What a waste!
08/09/2009
Updated 08/09/2009 08:31:35 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
Unanimously and without discussion, the Fayette County Commissioners officially wasted about a half million of your tax dollars on Wednesday.


Thats $500,000 for nothing.

Advertisement

The money was thrown down the drain by commissioners Vincent Zapotosky, Vincent A. Vicites and Angela M. Zimmerlink, who voted during a special meeting to suspend the 2008 base year property reassessment that would have gone into effect on Jan. 1.

The three-year project has already cost approximately $600,000, and while some of the money went to improvements beneficial even without the reassessment, there's no doubt that by junking the project, the commissioners are throwing away as much as $500,000 of taxpayers' money.

The simple truth is that the commissioners would rather blow your tax dollars while creating an unequal distribution of tax burden across the county than risk being challenged next election by a candidate opposed to the reassessment.

It turns out Zimmerlink, the supposed fiscal conservative, is only a good shepherd of your dollars when it isn't politically dangerous. Her reasoning for scuttling the reassessment is to wait for the state legislature to conduct a study on the issue. It's painfully obvious that she is only using the study as a shield, as the legislature could mandate reassessment at any point if they wanted to. The problem is, like our illustrious commissioners, they don't want to take the political heat for it, so they've put it off in order to "study" the issue. The possibility of anything positive coming from the study is remote at best.

We have no doubt Zimmerlink knows the legislative study is a farce and we're even more bemused that the woman who is normally the last person to support a study - which she routinely has called a waste of time and money - will hide behind one when it's politically expedient.

Zapotosky said he agreed with a recent state Supreme Court ruling, which said property tax reassessments should be mandated by the state legislature.

However, he conveniently overlooked the rest of the ruling which said the periodic reassessments should be conducted by counties so that residents are taxed uniformly and equally.

The Supreme Court ruling came about after several homeowners challenged the constitutionality of Allegheny County's assessment process. The court ordered Allegheny County to conduct a reassessment, ruling that not conducting assessments often enough is a violation of the uniformity clause in the state constitution. That clause requires equal taxation.

So by using 2001 as its base year, Fayette County is definitely setting itself up for a legal challenge down the road and will almost certainly be forced to conduct a reassessment at some point.

Zapotosky obviously thinks that being forced to do a reassessment will be far better than the commissioners just doing it on their own, no matter the money wasted now or how much will have to be spent in the future to conduct another reassessment.

Vicities, for his part, said the current reassessment was no good because the market is a "moving target" during the ongoing economic downward spiral. This is, frankly, a patently ridiculous reason to scuttle the project. The fact remains that the market is always a "moving target." Based on Vicities logic, a reassessment, which takes two years to complete, could never be conducted because it's impossible forecast with confidence that the next two years will be a perfectly stable market.

The bottom line remains that the county paid $600,000 for a reassessment and have little or nothing to show for it. On what other issue would we allow our elected officials to blatantly waste so much of our money?

Unfortunately, the reason county residents aren't furious at the commissioners is most of them are blinded by a knee-jerk fear of higher assessments. It's the reasoning that led the county to go from 1957 to 2001 without a reassessment.

By sticking with outdated 2001 values, we'll have a system where those who've actually seen their properties decrease in value these last few years will be subsidizing those who's homes have actually increased in value despite the current market downturn.

In the end, we agree that mistakes were made with the reassessment. But it was unrealistic to expect perfection. The process involved the evaluation of approximately 80,000 parcels and those were humans not machines doing the job so you had to figure there would be some errors.

Even allowing for an error rate of 10 percent, which in our book is still pretty good, that would have resulted in 8,000 mistakes.

Throw in a fluctuating real estate market and there could have been as many as 15,000 properties with incorrect values.

But that all could have been corrected by property owners going through the appeals process. In fact, that's why the process is there. It's specifically designed to correct mistakes.

The commissioners could have let the appeals process take its course and if there were still problems, scuttle the project well before the Nov. 15 deadline.

But instead the commissioners took the easy way out. And now, we'll never know whether or not the reassessment was fair or not.

But we do know that approximately $500,000 was wasted, thrown away for nothing in return. And we know that at least 20 percent or approximately 16,000 property owners, are paying more than they should legally in property taxes.

This decision has to rank as one of the worst in the long history of Fayette County.

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=28542476

Recount bounces Geary from AG race
By Angie Oravec, Herald-Standard
08/11/2009
Updated 08/12/2009 12:06:07 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
A recount of primary election votes apparently changed the outcome of the Albert Gallatin School Board race.


Laurie Lint, director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, confirmed Monday that challenger Ryan Geary Sr. lost the Republican nomination in the spring race for school board.

Advertisement


Lint said a recount of votes was finalized mid-June. Votes were unofficial until that time. New vote totals show that incumbent candidate Kenneth J. Plisko bested Geary by one vote.

Plisko gained the fourth and final spot on the Republican ticket by securing 254 votes, pushing Geary out of the race. Geary secured 253 votes, an additional 13 votes as compared to unofficial election results in June, but less than the other candidates.

Geary did not receive enough Democratic votes to secure a spot on that ticket, either, so he will not appear on the ballot in the November general election.

Geary said he was "shocked" when the Herald-Standard notified him of the news Monday. Geary said he had not heard from the election bureau on the recount. He said when he called the bureau around July 4 to check on election results, he was told he was on the ballot for November.

He said he was just about to gear up his campaign for the fall.

"If I lost, I lost. So be it," said Geary, but noted he wonders how his election to the board could hinge on one vote when he had a higher vote total than Plisko in May.

Lint said votes not able to be scanned at a polling place were scanned in as part of the recount. She said some absentee votes could be included in the recount of the Albert Gallatin School Board race as well as the newly scanned votes.

Geary speculated that the scanned votes, when scanned at the election bureau, could have been counted twice. He also would like an explanation as to why a voting machine at the Fayette County Area Vocational-Technical School needed replaced.

"What happened? Why wasn't it working?" he asked.

"I just think it's funny," Geary added. "Something is not right. I just don't like the (vague) description I got (from the election bureau on the reason why I lost the Republican nomination)."

Although Geary is out of the competition, voters still will see a contested race. They will be able to choose four among five candidates - all who are competing for four-year terms.

Plisko, along with incumbents Edward F. Andria, Bill Boni and Ed Sutton, will face off against two-time challenger Terry Ryan. Ryan lost the election to school board in the 2007.

Andria and Sutton finished in the top spots on the Republican ticket, with 358 and 318 votes, respectively. New vote totals showed Andria and Sutton received an additional 33 and 22 votes, respectively, since June. Ryan still finished third, securing 276 votes, 27 more votes as compared to June.

Democratic vote totals also changed, but did not alter the outcome of the race.

Plisko cross-filed and secured a spot on the Democratic ticket with 1,752 votes, 46 more than in June. He placed third on that ticket.

Andria, the top vote getter on both tickets, received 2,215 votes, 102 more than in June. Sutton, second-place finisher on both tickets, received 1,838 votes, 52 more than in June. Ryan secured 1,498 votes, 39 more than in June. Bill Boni, whose name appeared only on the Democratic ticket since he did not cross-file, received 1,704 votes, 65 more than in June, securing the fourth and final spot on the Democratic ticket.

Plisko could not be reached for comment on the new outcome of the race Monday.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20357619&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Man Indicates County Didn't Purge Voter Rolls more

Appeal dismissed in vote recount case
July 31, 2009 03:51 AM TEXT SIZE By: JENNIFER HARR
Herald Standard

Commonwealth Court dismissed an appeal filed by a Fairchance man who wanted Fayette County officials to recount votes in two elections he lost in the May primary.

Robert "Ted" Pritchard Sr., who lost in elections for magisterial district judge and constable, argued that the voter removal provisions of the Voter Registration Act allowed for such a request. Last month, Fayette County Judge Gerald R. Solomon indicated that the provisions of the act did not support his requests, and dismissed his suit, prompting Pritchard to appeal. Commonwealth Court agreed with Solomon's findings.

"(I)n making his argument, Pritchard does not recognize the difference between the relief he sought in the petition and the voter removal requirements," wrote Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Rochelle S. Friedman.

"In his petition, Pritchard did not seek an order mandating that Fayette County comply with the voter removal provisions of the Voter Registration Act. Rather, Pritchard sought an order to compel the board to perform a recount, to ascertain whether anyone voted fraudulently in the election, to ascertain whether anyone tampered with the voting machines, to ascertain whether the machine modules were correct and to ascertain who had access to the authorization code," she wrote.

Pritchard vowed to continue appealing the matter.

Advertisement "I will appeal it to the Supreme Court, and I will take it to the U.S. District Court. As soon as I get the opinion, I'll be filing a notice of appeal," he said.

Commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky said he is pleased with the ruling.

"The Commonwealth Court is a very respected judicial body, and I have all the confidence that (an appellate court) will stand by their ruling," he said.

Pritchard ran for magisterial district judge against incumbent Magisterial District Judge Randy Abraham and Senior Magisterial District Judge Brenda Cavalcante.

Abraham bested both on the Democrat ticket, and defeated Cavalcante on the Republican ticket as well, virtually assuring a victory in the fall. Pritchard did not cross-file, and only appeared on the Democrat ballot.

On the Democratic ticket, Pritchard, who has run for other offices over the years, received 63 votes. Abraham received 3,012 votes and Cavalcante received 970 votes.

The court also denied Pritchard's motion to stop the county from certifying the election results, but granted his motion to throw out the county's brief because it was not filed in time.

Pritchard, who unsuccessfully ran for county sheriff and dropped out of a race for Congress, has announced his plans to mount a bid for lieutenant governor.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2009/july/31/appeal-dismissed-in-vote-recount-case.html

Pa. county says nix candidate's 'no vote' appeal
July 29, 2009 08:56 AM The Associated Press

A southwestern Pennsylvania county wants the Commonwealth Court to nix the appeal of a failed district judge candidate who just can't believe he received so few votes.

Robert Pritchard Sr., of Fairchance, claims fraud is the only explanation for his exceedingly low vote total in the Fayette County general election. Pritchard got just 63 votes for district judge in November, and zero in two of 19 precincts. The winner, incumbent District Judge Randy Abraham got 2,900 votes and another challenger got 957.

Advertisement Pritchard contends people could have voted illegally because the county allegedly doesn't properly purge dead or unregistered voters from its rolls.

But county attorneys say it's difficult to imagine that problem _ even if it existed _ would have resulted in such a lopsided result.

___

Information from: Herald-Standard, www.heraldstandard.com

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2009/july/29/pa-county-says-nix-candidates-no-vote-appeal.html

Attorney seeks to have election appeal dismissed
July 29, 2009 03:52 AM TEXT SIZE By: JENNIFER HARR
Herald Standard

An attorney for Fayette County wants the Commonwealth Court to dismiss the appeal filed by a Fairchance man who claimed there was fraud in the primary because he lost in two races.

Assistant county solicitor Sheryl R. Heid indicated that Robert T. Pritchard Sr.'s petition "did not allege irregularity in the Fayette County primary election + other than the lack of votes for (him) in the election."

Pritchard ran for magisterial district judge and constable in Fairchance. In the district judge race, he received 63 votes - and no votes in two of the 19 precincts. He claimed that there was no way he could receive zero votes in two precincts, and indicated that he believes voter fraud was afoot.

Incumbent Magisterial District Judge Randy Abraham received 2,900 votes. Challenger Senior Magisterial District Judge Brenda Cavalcante received 957 votes.

"Both Randy Abraham and Brenda Cavalcante have previously served Fayette County as magisterial district judges for many years. Both received a substantially greater number of votes than (Pritchard). It is extremely difficult to imagine that additional purging of the voter registration records would materially affect the outcome of the magisterial district judge election regarding the appellant," Heid wrote.

Pritchard alleged that because the county did not purge its registration records, people could have "impersonated" dead or infirm voters or those who had moved away. He asked a Fayette County judge to order a recount.

Advertisement Judge Gerald R. Solomon denied Pritchard's petition, prompting the appeal.

Heid indicated in her response to Pritchard's appeal that the county "continues to work to meet the standards set forth in the state and federal Voter Registration Removal acts in regard to the updating of the voter registration lists."

The county's response indicated that Pritchard did not have his initial petition signed by at least three other qualified voters, nor did he allege fraud, error or willful violation of the election code.

Heid wrote that there has been no finding by the state election bureau or the state Attorney General's office that Fayette County is not in compliance with the act.

"On the contrary, Fayette County continues to move forward in this ongoing process of updating voter registration roles. With the mobility of voters, the registration roles are constantly being updated due to name changes, deaths and residency changes," she wrote.

Heid responded that Pritchard has said he "suspects" that the purging of the voter registration was neglected. That is not enough of a reason to order a recount, she indicated.
The county's brief was due on Monday, and Pritchard has claimed it was not filed on time and asked that it be stricken. County officials, however, have indicated that it was filed on Monday.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2009/july/29/attorney-seeks-to-have-election-appeal-dismissed.html

Pritchard attempting to take case to state court
By the Herald-Standard
08/04/2009
Updated 08/03/2009 10:15:40 PM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
Days after an appeal to have votes recounted in the magisterial district judge's race in the Fairchance area was thrown out, the man who made the request asked the state Supreme Court to hear the case.


The state Supreme Court does not have to hear the request from Robert "Ted" Pritchard Sr.

Pritchard lost a three-way race for district judge and a constable race in Fairchance, and has claimed that potential voter fraud could have caused the loss.

Pritchard ran for magisterial district judge against incumbent Magisterial District Judge Randy Abraham and Senior Magisterial District Judge Brenda Cavalcante.

Abraham bested both on the Democrat ticket, and defeated Cavalcante on the Republican ticket as well, virtually assuring a victory in the fall. Pritchard did not cross-file and only appeared on the Democrat ballot.

On the Democratic ticket, Pritchard, who has run for other offices over the years, received 63 votes. Abraham received 3,012 votes and Cavalcante received 970 votes.

Pritchard claimed that he could have won both the district judge and constable race, but indicated that the county did not purge the voter rolls, and people could have impersonated voters who were dead, infirm or had moved away.

A Fayette County judge threw out his request in June, and the Commonwealth Court denied his appeal of that order last week.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20354508&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6

Reassessment Halt Shows Built-In Unfairness

Reassessment decision will help property owners
By Amy Revak, Herald-Standard
07/31/2009
Updated 08/01/2009 12:06:08 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
While the Fayette County commissioners have announced plans to halt the countywide reassessment slated to go into effect next year because of fairness concerns, a sampling of some county property owners shows they will be much better off because of the decision.


Throughout the county, 60 percent of the properties had decreased in value or stayed the same. However, some properties increased 100 percent or more in assessed value. The total assessed value of the entire county increased 36 percent.

By not implementing the reassessment, the values of properties throughout the county will remain at the assessed value that was put in place in January 2003. The last reassessment used a base year of 2001. If the reassessment had been implemented, it would have used a base year of 2008.

A listing of 29 actual sales that occurred throughout the county in 2008 shows properties that were sold for significantly more than their previous assessed values in various municipalities throughout the county. Each of the properties went up in assessed value between 77 percent and 250 percent. However, since the reassessment isn't being implemented, they will revert back to the old assessed value.

The decision to stop the project means each of the property owners will now pay taxes on the old assessed values instead of the new projected assessed values.

The following is a list of the 29 properties, the municipality in which they are located, the purchase price and the two assessed values as well as the percentage increase in assessed value, had the reassessment been implemented.

? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $63,730 sold for $127,000 and had a new assessed value of $125,630, an increase of 97 percent.

? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $107,680 sold for $209,000 and had a new assessed value of $200,820, an increase of 86 percent.

? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $77,480 sold for $154,000 and had a new assessed value of $140,800, an increase of 82 percent.

? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $76,860 sold for $162,000 and had a new assessed value of $161,690, an increase of 110 percent.

? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $106,720 sold for $256,000 and had a new assessed value of $228,130, an increase of 114 percent.

? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $80,140 sold for $200,000 and had a new assessed value of $204,830, an increase of 156 percent.

? In Bullskin Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $54,890 sold for $117,000 and had a new assessed value of $107,850, an increase of 96 percent.

? In Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $20,760 sold for $48,000 and had a new assessed value of $44,150, an increase of 113 percent.

? In Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $35,650 sold for $69,500 and had a new assessed value of $62,760, an increase of 76 percent.

? In Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $30,420 sold for $69,900 and had a new assessed value of $64,940, an increase of 114 percent.

? In Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $48,670 sold for $97,000 and had a new assessed value of $90,220, an increase of 85 percent.

? In Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $30,090 sold for $76,000 and had a new assessed value of $65,410, an increase of 117 percent.

? In Menallen Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $4,920 sold for $27,000 and had a new assessed value of $17,100, and increase of 348 percent.

? In South Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $43,900 sold for $115,360 and had a new assessed value of $109,780, an increase of 250 percent.

? In South Connellsville, a parcel with an old assessed value of $40,050 sold for $78,500 and had a new assessed value of $75,890, an increase of 89 percent.

? In South Union Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $55,190 sold for $140,000 and had an old assessed value of $133,850, an increase of 143 percent.

? In South Union Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $184,200 sold for $350,000 and had a new assessed value of $341,960, an increase of 86 percent.

? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $38,230 sold for $73,800 and had a new assessed value of $72,270, an increase of 89 percent.

? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $53,610 sold for $117,500 and had a new assessed value of $105,200, an increase of 96 percent.

? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $41,990 sold for $78,000 and had a new assessed value of $74,520, an increase of 77 percent.

? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $77,560 sold for $189,000 and had a new assessed value of $161,590, an increase of 208 percent.

? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $38,210 sold for $75,000 and had a new assessed value of $71,800, an increase of 88 percent.

? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $44,450 sold for $111,300 and had a new assessed value of $92,460, an increase of 108 percent.

? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $298,450 sold for $649,000 and had a new assessed value of $601,090, an increase of 101 percent.

? In Uniontown, a parcel with an old assessed value of $38,000 sold for $72,500 and had a new assessed value of $71,540, an increase of 88 percent.

? In Wharton Township, a parcel with an old assed value of $105,100 sold for $265,000 and had a new assessed value of $263,260, an increase of 250 percent.

? In Wharton Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $151,800 sold for $319,000 and had a new assessed value of $292,510, an increase of 93 percent.

? In Wharton Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $125,000 sold for $230,000 and had a new assed value of $223,700, an increase of 79 percent.

? In Wharton Township, a parcel with an old assessed value of $151,300 sold for $271,000 and had a new assessed value of $267,370, an increase of 77 percent.

"Those were actual sales from the recorder of deeds office," Hercik said.

Hercik pointed out that the new assessed value on most of the properties was lower than the sale price.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Reader Comments
Added: Sunday August 02, 2009 at 09:30 AM EST
Property that went down this time = class action lawsuits
Problem is it's easy a counting fingers and toes to determine the reassessment value of a property that SOLD recently for whatever the buyer would pay. But to put a value on property that includes buildings and land is flawed from the getgo when comparing to 'selected' area property and sales. What's resulted from the halt? Those owners whose assessment went DOWN this time around have grounds to appeal the old assessments which were more. The county's recent mailing should be of use in an appeal of the 2001 base year for these owners as should whatever the assessment office used to make the new re-evaluation. Every one of 'us' should file an appeal and if the tax assessment office won't show the "comparables" and year or years of sales data they used an open records request should be made. Keep your eyes on the fact that among the 60 percent figure Hercik cited some values stayed the same, AND SOME VALUES WENT DOWN AND DOWN, AND DOWN. Now they'll revert back to 2001 figures, so obviously they've been overpriced for some amount of years. That's UNFAIR.
Property Tax Eliminator Supporter

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 06:31 PM EST
FYI
Yoda, why dont you get your facts right before you decide to bless us with your stupidity. The assessor didnt game the system he did what he was taught to do by his predecessors. He didn't just decide one day hey im going to do it this way because it looks good. He is the ONE who faught for the reassessment years ago so everyone was paying fairly. He doesn't personally make the rates they are figured out by professionals hired out by the county. Knowing someone in the courthouse does not mean favoritism.
pro-assessor, uniontown pa

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 04:55 PM EST
No courage
By taking this action, the county commissioners have succumbed to the pressure of a vocal minority, repeating the same mistake made by the commissioners back in 1985-86. They were afraid it would cost them a vote, so they unanimously agreed to put Fayette County back where it was before 2000.
The truth is that by shelving the reassessment, people with higher-valued properties will pay less than they should, and people with lower-valued ones will pay more. If it's not politics, what is it? Vicites is in his fourth term, Zimmerlink in her second and Zapotosky isn't a first-year rookie any more.
It's funny how none of them was raising any objections until AFTER the new numbers were mailed out. In Fayette County, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I'll take Ron Nehls and Sean Cavanagh -- and even Harry Albert -- over this crew any day.
Johnny Quest, Amend

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 01:06 PM EST
Fairness concerns? ?
The reassessment process has documented that 40 f county properties are under assessed. This means the owners of these properties pay less in taxes, proportionately, than the other 60f property owners. This is unfair. Do the math. Some people are paying taxes on a $43,900 house that is worth $115,360. Other people are paying taxes on a $43,900 house that is only worth $33,000. Doing nothing about this is unfair and will only postpone the inevitable. I foresee lawsuits being filed and this 'fairness' decision being overturned before Thanksgiving.
JS, Point Marion, PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 10:58 AM EST
Appeals
Any taxing body can file an appeal against a property owner whose assessment is too low. So why isn't that done?

If Mr. Hercik is so iinterested in making things right, why doesn't he provide that informatoi to the school boards and municipaities so they can file an appeal and have those properties properly assessed?

You nevr hear about taxing bodies filing indiviual appeals though do you?
LR, Uniontown

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 10:53 AM EST
Cherry Picking
So 29 properties out of 78,00 were the basis for the auditor to say Hercik's figures were "incrdibly accurate".

It seems to me that these properties were cherry picked to justify the ridiculous results of the reassessment..
LR, Unontown, PA
Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 09:55 AM EST
$750,000 WASTE
So the $750,000 cost of this reassessment is down the toilet? Wasted?

The bureaucrats couldn't have foreseen these problems?

And you want BIG GOVERNMENT to run our healthcare system?
FB, Chalk Hill

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 07:15 AM EST
Assessments
It was very interesting seeing how much home values had sold for when compared to the old assessment values. Wouldn't it make more senses to reassess properties that have been sold to match their values for what they sold for? If the new property owner(s) are willing to pay that much of an increase in value then they should obtain the value of that sale as their new assessment.
Cathy Jeffries, Uniontown, PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Added: Friday July 31, 2009 at 06:55 AM EST
Games as always
Sure, twenty seven out of fifty thousand that is the basis for his defense. The assessor gamed the system before for how many years. Now he hand picks the 27 that get reviewed and appraises them at close to what they sold for and they were also the ones with the greatest gains. Just some more courthouse slight of hand, as always. Plus the smoke that the increases are limited and will not necessarily go up. He does not say that those whos assessments went up will pay a bigger share of the tax burden. Of course in the assessment process it is always good to have a friend at the Court House. But no matter what I certainly hope those that are dissatisfied turned in the appeal papers on time.
Yoda, Fayette County
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353083&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

The following article from the Herald Standard is posted for discussion purposes only

Chief assessor promises fairness on appeals
By Amy Revak, Herald-Standard
07/29/2009
Updated 07/30/2009 12:06:06 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
With Fayette County property owners facing a Friday deadline to file appeals, the county's chief assessor says his office will make every attempt to treat property owners fairly.


Concerns about the accuracy of the assessed values arose last week when the Fayette County commissioners spoke out about the issue. Chief assessor James A. Hercik said the assessment office has a plan of action to address the concerns of the commissioners and general public that should ensure the procedure has been fair. The new values are slated to go into effect on Jan. 1, provided the project isn't shelved.

Hercik said assessment appeals are being tracked to determine if a large percentage of appeals are filed in any one neighborhood or geographic area and as the appeal hearings begin, the assessment office will follow the decisions of the boards and apply those results to other property that may not have filed appeals.

"If the board finds a problem in an area and they address it for the properties under appeal in that area, we will then go a step further and make those necessary corrections on other similar properties in the same area," Hercik said. "We want property owners treated fairly. If we establish a trend from the appeal hearings we would be foolish not to address it.

"A lot of people are concerned that if they see a 75 percent increase in their assessed value, they will see a 75 percent increase in property taxes and that is simply not the case," Hercik said.

Hercik said everyone should focus on the value given to their property and not how much their taxes would be. He said they should ask themselves if they could sell their house for the amount of the assessed value.

In a reassessment year, the taxing bodies must reduce their millage rates. The county and municipalities can only take in 5 percent more in property tax revenues next year while the cutoff for school districts is 10 percent.

The assessment office is projecting the 2010 county millage rate to drop from 3.51 to about 2.7 mills, and a postcard sent out this week to all property owners will show that amount.

Hercik said as of Tuesday, there had been 3,800 appeals filed, but he added that appeals from the last few days had not yet been counted.

There were about 13,000 appeals in the last reassessment.

This time around, Hercik said he is anticipating between 5,000 and 6,000 appeals.

The county last implemented a reassessment in 2003. The current project updates the base year of the county from 2001 to 2008. Hercik said Cole Layer Trumble Co. of Ohio conducted the last property valuation and new cost tables and sales models were developed by Cole Layer Trumble to aid in the effort.

Hercik said the software program from Cole Layer Trumble has been found to be very good, although there was some criticism of the 2003 Cole Layer Trumble number.

Hercik said they have the ability now to look at six years of actual sales compared to those 2003 values to see where they were wrong and those are the area in which the county assessors made adjustments.

Hercik said throughout the three-year project the county has an independent review done by Resource Technologies Corp. of State College, which assisted in placing all of the data into the geographic information system to assist in establish the individual neighborhoods and to analyze Cole Layer Trumble data.

Hercik said the Cole Layer Trumble statistical summary showed that the ratio from sale price to value was 96.17 percent, with a mean of 98.57 percent, the coefficient of dispersion is 11.17 and the price related differential was 1.02.

"These statistics are very good and they meet the standards for any reassessment program according to standards set by the International Association of Assessing Officials," Hercik said.

Hercik said there are 83,000 parcels of land in the county, 78,000 of which are taxable.

The total assessed value of the county increased 36 percent, going from $4.387 billion last year to $5.967 billion this year.

Hercik said people have asked why a reassessment should be done at all.

"The purpose is to stay current with market values and trends, so that the share of taxes to support government is equally balanced. Nothing stays the same and real estate is no different," Hercik said.

Hercik said both markets and neighborhoods change over time.

"If you do not stay current, you have similar properties paying dissimilar amounts to support local government," Hercik said.

"The reassessment is simply a redistribution of the taxes between various property as well as various municipalities. If a reassessment is not done, then the disparity continues to grow," Hercik said. "If we did not continually update the program periodically, a massive multimillion-dollar effort would be required in future years. By doing this every five to seven years, we minimize the cost."

Hercik pointed out that 60 percent of the county's property owners taxes will stay the same or be reduced for next year under the current assessed values.

However, he urged anyone who thinks the assessed value of their home is too high to appeal. The only information that is required is the parcel number and a signature.

"Anybody sitting on the fence we are strongly suggesting to file an appeal," Hercik said.

To file an appeal, property owners can drop it off at either the courthouse office or the auxiliary office at 253 S. Mount Vernon Ave. or mail it. It will be accepted as long as it has a postmark of July 31. Appeal forms are located on the Web site at www.fayetteproperty.org

or can be picked up at the assessment office.

Anyone wishing to file an appeal of their assessed value has until Friday. This week the assessment office sent out postcards to each property owner with a projection of the 2010 county tax compared to their 2009 county tax. Hercik said he is anticipating a projection of what the county's school district millage rates would be soon.

Also included in the postcard are instructions for property owners to determine recent sales in their municipality.

To do that, go to the Web site www.fayetteproperty.org

, click on "sales criteria," choose the municipality you wish to search and click "add," then choose the sale date function, enter 01/01/07 to 01/01/09 and click "add." Then click on "search" to obtain all the sales in the selected municipality in the last two years.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20351787&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Report on assessed values released
By the Herald-Standard
07/29/2009
Updated 07/30/2009 12:06:06 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
Fayette County's Chief Assessor James A. Hercik released figures Tuesday showing that the total increase of assessed values was 36 percent throughout the county.


According to the figures, residents whose property assessment went up more than 36 percent should expect to pay more in county property taxes next year. Those whose property assessment went below 36 percent should expect to pay less.

It's the same formula for individual municipalities. In the accompanying chart, local residents can see the percentage increase for the various municipalities. If a resident's increase is above the average for the municipality, then they will probably pay higher municipal property taxes. If it's lower, then they will probably have a decrease in their municipal property taxes.

For most municipalities, the increase in assessments was between 30 and 50 percent. Six municipalities had percentages higher than 50 percent while 13 had increases lower than 30 percent.

The highest percentage increase was in Ohiopyle, which saw its assessed value go up 1.94 percent. Wharton Township was next with an increase of 1.88 percent followed by Markleysburg, 1.76 percent; Franklin Township, 1.53 percent, Washington Township, 1.51 percent and German Township, 1.50 percent.

Hercik noted that the Wharton Township increase was due to developments at Nemacolin Woodlands Resort & Spa.

"The Wharton Township increase includes several Nemacolin Woodlands projects that had previously been under the LERTA (Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance Act) program," Hercik said. The LERTA program allows tax-exempt status for qualifying properties for a limited time frame.

Newell Borough had the lowest increase, going up only .92 percent. Brownsville was next at 1.04 percent, followed by Everson, 1.09 percent, Fayette City, 1.12 percent, Masontown, 1.16 percent; Dawson, 1.18 percent, and the part of Uniontown in the Laurel Highlands School District, 1.17 percent.

Smithfield, Point Marion and the portion of Uniontown in the Uniontown Area School District all had increases of 1.23 percent while South Union Township had a 1.25 increase. Brownsville Township, Springfield Township, and the part of Menallen Township in the Uniontown Area School District had increases of 1.26, 1.27 and 1.28 percent respectively.

Overall, South Union Township had by far the highest total assessed value for 2010 at $758,448,990. Next was North Union Township at $544,041,210.

Hercik said he hopes to have the assessed values for school districts by the end of the week.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20351790&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Reassessment scuttled
By Amy Revak, Herald-Standard
07/31/2009
Updated 08/02/2009 12:06:06 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
In a rare show of solidarity, the Fayette County commissioners Thursday unanimously announced a decision to halt implementation of the county's reassessment project, which had been slated to take effect on Jan. 1.


During an impromptu morning press conference, each of the three commissioners said they were in favor of stopping the project.
Commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky said his decision was based on a general disappointment with the overall values and concern of adverse impact to county property owners. He added that the reassessment was coming at a time when government should be more conscious of people's financial hardships.

Also citing the fact that the state still doesn't have a budget and not knowing the potential burden that will be placed on school districts, Zapotosky said he couldn't support the reassessment project.

"I feel at this time we should stop the reassessment," Zapotosky said.

Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites said his decision was based on fairness.

"I have to be fair to all residents," Vicites said.

He added that because the new assessment would be using a base year of 2008, and since that time there has been a downturn in the market, now is not the time to implement the project.

Vicites pointed out that he said from the beginning that he wouldn't support the project if something in it were flawed. He said the fact that the market has taken a downturn that wouldn't be reflected in the new property values is such a flaw.

"The economy is not good and the housing market is down," Vicites said.

He added that because there are jumps in assessed values ranging from 50 percent to 150 percent, he doesn't feel that is fair.

"When it was done in the past, it was in stable markets. I feel now it would not be fair to implement this reassessment. I will support stopping the reassessment as of today," Vicites said.

Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink, who last week announced she wasn't supportive of continuing with the project, said she is glad now that she has received support from her colleagues for her decision to halt the reassessment.

Zimmerlink said the state Legislature has enacted a study about how reassessments are conducted across the state, and that study will be completed in June 2010, which could lead to changes.

The three-year, $750,000 reassessment project would have taken the county from a base year of 2001 to a base year of 2008. The overall assessed value of the county increased 36 percent going from $4.387 billion to $5.967 billion. Overall, 60 percent of property owners would have seen either a reduction in their assessed values or no change.

With the announcement, the project is halted and property owners will have the same assessed value on their properties as they did last year.

Although the commissioners voiced their opposition to continuing with the project, they did not take official action and plan to do that at a special meeting slated for 9 a.m. Wednesday in the public safety building.

Zimmerlink pointed out that she wasn't in favor of sending out a postcard to all property owners at a cost of $37,000 last week that listed the prior assessed value, the new assessed value, this year's county property taxes and the proposed property taxes for next year. Vicites and Zapotosky supported the mailing.

The $37,000 cost of sending out the postcards was paid using money left over from a bond issue from the last reassessment that could only be used for reassessment costs.

Zapotosky pointed out that his decision to stop the project is in no way a reflection on the efforts undertaken by chief assessor James A. Hercik. Zapotosky said he originally wanted to wait until after the appeal deadline, which is today, to make a decision, but he decided to take action sooner based on a statement by Hercik that appeals could reach 10,000.

Hercik said there were 7,500 appeals as of Wednesday. There are about 78,000 taxable parcels in the county.

The county last underwent a reassessment that took effect in January 2003 that used a base year of 2001.

The announcement was made a day before the deadline to file appeals on the new values.

Although the commissioners have announced that they will not implement the reassessment, anyone wishing to file an appeal by today's deadline that has not done so is asked to proceed.

Hercik said the assessment office in the courthouse and project office at 253 S. Mount Vernon Ave. in Uniontown are continuing to accept appeal forms.

Hercik said after the morning announcement by the commissioners to halt the project, employees did tell people not to file appeals for a short time. However, after concerns arose about potential lawsuits, a decision was made to accept appeals through today's deadline. Any appeals that are being sent by mail must be postmarked by today.

"I have instructed all staff to continue to accept forms with the explanation that until the formal vote is to be taken next week, the process isn't officially halted."

Zimmerlink said county solicitor Joseph E. Ferens Jr. sent correspondence to the commissioners stating that anyone who was opposed to the proposed property value should still file an appeal by today's deadline.

Hercik said initially that he was disappointed in the decision, but he added that all the work that has been done would not go to waste because new global-information system maps are being used. He said he would not proceed with the project based on the decisions. The first appeal hearings were slated to begin Aug. 11.

Hercik said his next step is to send out a mailer to all property owners informing them that the 2001 base year property value will still be used next year instead of the value they were sent on July 1.

By law, property owners can file an appeal to their assessed value each year by Sept. 1. Anyone wishing to file an appeal on that value but resubmit their appeal after receiving the notice.
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353637&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6

Added: Saturday August 01, 2009 at 05:31 AM EST
More Questions
As is typical of H-S articles, this one does not offer full explanations, and raises more questions than it answers.

Questions for Vince Z:
1) What does your "general disappointment with the overall values and concern of adverse impact to county property owners" mean? The 60 percent of property owners whose taxes will fall or stay the same sure won't be impacted adversely.
2) You state "the reassessment was coming at a time when government should be more conscious of people's financial hardships." What does this have to do with a reassessment that is supposed to be impartial? You're a liberal Democrat. Government is NEVER conscious of people's financial hardships, especially the ones who actually pay taxes.
3) What does the fact that "the state still doesn't have a budget and not knowing the potential burden that will be placed on school districts" have to do with the reassessment project? Article after article in this newspaper have stated the reassessment is to be revenue neutral for taxing bodies like the school districts. This is just feel good liberal garbage.

Questions for Vince V:
1) You state "I have to be fair to all residents." Since when have you been "fair" to the residents who actually pay taxes? Seems to me you're only "fair" to residents who consume what other people pay for. Which of course is the bedrock of liberalism.
2) How has the "downturn in the [housing] market" affected property values in Fayette County? This isn't Miami or Las Vegas, you know. Prices never skyrocketed here, and they never plunged, either.

As usual, Zimmerlink is the only commissioner with any sense at all. She was the first one to oppose the reassessment. It took the Vinces a while to come around (i.e. to respond to taxpayer pressure).

Question to all Commissioners:

Ever heard of email? Why should it cost $37,000 to send out 80,000 postcards? Why don't you give property owners the option of receiving such official notices via email? You could cut mailing costs drastically. The postal service must LOVE you guys.
FB, Chalk Hill

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353637&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6

Fayette man loses second try at claiming that impersonators voted for dead
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, July 31, 2009

A failed candidate for two Fayette County offices has lost his second try at persuading a judge that impersonators voted in place of dead people in the May primary.

A Commonwealth Court judge Wednesday upheld a lower court's dismissal of a civil suit in which Robert "Ted" Pritchard claimed that it was "beyond outrageous" that he received no votes in at least one precinct in Smithfield.

Pritchard, of Fairchance, ran for constable and district judge in the spring primary but lost both races. In a self-filed motion at the county level, he claimed the county Election Bureau's recent purge of inactive voters — including ones who have died — did not occur. The failed purge, he alleged, allowed "impersonators" to use those identities to cast votes.

In addition to a recount, Pritchard wanted a county judge to order election officials to look into his allegations and to determine whether voting machines were tampered with before the election.

Pritchard appealed in Commonwealth Court after Fayette County Judge Gerald R. Solomon denied the petition.

In a ruling handed down Wednesday, Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Rochelle S. Friedman upheld Solomon's decision and denied Pritchard's request to stay the election.


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_636109.html

Appeal dismissed in vote recount case
By Jennifer Harr, Herald-Standard
07/30/2009
Updated 07/30/2009 06:15:34 PM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
Commonwealth Court dismissed an appeal filed by a Fairchance man who wanted Fayette County officials to recount votes in two elections he lost in the May primary.


Robert "Ted" Pritchard Sr., who lost in elections for magisterial district judge and constable, argued that the voter removal provisions of the Voter Registration Act allowed for such a request. Last month, Fayette County Judge Gerald R. Solomon indicated that the provisions of the act did not support his requests, and dismissed his suit, prompting Pritchard to appeal.


Commonwealth Court agreed with Solomon's findings.

"(I)n making his argument, Pritchard does not recognize the difference between the relief he sought in the petition and the voter removal requirements," wrote Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Rochelle S. Friedman.

"In his petition, Pritchard did not seek an order mandating that Fayette County comply with the voter removal provisions of the Voter Registration Act. Rather, Pritchard sought an order to compel the board to perform a recount, to ascertain whether anyone voted fraudulently in the election, to ascertain whether anyone tampered with the voting machines, to ascertain whether the machine modules were correct and to ascertain who had access to the authorization code," she wrote.

Pritchard vowed to continue appealing the matter.

"I will appeal it to the Supreme Court, and I will take it to the U.S. District Court. As soon as I get the opinion, I'll be filing a notice of appeal," he said.

Commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky said he is pleased with the ruling.

"The Commonwealth Court is a very respected judicial body, and I have all the confidence that (an appellate court) will stand by their ruling," he said.

Pritchard ran for magisterial district judge against incumbent Magisterial District Judge Randy Abraham and Senior Magisterial District Judge Brenda Cavalcante.

Abraham bested both on the Democrat ticket, and defeated Cavalcante on the Republican ticket as well, virtually assuring a victory in the fall.

Pritchard did not cross-file, and only appeared on the Democrat ballot.

On the Democratic ticket, Pritchard, who has run for other offices over the years, received 63 votes. Abraham received 3,012 votes and Cavalcante received 970 votes.

The court also denied Pritchard's motion to stop the county from certifying the election results, but granted his motion to throw out the county's brief because it was not filed in time.

Pritchard, who unsuccessfully ran for county sheriff and dropped out of a race for Congress, has announced his plans to mount a bid for lieutenant governor.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20353082&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6

Strategy Effort to Change Country Through Minds of Children

Tucker Carlson on Fox 'n Friends... discussing children's textbooks... MacMillan Publishing published Reflecting Diversity... recommends words to eliminate or substitute words...

Carlson will host a documentary upcoming on the subject uh pro-ject...

Carlson - CATO Fellow - Fox video

http://www.cato.org/people/tucker-carlson

Disagrees with Fox Nation, etc.

http://www.newshounds.us/christian_crusade/

Paul Curtman Federal Legislators Limited by Constitution Enumerated Powers

Update: Curtman will be interviewed again on Fox 'n Friends before 9 am EST. Don't miss.

Net the Truth Online report

Interviewed on Fox 'n Friends, oh too briefly, Paul Curtman (the former Marine who spoke at Claire McCaskill's town hall meeting ) said the U.S. Constitution provides only 17 specific duties of the federal government and nowhere in it is mentioned "to take over healthcare..." (the public option demanded by such as former Governor Howard Dean).

After a question concerning the bulk of the legislation hasn't even been read by Congress, Curtman further suggested instead of reading those 1,000 pages legislators should be required to read the Constitution aloud on air publicly, maybe on the program, for all to watch. The oath of office as well, he said, should be taken publicly...

Curtman also highlighted the position the Constitution rests on the idea rights are God-given. ...if the government through the legislators can give rights then government can take away rights... he said.

What Curtman said speaking at McCaskill's town hall meeting:

...we have something in common we both at one time took an oath to the Constitution... her oath took her to Washington mine took me overseas with a rifle... in my Constitution that I took an oath to I know that all powers of leg branch of government are confined in Article 1 Section 8 and less than 20 enumerated powers, nowhere in there is healthcare mentioned which is health control... has no business other than to fight against it... mentioned this before to other politicians they take the Constitution and turn it into some kind of huge elastic document that they wrap around everything... if you read the Constitution... the general welfare clause... Founding Fathers ... Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, who father the Constituion, and Benjamin Franklin... every one of them said the general welfare clause only is to be used within the confines of enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8... not looking for an explanation from Sen. McCaskill, but an apology... this nightmare...

(NTTO unofficial transcript from videos)

clapping drowns out ending words

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/28/soldier_wants_sen_mccaskill_to_apologize_for_obamacare_at_townhall.html

Introductory words by aide - video

http://anotherblackconservative.blogspot.com/2009/07/tea-time-for-claire-mccaskills-town.html

video and commentary on Americans for Prosperity

http://www.yourpoliticsusa.com/2009/07/28/corporate-lobbying-org-disrupts-mccaskill-town-hall/

Video Footage Of Claire McCaskill Healthcare Townhall

http://www.24thstate.com/2009/07/video-footage-of-claire-mccaskill-healthcare-townhall.html

Campaign for Liberty (much more video of event and questions)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=22601

Notice of town hall meeting

http://www.meetup.com/We-the-People-St-Louis-County/calendar/10963718/

Video links to McCaskill town hall meeting

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/072809-scenes-sen-mccaskill-town-hall-meeting-72709

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/sen-mccaskills-office-holds-town-hall.html

http://www.wikio.com/video/1463006

Officer With Crowley Black Not Hispanic Health Care Bill Non-Existent

Interview on Lou Dobbs Tonight

This controversy is the subject of our "Face-Off debate." Now joining me, radio talk show host, Joe Madison, WOL in Washington of SIRIUS/XM Radio. Radio talk show host Andrew Wilkow, also SIRIUS/XM.

Gentlemen, great to have you with us.

Andrew, let me start with you. It sounds like the president, who, I don't think anyone would argue, misspoke. Let's keep it as gentle as we can, misspoke. But, it sounds like he's trying to reconcile a mess to which he acknowledges today that he contributed to. That's a positive, isn't it?

ANDREW WILKOW, SIRIUS/XM RADIO: I'm kind of shocked that a guy with such great oratory skills, being a congressional law professors would claim guilty until proven innocent. I mean, "I don' t have all the facts, but the police acted stupidly?" Come on. There's not enough minutia for the president to deal with that he had to step into this one?

DOBBS: Joe Madison, your thoughts? We're sitting here -- the president, today, acknowledging -- he said it sort of interestingly. He continues to believe that Professor Gates did not effectively behave well. I didn't hear him say that the first time. Did you?

JOE MADISON, WOL IN WASHINGTON, D.C.: No, he didn't say it the first time. He clarified it, I think, in Cleveland. But, I think your notes will show when I talked to your produce earlier today, even before the president went into the press room, that this is a learning moment.

The president clearly blew it. Gates probably overreacted. I may have done the same if I had a cold and had gotten off a long flight from China. I think, for example, when I looked at the law in Massachusetts, the police really would not have had a case if he -- if they had not dropped the case on disorderly conduct, because according to a '76 decision, no matter how verbally abusive a person might be, you cannot find them guilty of disorderly conduct.

So, all the way around, three people made mistakes. And the one thing I do applaud the president, is that he now has come forth and says, let's defuse it. So the question is, where do we go as a people, as a country from here. And don't let this one incident -- and I'll conclude with this, absolve the problem of racial profiling, nationwide.

DOBBS: Yeah, you know, Joe's just gone to an issue that is difficult here, because on its face, Andrew, is this racial profiling and what debt do we owe the president of the United States for there being a very close national media examination of the events that happened in Cambridge, Massachusetts?

WILKOW: You know -- we hear the Democrats saying that the stimulus money is going to keep cops on the streets during Election Day. They talked about cops this and cops that. And his immediate reaction is to throw the cops under the bus. To me, this sounds like a way of, you know, boosting the stock of "Race Baiting Incorporated."

I mean, we elected the first Black president. The NAACP is passing climate change resolutions. And you know, it seems like we're -- for some people, they're never going to get -- as long as there is money and attention and votes invested in race baiting, the race baiting is going to continue. This seems to be the natural instinct of a community organizer that, well, it's got to be the cops, got to be the cops, they acted stupidly. I don't know what really happened, but I know the cops are the bad guys, here.

MADISON: Well, I am one who has been profiled probably more times than you have, Andrew, and so has my son. And the point I'm making is that we're not baiting anybody. What we're asking is that we stop the profiling... WILKOW: Well, wait a second. Come on, you're shouting...

MADISON: And I'm not -- excuse me, I didn't interrupt you.

WILKOW: OK, yes, sir.

MADISON: And with all due respect, and I'm not suggesting that this was profiling. What I am suggesting is that two grown men probably got overanxious and excited at each other and neither could find the way to step back. And I think that's really what happened here, and I applaud the president for trying to defuse it. And that's what we've got to do...

WILKOW: But, why did he get involved in the first place? Why was the president of the United States even involved in the first place?

MADISON: Well, because he was -- look, because he was asked a direct question. And I agree, and the president obviously went back the next day in the Oval Office and said, uh-oh, I didn't use the right words. But, you know, if he had been asked a question about Afghanistan or a question about something else and if he didn't answer it directly, we would have criticized him for avoiding it. So, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

WILKOW: No, no, Afghanistan is not a question of innocent until proven guilty. He could have clearly said, you know, that's for the mayor of Cambridge to deal with or the police chief of Cambridge to deal with. There was no reason for him to step into this. This has nothing to do with the president of the United States. For him to forwardly admit that he doesn't know and then lay guilt at the feet of a police officer, to me, seems ridiculous for a constitutional law professor.

MADISON: Well, look Andrew, if that's the case, then neither the sergeant nor Professor Gates ought to accept an invitation to the White House.

WILKOW: Well, I mean...

MADISON: So, I mean, come one man.

DOBBS: I don't understand how that follow, Joe.

MADISON: Well, what I'm trying to say, if Andrew is saying, he shouldn't get in it, then maybe the president should come back on and say, you know, I saw Andrew on Lou Dobbs' show, and he's right, I should ought to stay out of it. I'm sorry, I even invited them to the White House. What he's trying to do is defuse a debate -- and quite honestly, we know in part for political purposes so we can start talking about health care.

DOBBS: By the way, and I'm not sure he wants us talking about health care, either, but maybe something else.

(LAUGHTER) WILKOW: I'll talk about health care.

DOBBS: Let's stick with this, if we may, because he talked about a teachable experience, which to me, frankly, sounds like an arrogant piece of condescension to all parties involved, on the part of the White House. I understand they got to spin this out. But, the teachable moment is here for a president who, you know, Andrew put it eloquently, he through the police under the bus.

It was a teachable moment for Professor Gates, who was arrogant, and frankly, aggressive with a police officer, and for Sergeant Crowley, who, teaching as he does, racial profiling with a tremendous record and as you articulated it, Joe, couldn't p find a way out of this mess. So, those are the teachable moments. For the nation, it should be -- I'm sorry, go ahead.

MADISON: No, the only reason I'm interrupting...

DOBBS: And by the way, you're interrupting me as you shamed Andrew for doing.

MADISON: I know, I know, I know.

DOBBS: Say you're sorry, Joe.

MADISON: Go ahead.

DOBBS: No, you go ahead.

MADISON: No, I was going to say, we don't know, because when I interviewed Professor Gates -- and I'll take him for his word, like you are taking the police officer for his word -- Professor Gates told my audience that Sergeant Crowley was arrogant and that's what started it.

DOBBS: Oh yeah, by the way, however you want to characterize Sergeant Crowley, what I didn't take one person's word over the other. But, what I did listen to was telling us, here on CNN, that sergeant Crowley was a rogue officer, which on its face is not borne out by the eyewitnesses there, including a Black sergeant, who was there at the house, nor a Hispanic officer, who was there at the house, at the same time.

But I want to say this, Andrew, I'm delighted to spend some time with you.

WILKOW: I had fun.

DOBBS: Joe, I am delighted to spend more time with you, even if you interrupt me.

MADISON: Well, thank you. We share in that responsibility.

(LAUGHTER)

DOBBS: Don't interrupt me, don't interrupt me. Joe Madison, Andrew Wilkow, thank you both for being with here.

Up next, we'll have more one the Gates arrest controversy. Also, an open and bitter battle between the White House and Congress over health care. Is it failing health care? We'll be talking about that with three of the country's best political thinkers.

And a U.S. Border Patrol agent has shot and killed, murdered on patrol, protecting the people and the border of the United States.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Joining me now, three of my favorite political analyst, columnist, "New York Daily News," CNN contributor, Errol Louis; editor-at-large, CNN political analyst, "Time" magazine, Mark Halperin; former special assistant to former President George Bush, and former Vice President Dick Cheney, Ron Christie.

Thank you all for being here. Let me start, if I may, with you, Ron. The president seems to be bringing a teachable moment out of what was a controversy, up until about an hour ago -- or is it, in fact, a controversy that will continue beyond the teachable moment, so called?

RON CHRISTIE, CHRISTIE STRATEGIES: Well, I think this is going to be a story that's going to live on for a little while. I think in the short term, it's going to die down, but for the first time, people have looked at President Obama and the Teflon seems to be a little bit removed from him. And I think the president, I think, was very arrogant in the way that he said that the police department acted stupidly. The first thing you learn in law school is that you should never assume fact's not in evidence. The president made an assumption, he shouldn't have done it. He's the president of the United States...

DOBBS: He knew better than that, right? He said he didn't know the facts, but here's the judgment.

CHRISTIE: It's going to be something. And the last thing I would say is that for a president who campaigned to be post-racial and he wanted to move beyond race, he said he was too busy to wade into Tehran, when the Iranian students were protesting, but he immediately jumped in and said, oh, I have an opinion, here. I think it's going to follow him.

DOBBS: Errol?

ERROL LOUIS, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: A mistake, I think, no doubt as he, himself, acknowledged. I would have loved to have been there he walked into the briefing room to sort of dial himself back...

DOBBS: I would have wanted to be in the room before...

LOUIS: Yeah. Well, apparently he realized he had made a serious mistake and the distraction of it, really, was crippling almost, in a way. I mean, because we're not talking about the previous hour that preceded that had remark where he was laying out his hopes and his agenda and his rationale for health care reform, which is very much in danger and he needed and wants the nation's focus on...

DOBBS: And how was this day any different from any previous day, and in that respect?

LOUIS: Well, you know, I mean, if he can get himself back on track, he'll have a chance at his health care reform, but right now, a very unwelcome distraction. He cannot be the explainer-in-chief on race. I mean, that has been clear all along and he really put us right in the middle of it.

DOBBS: He confirmed it this week.

LOUIS: Indeed.

DOBBS: Mark?

MARK HALPERIN, TIME MAGAZINE: I think the teachable moment and the person who's going to learn the first lesson, if he's lucky, is the president, because he cannot do all the things that Ron said, in particular. He cannot go out in front of reporters and wade in on an issue when he admits he doesn't know the facts, whether it involves race or not. This is a huge distraction for them. It will continue into next week. This president does not like what I call the freak show. He does not like the talk radio, 24-hour cable dynamic.

DOBBS: Tell me about it.

HALPERIN: He likes to say he can rise above it and he often does. This was a case, sometime between this morning, when Robert Gibbs said "we're done talking about this," and the afternoon when the president come out and talked about it, when the president had to realize, you can't always transcend it, sometimes you have to give. And that's what he did. I think it probably dies, unless there are new facts, by early next week.

DOBBS: Dying along with it, Ron Christie, his health care initiative, which, by the way, the national media, much of it liberal, styles his reform, which last I looked, was a positive and supportive description, rather than an objective and neutral word.

CHRISTIE: Sure, well, I think the president's health care initiative is on major life support, right now. The president has gone out and campaigned to the American people and said, we're going to have a bill that is not going to raise the deficit by one penny. The Congressional Budget Office has proven that's not true.

The president said he was very much for reforming the system, but the bill making its way through Congress, right now, has very little in the way of systematic and structural reform, doesn't reduce the cost of the health care delivery system and again, it doesn't ensure all American, which he said was his goal. So, I think he's in deep trouble on this one.

LOUIS: Well see, I mean, one thing about the current situation is you have a detailed critique of a nonexistent bill and so the president, it has...

DOBBS: Why in the world are they trying to pass a nonexistent bill?

LOUIS: Well, he's trying to get a bill so that they can get something done. I mean, look, the real dynamic here, I think, is he wants something passed before the end of the year, but really what that means is not so much the calendar year, but the midterm election season, when it heats up in earnest, will be very difficult to get anybody to take any chances.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: ...pushing this into the middle of next year?

LOUIS: Well no, I mean, listen, I've been saying, I don't know other people, I've been saying all along, what he doesn't get in the way of major reform on climate, on health care, what he doesn't get before the 2010 elections really heat up, he very possibly won't get it all, because 2011 signals the re-election season.

HALPERIN: There's two parts to his challenge: the inside game, Congress, and particularly within his own party, and the outside game of public opinion.

In the press conference, he did not make progress, as best I could tell, with either of those two audit dens. He is -- got to get, I think, past the point by saying, I'm -- sort of like that provision, I sort of don't like this provision or that provision. He's got to, I think, if he has a chance, he's going to have to get people in a room and say this is now what I'm for, can we pass this?

DOBBS: For the first time, two polls today, that is, Zogby's interactive poll and Rasmussen Reports poll, shows the president's approval rating below 50 percent. With the incident in -- with the Cambridge police department, he's facing some interesting headwinds, I think is the expression.

HALPERIN: I don't think those polls have him at the right place. I think he's higher. But the trend is certainly down and particularly people looking to him in terms of health care. He is going to have to succeed, I think, again, first in Washington in the inside game to get public opinion back up. I don't think he can rally public opinion, right now, just from a standing start.

CHRISTIE: I think Mark's right on that and I think the president's numbers are going down because he has so personally involved himself in the health care debate. He's made this health care issue about him. People always liked the president for his outstanding personality for what they perceive. Now, they're looking at the president in a policy issue area, and they don't like it.

LOUIS: As it heats up, he's already put out the call to Obama supporters to get a million names on a signature on a petition and so forth, and start putting pressure, the way Reagan used to do, on a recalcitrant Congress. That will, I predict, include Democrats as well as Republicans. The word is he's going into anybody's district he needs to. The battle hasn't really yet been joined on this, but he's going to have to whip his own party into line.

DOBBS: We'll see what happens starting, well, about Monday, I guess. Thanks very much, we appreciate it.



http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/24/ldt.01.html

Lou Dobbs Obama Birth Settle Noise

Dobbs clarifies: he's presented what others have questioned, has said all along in his opinion, the President of the USA, Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States... Dobbs says further it would be simple to make all this noise go away if the President would simply show his long form birth certificate...

See Dobbs tonight

Meanwhile, at the end of his program, Bill O'Reilly said Lou Dobbs would be a guest on the Factor, Wednesday.

Bill O'Reilly Slams "Birther" Story But Defends Lou Dobbs's Free-Speech Rights (VIDEO)
digg Huffpost - Bill O'Reilly Slams "Birther" Story But Defends Lou Dobbs's Free-Speech Rights (VIDEO) stumble reddit del.ico.us

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/bill-oreilly-slams-birthe_n_245939.html?page=6&show_comment_id=27886210#comment_27886210

Right Wing US conspiracists question Obama's birth certificate
On the fringes of the American right, a growing conspiracy claims that Barack Obama is hiding a Kenyan birth certificate, making him ineligible to serve as president.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5907183/Right-Wing-US-conspiracists-question-Obamas-birth-certificate.html

Fascinating

Is the signature on this letter re-published by WND, authentic to President Barack Obama?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104718

Politico July 28, 2009 Birthers back Hawaii-Obama resolution and Discussion

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Birthers_back_HawaiiObama_resolution.html

Politifact investigation

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

Woman Voted Twice: Absentee and Provisional

Provisional Ballots

Fayette election board rejects 67 provisional ballots
By Jennifer Harr, Herald-Standard
04/30/2008
Updated 04/30/2008 12:15:24 AM EDT

Four others were rejected because the voters were registered in other counties. In one of those, a woman registered in Greene County voted with an absentee ballot there, and then came to Fayette County and cast a provisional ballot.

The other three had registrations in Westmoreland, Washington or Allegheny counties.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19529568&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6

Fayette election officials throw out 41 ballots

By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_565005.html

In Pennsylvania, voters must be registered with a political party if they want to cast a ballot in primary elections.

That didn't stop 41 Fayette County residents who claim no party affiliation from trying to vote in the April 22 primary election.

On Monday, the election board voted unanimously not to count the 41 ballots, which had been cast via provisional ballots. The ballots, which were contained in sealed envelopes, were provided to voters at the polls when questions arose over their eligibility to vote.

Yesterday, the election board reviewed the circumstances behind the ballots to determine whether they should be counted.

County Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky, who along with Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink and attorney Mark Mehalov are members of the three-member election board, said the 41 ballots were ineligible because Pennsylvania does not hold open primaries.

"Only those registered as a Republican or Democrat are being allowed to participate in the primary because there were no questions on the ballot," Zapotosky said.

Voters who are registered Independent or with non-nominating parties can vote in primaries when a referendum appears on the ballot, but they are restricted to voting only on the ballot question.

The board yesterday rejected two provisional ballots because although the voters were registered Republican or Democrat, they voted on ballots for the other party.

Laurie Lint, election bureau director, said a registered Democrat cast a Republican ballot and a registered Republican voted on the Democratic ballot.

Zapotosky questioned whether the voters were erroneously provided the wrong ballots.

"Are we sure we didn't make a mistake?" Zapotosky said. "I would hope you could distinguish between John McCain and Hillary Clinton."

Lint said the two voters insisted on voting outside of their parties.

"They chose the opposite party they're registered," Lint said. "I don't know why."

In another case, the board voted to reject a ballot that Lint initially believed had been cast by an individual who had also voted via absentee ballot in Greene County. Upon closer review after the board had adjourned, Lint said it appeared the two ballots had actually been cast by different people with the same name.

Zapotosky yesterday said if an error was made, steps will be taken to correct it.

In reviewing other ballots, the board accepted six ballots that were cast by registered voters whose names could not be found in the poll books. In several instances, partial ballots were accepted when voters went to the wrong precinct, but whose correct district was in the same Congressional district.

They rejected 19 that were cast by unregistered voters, four that were cast by voters who are registered in other counties and one that contained incomplete information regarding the voter's status.

The election board typically is comprised of the three county commissioners. Mehalov sat in yesterday for Commissioner Vincent Vicites because Vicites was on the ballot as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_565005.html

Expert Panel Expected To Cast Doubt on Common Forensic Tests

By PLL

Source: Crime and Justice News, September 22, 2008.

"A panel of experts looking into the reliability of CSI tests has heard damning evidence against some of the most common techniques used to convict killers, rapists, and other criminals, reports the New York Post. The analysis of fingerprints, tire tracks, and bite marks isn't nearly so reliable as researchers once believed, crime-scene specialists told the panel. Some even called it junk science. Many said major changes would be necessary if crime labs want to continue using the evidence."

"The National Academy of Sciences report isn't due out until December, but forensic expert Barry Scheck said it could have major implications. "There were some serious questions raised about the reliability of certain disciplines - bite impressions, tire tracks and automatic fingerprint identification," he said. 'I'm assuming they're going to make some big recommendations about how standards are set. A lot of people are anticipating a fairly far-reaching examination of forensic science.' The $1 million effort to assess forensic work is not final; the academy's report is undergoing a peer review now. It's already being viewed as a major potential challenge to the fundamentals of crime-scene investigation. One example: 'Bite marks probably ought to be the poster child for bad forensic science,' said expert David Faigman"

http://www.bloglines.com/blog/PLL/2008_9_22

Fayette County Voter Rolls to Remain Bloated

Voter Removal Process (purge) of ineligibles may not happen in Fayette for some 2 or 3 years... awaiting news of current events, in particular an appeal filed in the Court of Common Pleas of PA... by our reading of applicable federal and PA state election laws, the county registration commission is obligated to provide an accurate voter registry, annually, culling the voter registration records of any and all ineligibles, that is deceased, and non-residents, and have a program to determine the status of individuals who have moved in the county and out of the county.

Caution is in order, however, to not remove the names of voters solely for the reason of "not having voted."

More findings coming... here's a good one, from back a while...

Census: `Motor voter law' inflates numbers
Debra Erdley TRIBUNE REVIEW

In Fayette County, a 1997 scandal over absentee ballots raised questions about registration numbers. A grand jury investigation that followed concluded with a report speculating that at least 10 percent of the registered voters were either dead or resided elsewhere.

However, when Fayette officials conducted an investigation last year at the grand jury's recommendation, they found only 190 names that could be purged from the rolls - 10 who had died and 180 who had moved out of state. Another 1,300 names were placed in an inactive file after letters came back with notations that forwarding addresses had expired.

Laurie Nicholson, director of Fayette County's Election Bureau, said those names can be purged if the individuals fail to vote in two consecutive federal elections.

She said statistics that show 72 percent of Fayette's voting-age population as registered voters are as accurate a representation as possible under the motor voter law.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/2000census/motorvoter.html

Of the county's current 91,382 registered voters, Lint said 62,880 are Democrats and 21,929 are Republicans. The balance, or 6,573, are independents.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/counties/s_613640.html

Don't become confused by the 2009 dates referencing the Fayette purge has begun.

A full review of the voter database for the county is not happening. (One never did in the past either, even though there's a line item in the 2006 Budget Report for 'Voter Registration Purge' there isn't a dollar figure by the item

http://dsf.pacounties.org/fayette/lib/fayette/genfundbudgets/fayette_county_budget_2006.pdf
)


It's a wonder that it is legal for the county to have sent out some 9,000 postcards - how was this number determined? What information was used to get to that number, and what year was used?

For an adequate and truly fair voter removal program of "ineligibles" - postcards should have been sent out to all 91,382 registered voters. A follow-up of problematic non-returns or returned undeliverable, etc. would be the only way to determine whether many such registered have moved, are deceased, or potentially are alive and well but exercise their right to be both registered on the county's books, AND simply not vote as a protest.

I know if I'd chosen that route, not voting as a protest, and received a notice my name may be removed if I didn't respond to a mailing, I'd be hopping mad that I had to confirm my voting right status to a bunch of elected officials who I had chosen not to vote for any of the above by abstaining from appearing at the precinct to vote or cast an absentee ballot.

We'll be placing former letters sent to boards of commissioners off-site for review.

March 2008 Letter with links provided to entire board of Fayette County Commissioners

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/truthonline/nettruthonline/

Previous posts

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=Purge+of+inactive+Fayette+voters+delayed

search results

http://www.google.com/search?q=Purge+of+inactive+Fayette+voters+delayed+&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2

Fayette postpones purging 25,000 voters
By Mary Pickels
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, August 8, 2008

Buzz up!

A Fayette County voter purge that was to begin earlier this week has been postponed, the director of the election bureau said Thursday.
"We're going to do it after the (fall) election," Laurie Lint said. "The time constraints were too close. I didn't want to start and not complete it."

The postponement did not sit well with Commissioner Vincent Vicites, who said the purge had been discussed at a May board meeting.

"I'm disappointed it's not being done," Vicites said yesterday.

"We need to make sure our rolls are as accurate as possible. This is probably the most important election cycle in the last four years."

Vicites said Lint was to have a plan ready to present for board approval at the June meeting.

"That did not happen," he said. "I wanted her to move forward on it. The point I'm making is I brought it up in plenty of time.

"Now we have to do it next spring. I will remain fervent about getting it accomplished."

On July 24, the commissioners agreed to authorize the purge, which would have notified as many as 25,000 inactive voters.

At that meeting, Lint said the mailing process had to have been completed by Wednesday, within 90 days of the fall election.

"Can we do it by that date?" Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky asked at the meeting. "Let's not pursue it unless we're 100 percent sure."

Zapotosky and Vicites both said they considered the purge among their top priorities.

Yesterday, Zapotosky said when he spoke with Lint more than a week ago, she could not give him a 100 percent guarantee of meeting the deadline.

"That kind of triggered putting a stop to it," he said. "Laurie made the call. I gave her the opportunity to decide whether we should or should not.

"I don't hold her responsible. I think she made a good decision."

Lint said efforts were made to meet Wednesday's deadline.

"It just didn't work out," she said. "It wasn't feasible for me to get it done and postmarked and out of here by the 6th."

Lint said her greatest concern was getting the materials she needed in time.

"I couldn't be guaranteed I would have all of my supplies in here and out on time -- printed, folded, presorted and stuffed," she said.

When the purge takes place, voters who wish to remain on the rolls will be asked to return notices in postage-paid envelopes provided by the county.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_581779.html

Purge of inactive Fayette voters delayed
By Jennifer Harr, Herald-Standard August 09, 2008

A purge of about 25,000 Fayette County voters who have failed to show up at the polls in five years has been delayed until after the November election.
Laurie Lint, director of the Fayette County Elect...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19901537&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

http://pipdocs.org/?p=map&s=pa

Dormant Fayette voters may be purged
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The Fayette County Election Bureau has identified as many as 25,000 registered voters who have not cast ballots in at least five years, putting them at risk of having their names purged from voter rolls.
Laurie Lint, election bureau director, said Tuesday a check of voter registrations turned up between 15,000 and 25,000 people who have not voted in the past five years. Lint conducted the review as the first step in a countywide purge of voter rolls...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_574442.html

Dormant Fayette voters may be purged
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
County commissioners on Thursday will vote on authorization of the next step, which is to mail out notices to each of the inactive voters. Voters who want to remain on the rolls will be asked to return the notices in postage-paid envelopes to be provided by the county.

Voters who don't respond can still vote in November, should they go to the polls, Lint said.

Inactive voters who fail to respond to the notices, and then subsequently do not vote in November, will have their names purged from the county's voter rolls...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_574442.html

Dormant Fayette voters may be purged
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The county last purged its voter rolls in 1995, when the Motor Voter Law was enacted. Prior to 1995, the county purged its voter database every year, removing the names of voters who did not go to the polls in four consecutive elections, Lint said.

Lint said she used data provided by the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, or SURE, to identify voters who have not cast ballots in the past five years. The SURE system notifies each of the state's 67 election bureaus when voters die, move or register in another county.

There are 89,536 registered voters in Fayette County, including 61,887 Democrats and 21,449 Republicans, according to Lint. Voter turnout in the primary election was 42 percent.

Cost for the mailings will be approximately $20,000, Lint said, including $6,500 in postage to send out the notices using the standard bulk rate of 26 cents per mailing. Another $10,500 will be spent on postage for the return envelopes, Lint said, because they are ineligible for the bulk rate.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_574442.html

Herald-Standard

Precinct consolidation plan stalled
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
06/25/2008

Lint also told the commissioners she has plans to send out 25,000 notices to voters as part of a voter purge program prior to the November election. She said the biggest obstacle is having a postage-paid envelope and a bulk rate must be reinstated for the county. Lint said the cost of reinstating the bulk rate would cost $180, but if that were done, it would save $3,000 overall.

Lint said the purge is estimated to cost about $20,000, which includes sending letters that can be sent back in. She said if people vote in the next election they will remain on the rolls, and if they don't respond and don't vote, they would be purged.

The commissioners took no action on the request, but Lint said in response to a question from Vicites that the vote could be taken at next month's meeting to initiate the purge.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19801026&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

clip from wind watch

The commissioners also will act today on proposals to enact a voter purge as well as initiate a pay study for all non-union county employees.

Last month, all three commissioners voted to support a voter purge. Zimmerlink said in May 2006 the county mailed out 21,142 letters to registered voters, informing them of the new voting system, which led to removing more than 1,000 names.

Zimmerlink said the open issue is how to fund the purge.

Vicites said the purge should be completed before the November election, adding that he initially pushed to have it placed on the agenda.

“We need to move forward. We have identified funding,” Vicites said. “The voter purge is the top priority in the election bureau in my opinion.”

Zapotosky said money from the sale of some of the county’s electronic voting machines could be used to pay for the purge. He said the only outstanding issue is to ensure the county follows federal requirements regarding when the purge can be done.

All three commissioners have talked about the need for a pay study to address pay inequities in various departments where union employees are making close to or more than non-union management employees.

The agenda item calls for advertising for professional services under the request for qualification to conduct a pay scale study for the current staff complement of non-union employees.

Vicites said the pay study is something the county needs to carry out. He said it is a step-by-step process and it has to be properly budgeted.

Judge Conrad Capuzzi and Michelle Grant Shumar, head of the Fayette County Office of Human and Community Services and Fayette Area Coordinated Transportation, have separately raised the issue at county salary board meetings.

If the motions are approved today, the commissioners will vote to take action on them during Thursday’s monthly meeting.

By Amy Zalar

Herald-Standard

22 July 2008

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/07/22/commissioners-may-change-ordinance-to-comply-with-turbine-industry-standards/

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19863949&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6http://

Election Redo

What an interesting case. Voting redo ordered in Monroeville's Ward 5

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_630775.html

An election redo in one ward in Allegheny County because less than half a dozen voters were somehow enabled to vote in the Primary - it's alleged - in another political party from which they are registered.

And the new ballots will be mailed to the selected few who are registered as the "harmed" party but whose votes were wronged due to the debacle.

What will be of interest - how many of the 171 Democrat registrants who voted in the Primary at the local Ward will bother to fill out a new ballot and how many will leave the race/s undervoted?

How many will write in names of somebody else? Wonder whether that would be legal? Haha. Wouldn't it be something if voters changed their minds after all that had happened and enmasse wrote in someone's name who didn't participate in the Democrat ticket/primary process?

Just wondering...

Net the Truth Online

Voting redo ordered in Monroeville's Ward 5
By Brian Bowling
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The May primary still isn't over for 171 Democrats in the first district of Monroeville's fifth ward.

Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Joseph James ruled Tuesday that those people will get the chance to vote again in the Ward 5 council race because five Republicans and one independent illegally voted in the Democratic primary.

"Let's see if we can get it done right this time," James said at the end of a cordial hearing in which attorney Robert Wratcher, representing incumbent Marshall Boone, 68, and attorney Karen Balaban, representing challenger Diane Allison, 42, agreed that a special election by mail is the way to correct the problem.

County elections manager Mark Wolosik said his office will mail paper ballots with the two candidates' names to the 171 Democrats who legitimately voted in District 1, Ward 5. Democrats who didn't vote on May 19 aren't eligible to vote in the special election.

The county hopes to send the ballots out Monday, but it may take an extra day or so to get them ready. The ballots will have to be returned within 15 days.

The last special election by mail in the county was held in 1999 when a lever voting machine malfunctioned in Plum and added 100 votes to a council primary race, Wolosik said. Eighty-four percent -- or 137 of the 164 eligible voters -- recast their ballots then.

Allegheny County's electronic voting system doesn't leave a paper trail that would allow officials to determine for which candidate the six party crashers voted, Wolosik said.

Preliminary results had Boone leading Allison by a 198-196 count. James said he couldn't allow the six miscast votes to stand because they could reverse Boone's two-vote lead.

Allison filed a petition to challenge the results, which led the Allegheny County Board of Elections to refuse to certify the District 1 results for the Ward 5 race.

Wolosik said the five Republicans apparently were able to vote as Democrats because poll workers failed to set the machine for the Republican ballot. He told the judge the old lever voting machines had the same problem.

The one independent apparently claimed to be a Democrat on Election Day and was allowed to vote on the Democratic ballot, he said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_630775.html

Dr. Dean's Rx for USA Healthcare Doesn't answer who pays

On Morning Joe - again, thankfully, Joe Scarborough himself is absent, as we've noted before, when he could have asked the pointed and difficult questions during the Presidential campaign couple of year-long runs of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, he didn't - Howard Dean, former Presidential candidate himself, has a book to plug just in time for the health care debate... and he'll be hosting Countdown in the evening.

What does he say about the President's healthcare plan...

"Small business won't have to pay for the healthcare of employees any longer...!"

He left out hehaw...

And he left out who will pay for all yes all of the small business employees, and how the healthcare coverage for employees of small businesses would be paid. In other words, who would be taxed for the coverage of all small business employees?

He also left out explanation of how hospitals, private hospitals, would have to comply with a little known provision in the 1000 plus page healthcare bill.

A provision that mandates coverage for abortions...

But he didn't leave out mention of his book.

Yeah, hooray for Dean's book, blogger posts review

Dean's Book

And he didn't clarify what he means when he says individuals can opt into the government plan of health care, or not.

More on what Dean has said and it's been recorded...

Video of speech, introduced on blog with glowing support

http://www.talkwithtim.com/politics/governor-and-doctor-howard-dean-discusses-health-care-reform-and-president-obamas-plan

Dean told Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman last week that Obama’s public option plan is best thought of as Medicare or single payer.

“For the average American, they should best think of it as Medicare,” Dean said.

According to Dean, under the Obama plan, the American people will have a choice to opt into a single payer system.

“Look, you decide for yourself,” Dean said. “We’re going to allow people under sixty-five to sign up for what people over sixty-five have. And you make the choice.”

more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=

389x6122494