Open Records for PA Exempted General Assembly?

Open records for Pennsylvania state general assembly is gaining steam, and a lot of exposure for state House Democrat leader H. William DeWeese. DeWeese had been staunchly reluctant to dig into the open records law for decades, some 20 years, in fact... maybe more, will have to check how long he's been in the House, once serving a stint as House Speaker. Now, at the instigation of state Representative Timothy Mahoney, DeWeese has caught the reform bug.

The duo have made joint public appearances, being broadcast on Herald-Standard's Editor's Notebook, and on the WMBS 590 radio station's talk program, Let's Talk.

Watch closely, the GA has been "exempt" from full disclosure for literally decades upon decades. Change may be in the wind, but careful which way the wind blows. And who's blowing it.

At any rate, the Herald-Standard provided a link to a new website... Keep track...

http://passopenrecords.org/2007/06/15/legislators-are-speaking-up-for-open-records/

another good read

http://pawatercooler.com/?cat=5

Related

'Secret' fund buys advice for politics
Taxpayer-fed expense account, not subject to audits, is used to pay a political consultant and buy research

Sunday, August 06, 2000

By John M.R. Bull, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Correspondent

HARRISBURG -- The top Republican in the state House of Representatives spent $25,000 of his taxpayer-funded expense account last year to pay a political consultant. The money was used to help a Republican legislator who is facing a tough election challenge this fall.

Majority Leader John Perzel of Philadelphia also tapped the fund for $1.1 million to pay a company to collect detailed voter registration data and to conduct phone surveys that even some Republicans say were designed to give incumbent Republicans an edge in their re-election campaigns.

"I think they're extremely offensive expenditures," said Barry Kauffman, executive director of the government watchdog group Common Cause/Pennsylvania. "This is public campaign-financing for incumbents only. It is obviously a violation of public trust. Those are political activities, not governing activities."

Perzel used the same fund to pay a Pittsburgh law firm $1.4 million, partly for legal research aimed at helping a Republican representative who had been convicted of a felony. The research was meant to bolster Republican arguments that the legislator could not be forced to resign without a vote to expel him, even though the state constitution requires expulsion.

The money came from Perzel's Special Leadership Account, one of four such expense accounts used by Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate and House, ostensibly to pay legislative expenses of their party caucuses.

Details of how the money is used is shrouded in secrecy.

The Legislature exempted itself from the state Open Records Law and cannot be forced to reveal the particulars of payments from the accounts, each of which received appropriations of between $9 million and $11 million this year.

Nor have the accounts ever been fully audited. The Legislature prohibits its own independent auditors from examining account invoices or even determining if money was properly spent.

The records that are released are vague and sketchy. They include only the name of the person or company paid, how much, when and for what general purpose, such as "phone bill," "caucus refreshments," or the catch-all "legislative expenses."

For example, House Minority Leader H. William DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, racked up an $11,000 credit card bill in one month last summer that was paid from his leadership account. He said it was for office expenses, but refused to allow the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to examine the American Express card slips or bill. His House credit card bill ranged from $1,800 to $11,000 per month.

Perzel's spending from his credit card account totaled $1,666 for the last half of 1999. The spending was recorded as being for "legislative meetings," or "legislative lunch and dinner meetings." He refused to release any invoices.

The Special Leadership Accounts are supposed to be used to cover legislative expenses, not to pay for partisan politics or campaigning. But the head of each party caucus has sole discretion in determining what expenses are appropriate.

A Post-Gazette investigation that examined six months of payments from leadership accounts last year raises questions about their use by Republican and Democratic caucuses in the state House.

http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20000806leaderside9.asp

Did Erma Bombeck Pen Woulda Coulda Shoulda Poem?

Making the rounds of the Internet for years - this poem attributed to Erma Bombeck simply does not sound like her - and to date - has not been found in any of her published books... The line about how she would have invited friends over to dinner even if the carpet was stained, or the sofa faded cannot possibly be the humorous Bombeck, who indeed would have invited friends for dinner even if the cat had peed in the soup. She'd have made some clever joke about stained carpets, faded sofa, and her latest disaster in the kitchen - pee soup!

The more I think about this poem, the more I believe it is not Erma...

IF I HAD MY LIFE TO LIVE OVER - by Erma Bombeck
(written after she found out she was dying from cancer).

I would have gone to bed when I was sick instead of pretending the earth would go into a holding pattern if I weren't there for the day.

I would have burned the pink candle sculpted like a rose before it melted in storage.

I would have talked less and listened more.

I would have invited friends over to dinner even if the carpet was stained, or the sofa faded.

I would have eaten the popcorn in the 'good' living room and worried much less about the dirt when someone wanted to light a fire in the fireplace

I would have taken the time to listen to my grandfather ramble about his youth.
I would have shared more of the responsibility carried by my husband.
I would never have insisted the car windows be rolled up on a summer day because my hair had just been teased and sprayed.
I would have sat on the lawn with my grass stains.
I would have cried and laughed less while watching television and more while watching life.
I would never have bought anything just because it was practical, wouldn't show soil, or was guaranteed to last a lifetime.
Instead of wishing away nine months of pregnancy, I'd have cherished every moment and realized that t he wonderment growing inside me was the only chance in life to assist God in a miracle.
When my kids kissed me impetuously, I would never have said, "Later. Now go get washed up for dinner." There would have been more "I love you's" More "I'm sorry's."
But mostly, given another shot at life, I would seize every minute..look at it and really see it... live it and never give it back. STOP SWEATING THE SMALL STUFF!!!
Don't worry about who doesn't like you, who has more, or who's doing what
Instead, let's cherish the relationships we have with those who do love us.
Let's think about what God HAS blessed us with, and what we are doing each day to promote ourselves mentally, physically, emotionally. I hope you have a blessed day.

PA Con-Con Limited Scope May Not Be Possible

In a recent article Evans wins a vote on constitution study By Mark Scolforo
Associated Press is this gem of a find. Appears to be attributed to Bruce Ledewitz

Pennsylvania constitutional conventions were held in 1776, 1789-90, 1837, 1872-73 and 1967-68.

Nothing in the state constitution addresses how to hold a convention. The legislature initiated the last four.

State voters rejected ballot measures calling for constitutional conventions in 1921, 1924, 1935, 1953 and 1963.

Limiting the scope of a convention may not be possible. Delegates ignored guidance in 1872-73 and changed the declaration of rights.

In 1967-68, delegates followed instructions to address only the judiciary, local government, reapportionment, and taxation and state finance. As directed, they did not address the topic of a graduated income tax...

SOURCE: Duquesne Law School professor Bruce Ledewitz, codirector of a Web site dedicated to the Pennsylvania Constitution: www.paconstitution.duq.edu/

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20070607_Call_to_study_states_constitution_advances.html

Response pacleansweep: A reflection upon a Pa. convention

Previously, Net the Truth Online posted a comment concerning Sentinel, June 8, 2007 editorial, A reflection upon a Pa. convention

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/06/pa-convention-precedent.html

June 22, 2007
Re: A reflection upon a Pa. convention

You're asking a question that shows you continue to ignore what I have
cited how many times. Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1 Section 2. It
means what it say, it really really does. (Truth Net)

Why is it that there were no problems with the limitations of the
convention in 1967? (Russ Diamond)

Truth Net

Those delegates didn't choose to carry out all of PA Article 1 Section
2.

Funny about evidence v. testimony, still pondering...

As you know then from reading Robert F. Williams written testimony
entitled:

A LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN PENNSYLVANIA? .

Footnote 32. "As the 1947 example makes clear, the line between
constitutional revision and constitutional amendment can be hazy.
Delegates at a limited constitutional convention may propose a new
document, even though certain issues were taken off the table before the
convention met." (Footnote 32 Williams)

To return to your question, the 1967 convention didn't propose a new
document, even though certain issues were taken off the table before the
convention met.

Why didn't they? Maybe those still living will come out and explain
their reasoning, thus settling the question for you.

Again, Article 1 Section 2 says what it means.

The incontrovertible fact is this: our PA Constitution is the supreme
law of the PA land.

Despite the adoption of such language limiting a convention, a huge door
opens wide for Article 1 Section 2 to trump the referendum and provide
delegates with legal ground to consider other than what they have been
limited to.

Also go back to Footnote 32 (Williams )the line between constitutional
revision and constitutional amendment can be hazy

Did you read all of the Hoar sections?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17308

{115} From all the foregoing we see that the legislature probably hasno
power to restrict either an authorized or a popular convention;whenever
it has succeeded, this has been due more to force ofcircumstances than
to legal rights. Even the power to imposereasonable restrictions is
doubtful...http://www.constitution.org/rsh/concon09.htm#09-03There is
another factor which makes PA unique and opens up the potential for
delegates to go beyond limitations.

It is odd you will continue to tout the precedent for a convention which
remained limited in PA history, but you refuse to consider the other PA
precedents.

Precedent - in Pennsylvania. 1873-74

(See Bruce Ledewitz reference discussed at PA Con-Con Limited Scope May
Not Be Possible

may-not-be.html>

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/06/pa-con-con-limited-scope-m\
ay-not-be.html
may-not-be.html>

The Pennsylvania 1776 constitutional convention is what I brought up
previously on my blog, Net the Truth Online.

So your statement is inaccurate:

This second section of his testimony is very instructive in >
differentiating between federal and state conventions (and previously >
on your blog, you've brought up the federal Philadelphia Convention > of
1787 to underscore your argument, so I think examination of the >
differences between them is warranted), but here are two pertinient >
points from the testimony to our discussion here:

I never brought up the "federal" Philadelphia Convention of 1787. I
pointed out that the PA Philadelphia Convention set a precedent for
future Pennsylvania constitutional conventions.

Since you have been mistaken about that, I am wondering whether you
either missed Williams footnote 32 altogether, or possibly you've
mentally blocked out the glaring "...Delegates at a limited
constitutional convention may propose a new document, even though
certain issues were taken off the table before the convention met.".

That is exactly what PA Constitution Article 1 Section 2 not only
permits, the law of the land remains the law of the land in the face of
enabling acts, the threat of intervention by the PA Supreme Court, or an
injunction brought by any citizen, or any other device to attempt to
prevent a limited Pennsylvania convention from turning unlimited and
proposing a "new document."

The courts are to abide by what is "constitutional."

Article 1 Section 2 stands before the PA Con-Con convenes.

An enabling act which limits delegates from carrying out again the
Constitution of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania's Article 1 Section 2
could if challenged be found to be "unconstitutional."

Such a challenge to an enabling act has not yet occurred in the state of
Pennsylvania - but then again, Pennsylvania is noted for a lot of
"firsts."

Wouldn't it be interesting if there were just such a counter movement to
a "limited" convention afoot?.

Oh wait. I think I hear cheering from Democracy Rising PA

I wonder how many delegates to a PA Constitutional Convention will be
voted in by like-minded voters? Don't you?

Truth Net

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17412

Russ Diamond response June 22, 2007

Re: A reflection upon a Pa. convention


--- In pacleansweep@yahoogroups.com, "Truth Net" wrote:
>
>
> You're asking a question that shows you continue to ignore what I have
> cited how many times. Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1 Section 2.
It
> means what it say, it really really does.

No doubt, but you are throwing tons of red herrings at this discussion.

Since the people, at the ballot box, affirm the limitations of the Act
and the people, by petition, nominate the candidates and the people, at
the ballot box, select the delegates and the people, at the ballot box,
either ratify or decline the convention's proposals, and the people,
thru today's media, will have easy access to the entire proceedings and
the people, through the courts, could challenge the legitimacy of the
proceedings, I believe folks will be very well informed about the whole
process and have lots of opportunities to intervene if things go awry.

And I have continually stated that I would be the first to act to
intervene if that happens.

You continually refer to Article 1 Section 2, but for some reason don't
seem to actually trust the people with the very power which is theirs
inherently.

Yes, indeed, the entire process must be watched like a hawk by ALL
Pennsylvanians.

Now that you have slipped the Democracy Rising reference in there, I
know exactly who you are and realize that you are one of the folks that
was banned from this forum before for making the outlandish claims that
PACleanSweep is somehow an instrument of George Soros & Co.

Believe me, I do not agree with Democracy Rising's 'wild west' desires
to have a total general convention. Tim & I have knocked heads on this
on numerous occasions. But I will tell you that Tim also now realizes
that NOT taking Article 1 off the table is a sure way to make sure we
don't get a ConCon.

Conspiracy theories are fine for those who wish to scare people, but
they just won't work here. Caution is certainly warranted, but hysteria
is not.

Cheers!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17413

June 25, 2007 Truth Net response not posted guess cause Truth Net is part of a grand conspiracy-minded set of "the people."

No it's you who don't trust "the people" to desire to alter, reform, or abolish government.

The people don't stop being "the people" once they have voted in "delegates" and once they (may) have authorized a limited convention. That is what you don't seem to want to understand.

Our PA Constitution is very clear in Article 1 Section 2, but you continue to slant the section to suit you.

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

At all times an inalienable and indefeasible right - that is so clear, but unfortunately, to veil the potential for delegates in convention to continue to act as "the people" many theorize that limitations can be placed beforehand and all will be followed.

Our state also has precedent, and that is ignored as well.

As to your charge you know who I am and realize that you are one of the folks that
> was banned from this forum before for making the outlandish claims that
> PACleanSweep is somehow an instrument of George Soros & Co.

Again, you are mistaken. I have never joined this site previously, and have never been banned from this site.

There is no hysteria, just finding truth. And the truth you cannot deny is that a limited convention always and forever more will have the potential to become unlimited, during the convention process., precisely because of Article 1 Section 2.

What happens after the convention becomes unlimited is up for further discussion.

Truth Net

Original post Net the Truth Online

Found the same editorial today June 13, 2007 posted to the PA Clean Sweep message board with a comment inserted by Russ Diamond, and I commented on the board as "truthnet."

More will follow, including addressing the testimony of Robert Williams, A Limited Constitutional Convention in Pennsylvania?

Hint: Williams states: "Finally, it is important to point out that in a few states whose constitutions contain no provisions whatsoever concerning constitutional conventions, there are no requirements and no restrictions. This leaves maximum flexibility to the legislature and the people."...

PA Cleansweep note is Russ Diamond commentary on the Sentinel editorial...

June 11, 2007

Re: pacleansweep: A reflection upon a Pa. convention

Note from Russ: What happened with Article I in 1873 CAN be prevented
today.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17302

Truth Net submitted 6-13-07 and posted on the PA Clean Sweep Message Board

Russ's note is left unexplained:

Note from Russ: What happened with Article I in 1873 CAN be prevented today.
How can delegates be prevented from going beyond limitations, once the delegates are "convened" in a convention and thereby within that convention setting have the power to establish their own "rules, and as well have a power exclusive to them?" That power being the ultimate according to the same section cited as the basis to call a convention.

Article 1 Section 2. All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

In the PA Constitutional Convention, the delegates, the people, have the inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, OR ABOLISH, their government...

The PA Constitutional Convention may be limited upfront by a "legislative" enabling act, but while in the convention process, delegates can indeed go beyond any "restrictions" based on precedent of past conventions and even more pertinently, the concept of convention "sovereignty."

More importantly, the question arises whether (during the convention proceedings) delegates have to be constrained by "precedents" or actions of past conventions.If the delegates are to have the same power delegates in past conventions had, they should have the power to set their own "precedent," shouldn't they? That means a potential to ignore limitations in any area such limitations may be "preset" by "legislative" enabling acts.

A look to Hoar's discussion of issues surrounding convening of conventions reveals the statement:

{115} From all the foregoing we see that the legislature probably has no power to restrict either an authorized or a popular convention; whenever it has succeeded, this has been due more to force of circumstances than to legal rights. Even the power to impose reasonable restrictions is doubtful...

http://www.constitution.org/rsh/concon09.htm#09-03

ROGER SHERMAN HOAR CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS THEIR NATURE, POWER, AND LIMITATIONS
http://www.constitution.org/rsh/

Nobody has a crystal ball as to what will happen after the convention ends its deliberations and has altered, reformed, or abolished its government, either. If the "new" Constitution is sent back to the people for ratification, delegates would naturally lobby in support of their reasoning for going beyond the enabling act. The electorate could weigh in favor of the changes and ratify what was sent to them, even though they "authorized" initially, it could be argued, a limited convention, excluding Article I.

As far as the courts intervening during the convention, Hoar includes fascinating discussion and leaves more than a little room for doubt that courts would or could intervene.

If the electorate ratifies the new PA Constitution, it could further be argued the courts will not find any basis to overturn such ratification by "the people."
Furthermore, there is a potential for the delegates to choose a new method for ratification.

What this all boils down to is nobody can predict the outcome of a PA Constitutional Convention which has the power to alter, reform, or abolish its government.

(truthnet) (Net the Truth Online)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17406

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17308

Follow-up

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17309

June 15, 2007

Re: A reflection upon a Pa. convention
Thank you for permitting the posting to go through without my being a
member. I have since joined and been accepted.

Before beginning to respond, would you please give the courtesy of
providing the specific resource for your statement which includes the
term evidence:

You've made a specific statement that "evidence" has been provided to
the Senate State Government Committee showing that such limitations can
be, and have been, enforced.

It would be important to the continuation of this discussion for you to
pinpoint the "evidence" that has been provided to the Senate State
Government Committee, evidence showing that such limitations can be, and
have been, enforced. More importantly, it would be helpful to pinpoint
evidence which shows that such limitations "have been" enforced, in past
conventions, conventions which occurred in the state of Pennsylvania.

By providing this information upfront, we can begin from the same base
of at least one resource which you provide.

Thank you for the courtesy.

As I respond, I will cite my resources in my posts, as I did in my
initial message.

You have stated:

There was a challenge to the convention of 1873, but it was filed too
late. The PA Supreme Court held (and rightly so) that it could not
overturn that convention's findings, as
> the sovereign people had already ratified them. But it also noted
> that a challenge filed in a timely manner would have been actionable.

As well, would you provide your resource for the statement that the
Court also noted that a challenge filed in a timely manner would have
been "actionable."

This is extremely important as the resource I cited contains pertinent
discussion on Court interventions - particularly in regard to a state's
existing provisions contained in its Constitution for "conventions', and
there would be a difference between what is and is not actionable in
theory and in reality.

Also, I plugged in the url to the link you provided but it came up page
not found

http://www.pacleansweep.com/concon07.html


Truth Net Online

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17327

June 18, 2007

You've made a statement that "Evidence" was presented during testimony
to the committee.

Don't you think you should supply more specifics rather than a
generality? If not, why not?

If you are relying on one person's testimony to enable you to make such
unequivocal statements, then why not cite the individual and provide
quotes?

Specifically, exactly what testimony has been provided to the Senate
State Government Committee that reveals "evidence" showing that such
limitations can be, and have been, enforced.

What evidence provided to the committee supports your statement

what happened with Article 1 in 1873 CAN be prevented today

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17309


Why not cite specifically, so the testimony and the basis of the
testimony may be checked?

I'm particularly interested in a supportive resource for the statement
evidence showing that such limitations "have been" enforced.

I'm interested to know if you are relying upon limitations other states
than PA have enforced, states whose Constitutions already contain
language pertaining to constitutional conventions. As you know, our PA
Constitution is silent thereon.

Roger Sherman Hoar's work provides enlightening discussion of just such
instances.

Another resource I will cite when I respond is the Pennsylvania
Constitution itself. And in particular, I will cite Article 1 Section
2.
Political Powers
Section 2.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are
founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and
happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an
inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their
government in such manner as they may think proper.

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html


Note I'm at this time asking for you to identify "evidence" you state
has been provided...

However, this is the complete paragraph..:

As a statute, it would be enforced by threat of court intervention
instigated by any PA citizen. That threat would loom over the
convention right up until the voters cast their ballots on whatever
proposals the convention puts before them. Evidence has been provided
to the Senate State Government Committee showing that such
limitations can be, and have been, enforced.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17309


Please additionally clarify how a statute would be enforced by threat of
court intervention instigated by any PA citizen.

You use the term would be - what is your supportive resource that a
statute would be enforced by "threat" of court intervention?

Please provide the evidence for such, as you state has been provided to
the Senate State Government Committee.

Also, the link doesn't work. Page not found.

http://www.pacleansweep.com/concon07.html


Truth Net

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17351

June 21, 2007

Re: A reflection upon a Pa. convention



I find it surprising you don't recall the man's name who you have
maintained provided evidence which supports your statement

what happened with Article 1 in 1873 CAN be prevented today

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17309


You don't have to recall every single word that was said, just back up
your claim that "evidence" was presented to the committee which supports
your position - your position being that what happened in 1873 CAN be
prevented today. Surely, you hava a copy of written testimony from
Piccola's office yourself and can recheck to jog your memory of the
"gentleman" whose name you can't recall.

Now you're making another statement:

...I'm sure you could ask for an emergency
> injunction to stop the proceedings or at least stop the particular
> discussion which overreaches the limitations...

An emergency injunction - where is your evidence for that?

Truth Net

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17405

Related

Officials hold 3d hearing on revamping Pa. governmentTwo state senators listened to expert witnesses discussing the need for a constitutional convention.
By Vernon Clark
Inquirer Staff Writer

At the University of Pennsylvania Law School, two state senators heard testimony yesterday on the convening of a constitutional convention for the reform of state government.

State Sens. Jeffrey E. Piccola (R., Dauphin) and Michael Folmer (R., Lebanon) held the third hearing on the topic, listening to the views of three speakers: an area lawyer and author, a Rutgers University law school professor, and the president of the local League of Women Voters...

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/main_line_delaware/20070412_Senators_hear_ideas_on_a_constitutional_convention_for_Pa_.html

PA House reform panel no-go on smaller size

Hot button issue should be further studied. Issuespa should have some good reports. While the panel "nixed" the proposal to reduce the size of the legislature, it did come out with a recommendation to decrease the budget for the legislature. It proposed a measure calling for a 10-percent in cut in the Legislature's $316 million budget...

That's a drop in the bucket, but now the incumbents need to hear from the public watchdogs to take further action on cutting the expense of their own operations.

Reducing the size of the legislature itself isn't necessarily the only answer.

House panel nixes smaller legislature
By Brad Bumsted
STATE CAPITOL REPORTER
Monday, June 11, 2007


HARRISBURG -- A special House panel today shot down a proposal to reduce the size of Pennsylvania's 253-member General Assembly, one of the largest and most costly legislatures in the nation.
The Speaker's Commission on Legislative Reform is voting on reform proposals in what could be its final session. The panel makes recommendations to the full House.

The panel returns to session on Tuesday to consider term limits and strengthening the state's open records law. Rep. Josh Shapiro, D-Montgomery County, and Rep. David Steil, R-Bucks, the co-chairmen of the panel, declined to speculate on the outcome of those issues.

But based on discussions at reform commission meetings there appears to be little support for limiting lawmakers' terms.

The proposal for a smaller legislature -- which drew only six favorable votes on the 24-member commission -- is a symbolic issue for some reformers. Members of the commission said they believed the public really wanted to see the Legislature spend less on itself.

Knowing it faced a steep hurdle on the commission -- where a three-fourths vote is required separately among Republicans and Democrats instead of a simple majority vote -- lawmakers proposed a measure calling for a 10-percent in cut in the Legislature's $316 million budget.

The commission today voted to "advance" the proposed budget cut, but defeated language calling for the spending reduction to be "approved." Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Centre County, termed that "verbal gymnastics."

The change from approved to advanced "watered down" the recommendation, said Rep. Tom Tangretti, D-Greensburg, another reform panel member.

"I am more confused now that we have advanced, rather than approved, it," Tangretti said.

But it will appear to some constituents that the reform commission did give the OK to cutting legislative spending.

The vote to approve the spending cut garnered 12 yes votes among Republicans. Among Democrats on the panel the final tally was 7-5 against, so it failed to gain the required "super majority" on the Democratic side.



http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_512075.html

PA Convention Precedent

Editorial on the mark: no guarantee a PA Constitutional Convention can be limited once it gets going, as precedent was set. Some will continue to claim the 1873 convention was itself "illegal." Really, that is a bogus argument as the PA Constitution is silent on who may or may not "call" a convention.

See Hoar's classic work on state conventions, noted in our sidebar.

The following is a Sentinel Editorial

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007/06/15/editorial/editorial/daily863.txt

A reflection upon a Pa. convention
By The Sentinel, June 8, 2007

Last updated: Friday, June 8, 2007 10:30 AM EDT


In the wake of the legislative pay grab a couple of years ago, there was a bumper crop of people forming organizations to lobby for government reform.

Some of their demands for change appeared to fall on deaf ears. Others, particularly the lawsuits to turn back the pay grab, didn't come out quite the way the plaintiffs expected after the state courts had completed their work.

So it's not surprising that there has been something of a drumbeat for a state constitutional convention. The amendment process is protracted and difficult, and the changes people have proposed would take a number of amendments to become law.

By contrast, a constitutional convention would put everything into play at once and create an opportunity for dramatic change. The final product then would be put before voters for approval.

That's the background against which the state House's State Government Committee approved a bill this week to create a 15-member committee to undertake a year-long study of the current state constitution. The bill appropriates $475,000 to finance a report that would be turned over to the governor and Legislature.

State Rep. Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia, who sponsored the bill, told the committee it's “high time” to discuss the future of the commonwealth. By contrast, our own state Rep. Glenn Grell, R-87, found the bill “too wide-ranging” and voted no. He felt an existing committee, the Joint State Government Commission, could handle the job since it consists of both House and Senate members.

Meanwhile, state Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, R-15, has drafted a bill calling for a constitutional convention but has not yet introduced it, according to the Associated Press.

The AP reports that all the constitutional conventions held in Pennsylvania have been initiated by the Legislature, which is ironic given the calls for one coming from grass-roots activists this time around. Voters themselves have turned down referendums to hold conventions five times between 1921 and 1963.

It's probably a good thing that Evans' bill has the momentum for now. Constitutional conventions have few rules, and attempts to limit their scope have not always been successful. The 1963 convention stuck to its brief to examine governmental administration issues and followed a prohibition against discussing a graduated income tax.



Back in 1873, however, the delegates made changes to the declaration of rights against the guidance of the Legislature. So there is precedent for the delegates to do whatever a majority of them chooses to do.

We think it unlikely that the General Assembly would call a constitutional convention without giving it a specific agenda. On the other hand, we can imagine Evans' proposed commission taking its good old time to write a report and blunting the momentum for a convention.

In the end, we think legislative leaders are unlikely to sign off on anything that might get too far out of their control. So if a constitutional convention is called, we'd expect it to have a very specific set of issues to address. Whether they'll be able to do anything about that 1873 precedent is another matter, however.

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007/06/09/editorial/editorial/daily863.txt

PA Study Constitution Undertaken

PA should undertake a study of the PA Constitution - that is, the legislators all of them who take an oath to uphold the state Constitution should study the current Constitutiona and be able to understand its meaning.

Mr. Ledowitz is right. It's folly to hold a constitutional convention which is an outgrowth of dissatisfaction - though I disagree the dissatisfaction is with government - the dissatisfaction is with the elected public servants who broke their oaths to uphold the PA Constitution when they passed a salary increase in 2005 and then took the increases as unvouchered expenses - clearly unconstitutional.

The people were upset, but not upset enough to go out and register anew in large numbers in the following election wherein half the state senate and all the state representatives were up for re-election. Approximately 25 percent only turned out in the two major political party primary to throw the oath-breakers out of office by electing challengers. Many didn't even face a challenger in the primary.

The legislators who are going around pouncing upon the idea of a PA Constitutional Convention want the so-called easy way to look as though they are addressing "something" - when it's their own actions they should be addressing, not so-called structural defects in the PA Constitution.

The PA Constitution didn't make them do it back in 2005 take a pay hike as unvouchered expenses. They did it themselves.

The public needs to be aware of what the PA Constitution says, they need to be informed on the issues, then hold their elected public servants accountable when the "incumbents" break away from the meaning of the PA Constitution.

Duquesne Law School professor Bruce Ledewitz, an expert on the state constitution, said there is not currently a consensus about what a convention should address.

I just don't think you should take general popular dissatisfaction with government , which we have now , and hold a constitutional convention to quote 'do something about it,'" he said.

Pa. House committee supports study of state constitution

By MARK SCOLFORO
The Associated Press

...HARRISBURG, Pa. - A bill to finance a yearlong study of the Pennsylvania Constitution was passed out of a legislative committee Wednesday, potentially a step toward the state's first constitutional convention in four decades.

"We have to ask ourselves some real questions related to the future of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania," the bill's sponsor, Rep. Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia, told the State Government Committee. "It's high time we had a discussion about where we want to go."

Evans' bill would establish an unpaid 15-member commission, chosen by the governor and legislative leaders, to study the constitution "in light of the contemporary conditions and anticipated problems and needs" of state residents. It would have a $475,000 budget and a year to issue a written report to the governor and Legislature.

Similar commissions were created in 1919, 1935, 1957 and 1963, Evans noted. The commission could recommend specific constitutional amendments or whether to hold a constitutional convention, which most recently was done in 1967-68.

"There's nothing wrong with a little self-reflecting," he said.

The committee approved Evans' bill on an 18-10 vote, with two Republicans joining all Democrats in favor.

Rep. Glenn R. Grell, R-Cumberland, voted against it.

"I think this proposal is too wide-ranging," Grell said. He said the House's standing committees regularly handle constitutional issues and that the Joint State Government Commission, which includes leaders from both the House and Senate, is already in place and "very capable" of a top-to-bottom constitutional study.

"I just am not hearing from my members or people in my district that we need to open the constitution," said Rep. Matthew E. Baker, R-Tioga, who also voted against the bill.

Calls for a constitutional convention have arisen in the reform atmosphere of the past couple years, but the state constitution is silent about exactly how that is done.

All four held since 1790 were initiated by the Legislature. Between 1921 and 1963 voters rejected calling constitutional conventions five times.

Duquesne Law School professor Bruce Ledewitz, an expert on the state constitution, said there is not currently a consensus about what a convention should address.

"I just don't think you should take general popular dissatisfaction with government , which we have now , and hold a constitutional convention to quote 'do something about it,'" he said...

http://cpartyalleghenycounty.blogspot.com/

Global Warming 360

Global Warming 360 - all questioning swept aside... CNN's Anderson Cooper didn't ask any questions about the so-called concensus on man's contribution to global warming when he devoted segments of his 360 program to the continuing series, "Planet in Peril," last week. Cooper spouts info that's not only been debunked by climate experts who challenge the concensus on man's contribution to global warming, but who have themselves been ignored. See William Gray...


Also see our sidebar for links to hundreds of posts to those experts who have not become "we're all global warmers, now" per Ronald Bailey's pronouncement over a year ago. Or plug in the term global warming on the search feature at the upper left of the screen to find a rundown on the issue.

Planet in Peril: Global Warming
Aired May 24, 2007 - 22:00 ET

...COOPER: Yes, I can, John. Yes, we're on Constable Point, which is on the east coast of Greenland. Jeff is much farther west than we are.

A lot of what he said, it's the same situation here. I mean, Greenland is a prime example, probably the best place to come, to really see the real impact of global warming so far. The average temperatures in Greenland have risen 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 30 years. That's more than double the global average. The ice sheet here is melting much faster, faster than anyone thought. It's really hot.

It's really caught a lot of scientists by surprise. The models they had to predict about what's going to happen to sea levels in the coming years, in the coming decades. It may not be that accurate. They're still trying to figure out exactly what may happen down the road.

But any melting of this icecap, any melting of the ice sheet here, which covers some 82 percent of Greenland, affects sea levels around the world, affects us all.

As we just said already, ice in some place has decreased by as much as 40 percent in the last 40 years -- in the last 30 years, an area the size of Texas and a half has already melted.

And here, what's most fascinating about Greenland is that the mass of Greenland is constantly changing. Literally, the maps are having to be redrawn as we speak.

We're in Constable Point on the east coast, with an explorer named Dennis Schmidt, who about two years ago, discovered an island right off the coast of Greenland which hadn't existed the year before when he had been here.

Previously, it had been thought to be a peninsula. It was attached to the mainland by a glacier, by a sheet of ice. It was thought that it was actually a part of Greenland. But because of the melting, the glacier had melted away. And now you can see, it's a distinct island off the coast of Greenland. It's now called Warming Island.

But those maps are constantly being redrawn because of the ice melt. More land is being exposed. And the geography of this huge island is constantly changing, John.

KING: And Anderson, we're showing our viewers the fascinating, although somewhat troubling -- given the conditions and the changing -- pictures of where you are. Talk to us a little bit about what you hope to see and accomplish over the next day or so.

COOPER: We're going to head to Warming Island, which is this island I was talking about, that's just been discovered by Dennis Schmidt, to really kind of get a sense of how quickly this ice is melting and how this topography is changing.

Also, we're trying to sort of assess the impact on sea levels around the world. The worst-case scenario, of course, is if the entire ice sheet melted, which no one thinks is going to happen in that country.

But if that did happen, sea levels would rise around the world of 20 feet. Frankly, it's more likely sea levels will rise in the next 100 years about 1 1/2 feet. But even that, even the rise of one foot, it would have major implications for millions of people around the world, John...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/24/acd.01.html

Planet in Peril: The Shrinking Ice Sheet
Aired May 25, 2007 - 22:00 ET

...COOPER: In the last 30 -- 30 years, the average temperature here in Greenland has risen 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. That's more than double the -- the rise in temperatures anywhere else around the world.

And, obviously, that impacts the ice here. And, as the ice here melts, sea levels around the world can rise...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/25/acd.01.html

Apparently, he and others simply have "progressive" blinders on when presented with any information to the contrary.

Bob McCarty Writes captured a key bit of info posting on his blog.


Writer Dissects ‘Consensus’ of Global Warming
June 4th, 2007 · No Comments

http://bobmccarty.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/writer-dissects-consensus-of-global-warming/

Link to

They call this a consensus?
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af&p=1

The Tempest
By Joel Achenbach
Sunday, May 28, 2006; W08... All of the above is part of the emerging, solidifying scientific consensus on global warming -- a consensus that raises the urgent political and economic issue of climate change. This isn't a theory anymore. This is happening now. Business as usual, many scientists say, could lead to a wildly destabilized climate for the first time since the dawn of human civilization.

But when you step into the realm of the skeptics, you find yourself on a parallel Earth.

It is a planet where global warming isn't happening -- or, if it is happening, isn't happening because of human beings. Or, if it is happening because of human beings, isn't going to be a big problem. And, even if it is a big problem, we can't realistically do anything about it other than adapt.

Certainly there's no consensus on global warming, they say. There is only abundant uncertainty. The IPCC process is a sham, a mechanism for turning vague scientific statements into headline-grabbing alarmism. Drastic actions such as mandated cuts in carbon emissions would be imprudent. Alternative sources of energy are fine, they say, but let's not be naive. We are an energy-intensive civilization. To obtain the kind of energy we need, we must burn fossil fuels. We must emit carbon. That's the real world.

Since the late 1980s, when oil, gas, coal, auto and chemical companies formed the Global Climate Coalition, industries have poured millions of dollars into a campaign to discredit the emerging global warming consensus. The coalition disbanded a few years ago (some members recast themselves as "green"), but the skeptic community remains rambunctious. Many skeptics work in think tanks, such as the George C. Marshall Institute or the National Center for Policy Analysis. They have the ear of powerful leaders in the White House and on Capitol Hill. The skeptics helped scuttle any possibility that the United States would ratify the Kyoto treaty that would have committed the nation to cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (conservatives object to the treaty for, among other things, not requiring reductions by developing nations such as China and India).

In the world of the skeptics you'll come across Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate scientist who has steadfastly maintained for years that clouds and water vapor will counteract the greenhouse emissions of human beings. You'll find S. Fred Singer, author of Hot Talk, Cold Science, who points to the positive side of the melting Arctic: "We spent 500 years looking for a Northwest Passage, and now we've got one." You'll quickly run across Pat Michaels, the University of Virginia climatologist and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media . You might dip into TCSDaily.com, the online clearinghouse for anti-global-warming punditry. You'll meet the Cooler Heads Coalition and the Greening Earth Society.

The skeptics point to the global temperature graph for the past century. Notice how, after rising steadily in the early 20th century, in 1940 the temperature suddenly levels off. No -- it goes down! For the next 35 years! If the planet is getting steadily warmer due to Industrial Age greenhouse gases, why did it get cooler when industries began belching out carbon dioxide at full tilt at the start of World War II?

Now look at the ice in Antarctica: Getting thicker in places!

Sea level rise? It's actually dropping around certain islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

There are all these . . . anomalies.

The skeptics scoff at climate models. They're just computer programs. They have to interpret innumerable feedback loops, all the convective forces, the evaporation, the winds, the ocean currents, the changing albedo (reflectivity) of Earth's surface, on and on and on.

Bill Gray has a favorite diagram, taken from a 1985 climate model, showing little nodules in the center with such labels as "thermal inertia" and "net energy balance" and "latent heat flux" and "subsurface heat storage" and "absorbed heat radiation" and so on, and they are emitting arrows that curve and loop in all directions, bumping into yet more jargon, like "soil moisture" and "surface roughness" and "vertical wind" and "meltwater" and "volcanoes."

"It's a big can of worms!" Gray says. It's his favorite line.

The models can't even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.

"They sit in this ivory tower, playing around, and they don't tell us if this is going to be a hot summer coming up. Why not? Because the models are no damn good!"

Gray says the recent rash of strong hurricanes is just part of a cycle. This is part of the broader skeptical message: Climate change is normal and natural. There was a Medieval Warm Period, for example, long before Exxon Mobil existed.

Sterling Burnett, a skeptic who is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, says that even if he's wrong about global warming, mandating cuts in carbon emissions would mean economic disaster for poor countries, and cost jobs in America: "I don't know any politician anywhere who is going to run on a platform of saying, 'I'm

going to put you out of work.'"

The skeptics don't have to win the argument, they just have to stay in the game, keep things stirred up and make sure the politicians don't pass any laws that have dangerous climate change as a premise. They're winning that battle. The Senate had hearings on climate change this spring but has put off action for now. The Bush administration is hoping for some kind of technological solution and won't commit itself to cuts in emissions.

The skeptics have a final trump in the argument: Climate change is actually good. Growing seasons will be longer. Plants like carbon dioxide. Trees devour it. This demonized molecule, CO2, isn't some kind of toxin or contaminant or pollutant -- it's fertilizer...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

PA Taxpayers Fund Money to Ballparks

Rendell funnels $47M into minor league fields
By Robin Acton
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, May 29, 2007

...In Pennsylvania, where more than $47 million in state grants has been used to build or renovate small ballparks and stadiums since 2003, there is more to minor league baseball than hits, runs and errors. And with six parks built here in the past five years, the sport that is an integral part of the American fabric has become central to a debate over the use of taxpayer dollars for private enterprise...

...Gov. Ed Rendell's administration has pumped more money into small ballparks and stadiums than former governors Robert Casey, Tom Ridge and Mark Schweiker combined, state records show. In a 2003 speech, Rendell described a grant for Lancaster as "a perfect example of the type of targeted investment" to turn the state's economy around.

But does it work?...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_509891.html

Snake Bite Info Not a Political Metaphor

2-year-old suffers snake bite
By Josh Krysak, Herald-Standard
06/01/2007
Updated 06/02/2007 12:06:04 AM EDT

...According to the state Fish and Boat Commission, there are 21 types of snakes in Pennsylvania with only three classified as venomous.

The venomous snakes include the northern copperhead, the eastern Massasaugha rattlesnake and the timber rattlesnake.

However, state officials said all three venomous snakes in the state attempt to avoid confrontation if possible.

State officials also said that poisonous snakes can be identified by three shared characteristics including small indentations on the sides of the head, vertical cat-like eyes and a single row of scales on the belly.

Non-venomous snakes do not share the traits.

According to the Penn State Poison Control Center located at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, someone suffering from a venomous snake bite should remain calm, call poison control or 911 immediately and apply a light constricting band above the bite.

The center does not recommend applying ice or attempting to suction the wound and said the most important thing people suffering from a snakebite can do is contact emergency personnel immediately.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18411516&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Election Case Under Scrutiny

Seriously now, the ballot access for Independents is so steep of a hurdle in many state elections in Pennsylvania, when it is as well a matter of law - well - needless to say, the law should be followed, to the letter... No excuses. Write-in votes, particularly must be the exact name of the candidate. If voters can't follow the regulations and put in the complete name of the candidate at least, that is evidence they really don't care enough to get it right. That vote should be voided. It appears this race was very tight. Even more reason to follow the letter of the law...

Former Greene DA challenges primary results
By Steve Ferris, Herald-Standard
06/01/2007
Former Greene County district attorney David F. Pollock is challenging the May 15 primary results that gave incumbent Marjorie J. Fox the Democratic nomination for her second full four-year term in office.


In a petition filed Tuesday in Greene County Common Pleas Court objecting to the certification of the election results, Pollock, who was the district attorney from 1988 to 1999, argued that Fox should not have been allowed on the ballot because she is not registered as a Democratic voter under the name Marjorie J. Fox.

Pollock also said Fox never filed an affidavit with the county board of elections saying she is commonly known as Marjorie Fox and requesting her name appear that way on the ballot.

Fox's married name is Marjorie J. Niedbala.

Fox said she is registered as a voter under that name, but she was admitted to the practice of law before she was married and under her maiden name, Fox, and continues to use her maiden name professionally.

"It's not the name I use professionally, including the 11 years I worked as an assistant under Mr. Pollock," Fox said Thursday...

...According to this year's primary results posted on the county's Web site, Fox defeated Pollock for the Democratic nomination in a 3,526-3,171 vote on the Democratic ballot.

Of the 876 write-in votes from Republican voters, Fox received 441 and Pollock 435, said Frances D. Pratt, Greene County director of elections and voter registration.

She said the Republican write-in votes in the district attorney's race are the only results that have not yet been certified.

In his petition, Pollock also argues that several of the Republican write-in votes contained only the name Fox and Marjorie Fox should not have received credit for those votes because both candidates have Fox in their names.

Pollock said his middle name is Fox, a name taken from his maternal grandfather David Fox. He identifies his maternal and paternal grandparents in his campaign literature.

On the primary ballot, his name was listed as David F. Pollock.

Pollock said if the district attorney would be denied the write-in votes for Fox, he would be the Republican candidate in the general election in November.

Judge William R. Nalitz scheduled a hearing on the petition for 10 a.m. Monday.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18411412&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

State of Independence Needs a Few Good Independents

After all, the new slogan for Pennsylvania is the "state of independence."

Where are the Independents when you need them, really, really need them?

Come November, will there be any Independent challengers to step up and run against the two-party stranglehold on local politics in the state of Pennsylvania?

How difficult is it to obtain the necessary nomination petitition signatures (valid) in counties whose voter registration rolls in many cases are over half (such as Fayette County) of the population count?

Fayette lacks funds to cull registration roll
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, May 13, 2007

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_507440.html

Southwestern Pa. counties lose residents, gain voters
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, May 13, 2007


If it weren't a trend throughout Southwestern Pennsylvania, Fayette County might have a bit of explaining to do.
After all, how does a county lose almost 3,000 residents since 2000, while its voter registration rolls balloon by more than 7,444 names?..

...After a population upswing from 145,351 to 148,644 during the 1990s, Fayette's residency slipped to 145,760 through July 1, 2006, according to the March U.S. Census Bureau estimate.

The number of registered votes has ticked steadily upward, with 89,377 listed through the April 16 close of registration...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_507439.html

Dem nominee Lally for Fayette Co. controller left crash site
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Uniontown police are investigating a late-night, two-vehicle crash last week, in which Sean P. Lally, the Democratic nominee for Fayette County controller, admitted leaving the scene before an officer arrived.

In a telephone interview five hours after the crash, Lally allegedly admitted having consumed two beers before the Union Street wreck, but denied being drunk, Officer H. Dennis Field reported...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_510122.html

More

Ex-Fayette lawmaker owes $600 in ethics case
By Rich Cholodofsky
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, May 22, 2007


Former state Rep. Larry Roberts was fined $600 by the State Ethics Commission for allowing legislative staff to arrange campaign events in 2001 and again in 2004.
Roberts, a Democrat, represented the 51st District in Fayette County for 14 years. He chose not to seek an eighth term last year.

Earlier this year, Roberts was found to be in violation of two sections of the ethics laws...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_508816.html

Fayette Democrats give nod to Zapotsky, Vicites
By The Tribune-Review
Wednesday, May 16, 2007


Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites were on their way to winning Democratic nominations for Fayette County commissioner, according to unofficial results Tuesday...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_507896.html

Upset likely in Fayette County controller's race
By The Tribune-Review
Wednesday, May 16, 2007


Uniontown resident Sean P. Lally was working on an upset of Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts, according to unofficial Democratic primary results Tuesday night.
Two other Democratic row officers, Sheriff Gary D. Brownfield Sr. and Clerk of Courts Janice Snyder, coasted to victories.

No Republicans are running for a row office.

With 96 percent of precincts reporting, Lally led Roberts 52 percent to 48 percent.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_507915.html