belgian block cobblestone and empties into a fairly busy street: a trifecta of risky business for cyclists.

One other thing that we clearly realized from this ride is that Luke is clearly not getting it done as far as repaving streets. We traveled 60 miles of city roads and for the most part they were horrible. Burma has better roads. Bikes and bodies were abused from riding over through and into crumbling and rutted pavement.

At least one politician cares. At the finish area at the Southside Works it was nice to see Alex Bicket, who is running for Common Pleas Judge. He was the only one who apparently realized that cyclists do have the right to vote. Alex is a good guy and a very good lawyer. The Bar Association has rated him Highly Recommended. Seeing Alex made me think about the article in today's Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09137/970776-181.stm. Alex wasn't mentioned, but the topic was the outrageous amount of money that candidates for Common Pleas Court are spending. The critical factor should be who is best qualified, not who raises the most money. It is a sad state that both the winners and losers will go deeply in debt to finance the campaigns. Does anyone even like watching the TV ads for Judges? If I have to watch that one with the mug shots one more time I will break my TV. Campaign spending for Judges is out of control. Has anyone noticed what has been going on with the local judiciary? We had one Judge thrown out for allegedly soliciting bribes. Another Judge quit because he needed to make more money, so he became a private mediator. A third judge recently resigned amid controversy relating to a real estate dealing and financial ruination.

I like biking better than running, and certainly better than running for Judge. If only we could get our roads repaved.

Mayoral Ramblings - Hillary's Votes, Luke's Money, Patrick's Face

I've heard Councilman Dowd speak several times and I can now never look at him the same way. He has a classic campaign poster with a very serious looking picture of him: a clean cut man, clean shaven with a jutting jaw looking for a political fight. I've heard his speech several times in which he mentioned that he used to have very long hair. Now every time I look at him instead of seeing the Gary Hart-like clean cut dark suited candidate, I visualize someone rushing for the stage at a festival seating Dead show.

At first I didn't know what to make out of Dowd. After several conversations with him I have come to these conclusions:

* He loves talking to people
* He is comfortable speaking to a group
* He is confident and not afraid of a fight
* Chameleon-like, he adapts to the audience
* He genuinely believes what is going on in the Mayor's office is just plain wrong
* He is very bright

These are enough attributes to make him the best choice for mayor. Unfortunately he doesn't have much of a chance. At the recent Dowd gathering I spoke with some of his supporters. One woman who was practically fawning over Dowd mentioned that she was a strong supporter of Hillary. I mentioned to her that Hillary is the reason that Dowd has little chance of prevailing next week. The reason is money. Dowd doesn't have much and Ravenstahl has a lot. He has a lot because Hillary and Bill cut a deal with him. Ravenstahl agreed to give Clinton his support in return for Bill agreeing to do a fundraiser for Luke. Bill honored the deal and the Ravenstahl campaign was $1 million dollars richer. Dowd just can't compete with that type of advertising budget. Luke is all over the TV and Dowd can't get on the air.

There was discussion about the picture in the PG of Dowd in front of the Pat Ford Memorial Electronic Billboard. Dowd said the picture down right frightened his children. I think it summed up his feelings about one of the stronger examples of pay to play and Luke getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Dowd was disgusted. It was grandstanding a bit, but it was also genuine. He really worked himself into a frenzy and it appeared that his face was going to fall off.

Luke and his people are using some rather intimidating tactics. I have spoken to several local business people. They will not show up to any political fund raisers for anyone other than Luke. Luke's people check up on everyone. If you want the help of Grant Street and you show up to a political event that the administration doesn't like, they know it and let you know that they aren't happy. We have a 28 year old mayor who is about to be re-elected, and is developing an old fashioned Chicago style machine. We would be better off with Chicago style deep dish pizza. Although artery clogging I think it would be better for our health, at least if you believe in democracy. Luke's machine could begin to roll like a freight train. He could be mayor for another 40 years. It is starting to look like an era of intimidating politics in Pittsburgh.

I admire Carmen Robinson and Dowd for understanding that the democratic political system is important. Those in power must be challenged so that we have a check and balance. Although, perhaps, neither has provided a clear plan of how they are going to save the city, they have opened the public's eyes to things that don't look right. They are both intelligent, articulate and strong voices who seem more credible than Luke. It probably isn't going to make a difference on Tuesday, but I do think if Luke continues to take a "Luke first" approach people are going to remember the voices of Dowd and Robinson four years from now. They have both earned my respect and appreciation for making a challenge and I expect to reward one of them with my vote on Tuesday. I have not heard enough from Robinson. I think she is short on experience, so I think that I will be going with Dowd. Even if he loses, I think he and Robinson have at least caused Ravenstahl to think about his actions. He is going to be held accountable. The more votes that go to Dowd and/or Robinson the louder that message will be.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem that this election is exciting many people. After the historic, impassioned election in November I think that local voters are having a Presidential hangover and are sleepwalking through these primaries. I expect voter turnout to be very low. Normally you would think that could provide a perfect storm for an underdog, but certainly Bill and Hillary's $1,000,000.00 will be spent making sure Luke's people know the difference between his posters at the polls and his picture on the garbage cans. A million dollars pays for a lot of election day campaign workers who will call voters and drivers who will make sure they get to the polls.

Hugh be the Judge

There are several fine candidates for Common Pleas Judge. As a trial attorney I have definite thoughts about what it takes to be a successful trial judge.

1. A Judge must be fair
2. A Judge must be an experienced trial attorney to understand how to make rulings and how to control the courtroom
3. A Judge must be intelligent in order to analyze the issues of law presented in the cases
4. A Judge must have respect for the system: this means respect for parties, jurors, witnesses and lawyers
5. A Judge must be humble enough to realize that the case is about the litigants and justice, not him or her
6. A Judge must be compassionate

I have had the good fortunate of meeting and working with most of the candidates and would like to provide insight. The following is a list in order of the candidates who truly would be outstanding Judges:

Hugh McGough - I have actually known McGough for almost 40 years. He is one of the most open-minded and fair people I know. He is extremely intelligent. After college he became a journalist. So before even going to law school he was trained to analyze, write and get to the bottom of a story; all important qualities for a judge. After a first career producing the Bill and Patti Burns Noon News, he went to law school. Perhaps this was his destiny as his father and brother were top local attorneys. After graduating from law school he first clerked for a judge and then was an associate working for one of Pittsburgh's best civil trial lawyers, Russ Ober. From there he worked as a City Solicitor primarily overseeing labor issues. He has also never shied away from controversial legal fights in order to protect the interests of those who needed help the most.
Hugh McGough has been rated Highly Recommended by the Bar Association. Getting this rating is very difficult. The Allegheny County Bar Association will not give this rating unless they are convinced that the lawyers seeking the endorsement are the cream of the crop. Local lawyers want to make sure that the Bench is as strong as possible. McGough has all of the qualities listed above. He is perfectly suited to be a judge.

Joe Williams I have never had a case with or before Joe Williams, but I have gotten to know him over the last few years. He is a student of the law and has a passion for it. He cares about people and seems to be a fair minded person. He is very bright and successfully built his own practice in Pittsburgh's Northside. He has compassion for people who come before him and respect for the process. Currently he is serving as a Criminal Court Judge having been appointed to fill a term with the understanding that he now has to run. It is obvious that he has a good feel for what he is doing. The Criminal system, when possible should rehabilitate as well as punish. He knows when some one can use help and a second chance, while others need punishment. Williams has also been Highly Recommended by the Bar Association

Phil Ignelzi I have had cases with Ignelzi and he is an excellent attorney. He has a unique background because he has handled Criminal cases as a prosecutor and defense attorney, and he has extensive Civil Court experience. Of the candidates, he is the only one who has been inducted as a Fellow in the Allegheny County Academy of Trial Lawyers. Admission into the Academy is by invitation only after an extensive review and election process. All applicants must be nominated by a current Academy member. The entire Academy membership is confidentially surveyed regarding the qualifications of each applicant. The results of the survey, together with information gained through the application, letters of recommendation, personal interviews and the candidate’s trial experience, are carefully reviewed and considered by the Committee as part of its confidential process of selecting for membership those civil trial lawyers who have exhibited excellence and the highest levels of ethical standards and professionalism. Total membership is limited to 250 voting members who are practicing trial attorneys. Membership is evenly split between those who primarily do defense work and those who primarily represent the plaintiffs. It is one of the highest honors a local civil trial attorney can receive. He has also been rated Highly Recommended by the Bar Association.

Alex Bicket I have had a number of cases with Bicket and his firm. He is a very able civil practitioner. He has a good temperament and understanding for the law. His background is unusual. Bicket was born and raised in South Africa. He left for graduate school and moved to the United States, in part because of the apartheid policies in his native land. Like McGough, he had a first career that would benefit a judge. He was a high school teacher in the Fox Chapel School District. Part of a judge's job is to explain things to jurors and litigants. Bicket was also rated Highly Qualified by the Bar Association.

There are other good candidates, but none reach the level of these four. None of the rest have been rated Highly Qualified. One must look at judicial elections differently than most political races. One's political background really should not be an issue in these races. Judges need to be impartial and should not favor anyone because of political affiliation.

A few guides in analyzing the background of the candidates:

1. You cannot be an effective Judge if you do not have experience trying cases and particularly jury trials. Would you want a surgeon who went to medical school but never performed a surgery before?

2. There is a big difference between a District Justice/Magistrate and a Common Pleas Judge. A District Justice does not even need to be an attorney. This would be like moving from air hockey to the NHL.

3. A Judge does not pick which court he sits in. The new Judge could be assigned to Orphan's (probate), Criminal, Family, Juvenile or Civil Division. Therefore it is important for the judge to have the ability to adapt to any assignment.

It is very important to make a thoughtful decision about judicial candidates. This is how we protect our judicial system. When you go in the voter's booth think about the fact that you or your loved ones may be impacted by the decisions that will be made by these five new judges. This is your chance to assure that your fate will be decided by someone highly qualified.

District 1 School Board Candidate Shealey Calls Pittsburgh a Racist City

http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A62900


Fascinating article in The City Paper on the District One School Board Candidates. Before reading this article the race appeared to be a rare case in which the public had an option between excellent candidates. Although previously I had experienced the very negative tactics of some Shealey supporters (see earlier post on 14th Ward Independent Doters Club), but believed Shealey to be a bright, open minded and competent candidate. I do feel that Stone is a better candidate based upon her long history of service to the community in support of issues affecting women and children, as well as dedicated service to worthy candidates such as Barack Obama.

Shealey is bright and has been involved in her childrens' school, but she has not been back in Pittsburgh for that long a time and has not been involved in politics. I really know little about the third candidate, Brooks, who declined to be interviewed for the City Paper article and did not appear to speak to the voting Democratic Committee Members in the 14th Ward. The City Paper article certainly makes me question Shealey.

The article started with a quote from out going District 1 Board member Randall Taylor

"You don't have a school board: You just have some people who are rubber-stamping," he says. "I can waste my time in better ways."

Taylor has been a controversial and disruptive figure on the school board. Generally the community sees it as a positive move that we will be getting a new Board member. Later in the article we learn that Shealey is being backed by Taylor. Further we know she is being backed by other individuals associated with the 14th Ward Independent Democratic Club, who have acted in a threatening manner to "ruin" Stone and have said that she should not run because of the color of her skin.

To her credit, Shealey did not totally adopt this rigid-thinking position and was quoted as saying " a white candidate like Stone could represent the district." On the other hand she dropped this bomb:

"Pittsburgh tends to be a racist city"

Exactly who is she referring to? A city is made up of it's residents. Is she talking about the voters in her district, which is quite diverse: Homewood, Lincoln-Lemington, Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, North Point Breeze, Point Breeze and Larimer? Is she talking about her supporters who, unlike her, have said Stone should not run because of her race and that race should be the determinative factor in the election? Is she talking about the voters in the predominately white pockets of the District? Is she making a generalization about the all of the city residents? The comment certainly is offensive to any city residents who do not view themselves as racists.

The next quote attributed to Shealey, in response to Stone saying she has lost confidence in the system, is also surprising:

"I don't want my manager having mistrust in the system."


Compare this statement to the quote from her ardent supporter Taylor, which suggests that he had some "mistrust" of the system. Taylor is right. Board members protect the voters and taxpayers by being watchdogs over the system. If they don't have some degree of mistrust then how can they do their jobs of overseeing the school system.

The article points out that on her face, Stone seems to be an unusual candidate. She is white and it is stated in the article that her children do not go to public school. In reality, her daughter attends a private school but also attends a public school program, which gives Stone a unique prospective. She explains:

"You may have to break the rules: ... what your skin color should be, where your kids go to school -- all that kind of stuff....I am among the families that have lost confidence in the public schools. ... We need to get that confidence back."

Who better than someone who has views from both outside and inside the system. The article also gives a slightly erroneous report of her failure to get the 14th Ward Club endorsement. Quoting Club President Chris Zurawsky:

Club President Chris Zurawsky says Stone "didn't try very hard for the endorsement."

Talk about an understatement! The Club sent a letter to candidates asking if they wished to be considered for the Club endorsement. Stone specifically indicated that she was not seeking the endorsement and asked not to have her name placed on the ballot. She was told her name would be placed on the ballot whether she was seeking the endorsement or not.

Most importantly both Shealey and Stone believe closing the racial achievement gap is a priority, and both understand the importance of fiscal responsibility. Brooks declined to be interviewed for the article. They seem to be close on the issues. Stone has a longer track record in the community. Shealey has children who are students in the district. Stone's children are enrolled in a private school but attend a public school program. Stone wants to break barriers and has an out of the box view point. Shealey thinks Pittsburgh is racist, but she doesn't think we should have a lack of trust in the current system. Stone is the more progressive candidate, who is trying to represent the interests of this diverse district.