Category: Good Government On The March, Politics || By jt3y

Our topic today is the City of McKeesport's Home Rule Charter (PDF file), which states:

No person who holds any compensated appointive City position shall make, solicit or receive any contribution to the campaign funds of any political party or any candidate for public office or take any part in the management, affairs or political campaigns of any political party, but he may exercise his rights as a citizen to express his opinions and to cast his vote.

That seems pretty clear, right? And the penalties prescribed are tough: If found guilty, violators are subject to a fine and forbidden from holding any city office for five years.

Except that, er, one city employee is already serving as an elected official (Mark Holtzman, deputy police chief, is a school director and ran unsuccessfully for district magistrate). And several others (recreation director Jim Brown, police officers Joe Lopretto and Chris Halaszynski, and administrator Steve Kondrosky) are candidates for school board in November.

Not surprisingly, this has landed the city in court; local political activist and school director Dave Donato has filed a lawsuit calling on Mayor Jim Brewster to uphold the charter and remove these employees if they refuse to drop out of the race.

Last night, city council voted 5-1 to place a referendum on the ballot to amend the charter and allow city employees to seek any public office except mayor, city council, city controller, or district justice. They could still run for school board. Councilor Paul Shelly cast the lone "no" vote.

. . .

Also not surprisingly, I have an opinion. Several, actually.

First, I don't like provisions that block employees from seeking public office. I don't like term limits, either. If you want to block someone from winning public office, we have a mechanism: It's called the ballot box.

Brown, Lopretto, Halaszynski and anyone else should have the right to run for any office. Whether they should serve is up to the voters. If you don't like them, run against them or vote against them.

But the charter is crystal clear, and the city shouldn't selectively enforce any provisions. And while I respect council's effort to change the charter, amending it ex post facto (or is it nunc pro tunc?) to keep these school board candidates within the letter of the law leaves a bad taste.

Shelly thinks so, too. He writes on his blog that the resolution passed last night all but admits the city charter has been violated, and that amending the charter while litigation is pending is "ill-timed" at best.

Shelly also calls the resolution "self-serving": "It says to me that the Mayor and this Council, of which I am a part, are fearful of city employees running against us, yet it is OK for them to run against (almost) anyone else."

. . .

Maybe I'm naive, and maybe I've spent too much time with local elected officials over the years, as a reporter and a community volunteer, but I don't see any deep-seated corruption. (It doesn't sound like Mr. Shelly does, either, and I should note that we have been exchanging emails about this topic for some time.)

Personally, I see a couple of things:

1. The people who are likely to pay the most attention to local politics are the ones who work in local government. As the Almanac has lamented before, most people pay thousands of dollars in taxes every year to their school district and city, borough or township government, but they don't pay attention to what those bodies do until something goes wrong.
2. There is a shortage of good, qualified candidates. I can name two local boroughs that have to appoint councilors almost every two years because not enough people run for the open seats.

Add (1) and (2) and you get local employees running for local office. It's natural: They have a knowledge of the issues and a vested interest in local affairs.

. . .

I wish this had been handled with more finesse. The city could have amended the charter, and then these folks could have run without a cloud over their heads.

Instead, we got a lawsuit (all too common under the administration of Brewster's predecessor), finger-pointing, and allegations that Our Fair City is being run just like it was in the "bad old days."

. . .

That brings me to one last allegation. A few White Oak council members are throwing a fit because all seven of the candidates for McKeesport Area School Board in November are from the city. Council President Ron Massung is threatening legal action and has twice publicly accused Brewster of "trying to take over the school board."

If White Oak's political leaders are concerned about representation, they need to organize and get borough residents to run in two years. Or they need to draft a referendum to elect McKeesport Area school directors by district, just as school directors in East Allegheny and Woodland Hills are elected.

And I agree with a remark Brewster made to Eric Slagle of the Post-Gazette: "It's a slap in the face to the citizens of McKeesport suggest that we would do something detrimental to the community of White Oak. White Oak is a community we need to prosper."

I like Brewster. I happen to like most of the people in local office right now. I think the city and the region are moving in the right direction again after several years of floundering.

There are some very well-intentioned people in local government.

But this episode is not their finest moment.

And we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

Comments

Jason,

I think that you have a reasonable take on the situation. I wish I had be more of a student of our Home Rule Charter before these individuals had sought public office. I'd have advised them against it. As is were, I was experiencing some health problems when these gentlemen circulated their petitions. Not an excuse. I just dropped the ball.

I tried to prevent Council from moving on this resolution for two reasons.

1) It is a bad resoution.


2) The timing of it may cost the City money. I don't see how a judge who is to hear the upcoming litigation can possibly be pleased by the City moving the target after the fact and during litigation.

I am put in a tough spot politically. I am friends with both Mr. Donato and Mr. Brewster and get caught in the middle of their political feud which started, I believe, sometime back in the 1980's.

Additionally, I am friends and have respect for several of the School Board candidates who are effected by both the Charter and the litigation.

My only alternative is to look at the issue objectively, disregarding personal feelings to do what is right. I wasn't elected to make friends. Rather I was elected to make a difference.

A good charter amendment may be in effect 100's of years from now. It could be a legacy I leave the City long after I'm dust. So unfortunatley can a bad one. Just can't let that happen.

Appreciate the coverage. Keep up the writing. I met a very ardent visitor of your sight today. Kris Mamula of the Pgh. Business Times. He seems like a good guy with a strong interest in McKeesport. I believe that we will work together in the future, enhancing McKeesport's reputation with the business community.

Peace. Out.

-Paul

Paul Shelly

McKeesport City Council

Posted by: Paul Shelly at September 7, 2007 11:09 AM

Jason,

I'll try to get off this issue as soon as possible, but...

Jen Vertullo, in her coverage for McKeesport's 2nd best source for news stated that the position of District Judgewas a city position.

In fact, that position is a State of PA office. So one must beg the question, why is the administration trying to protect that job from city employees? Wouldn't you think that our city has some fine police officers, knowledgeable about the law that could serve well in such a position?

There is a track record here too. Former Police Chief Tom Brletic went on to be an exemplary District Judge.

Just another flaw in a very poor piece of legislation.

In a positive development, I drove across the Jerome St. Bridge yesterday evening and noticed I had a left arrow guiding my way up to Romine Ave and Port Vue (that community that I call Upper 10th Ward :) ).

I was so shocked to see the arrow that as I stared at it, I drove straight on through and ended going up Rebecca....

Never said I was perfect.

-Councilman Shelly

Posted by: Paul Shelly at September 9, 2007 08:00 AM