Posts tagged ‘Chris Doherty’

Mayor Doherty vetoed the new Comcast legislation passed by Scranton City Council which seeks to get a contract for the PEG channel (right now run by ECTV) and will likely put the PEG out to bid.  The reason he chose to veto it was in part because he feared the legislation could lead to potential lawsuits.

How?  ECTV has no contract with the city, which is utterly absurd.  What grounds could they possibly have?  I can’t see how Comcast could sue.  I just can’t wrap my head around this.  Legal minds, care to weigh in?

Do you like PILOTgate?  I do.

Mayor Doherty finally weighed in on the Janet Evans approach to extracting more money from the University of Scranton.  Predictably, he didn’t like it.  Nor did Bob McGoff.  Fair enough.

But Evans (and Chris Phillips, who did the analysis that showed the millions the U of S has taken off the tax rolls over the years) had a bit of validation: Today’s Times points out that other cities see more generous contributions from their respective non-profits.  Lancaster, a city smaller than Scranton, gets $1.5 million from their nonprofits.  That compares to Scranton’s roughly $180,000.  I’m sure Lancaster’s budget looks a little nicer.  An extra million per year would go far in this city.

With the Mayor’s exemption estimate at 32% of city property, the other two-thirds of the city, name, you know, the people, have to pick up the tax burden.

This isn’t fair, regardless of the “economic engine” everybody keeps calling the University.  Sure, it is an economic engine.  But they utilize city infrastructure and services and should contribute fairly.  Heck, I contribute to the city through money spent on businesses and through my property taxes, just like many residents do.  Businesses pay their taxes to the city.  Everybody should pay their fair share, non-profit or no.  We are all Scranton.

So, I was driving up to Carbondale to make some plans for Election Day and I had WILK on (I’m an avid Corbett listener, in case people haven’t noticed).

That opening sentence really got the tension high, didn’t it?  You really want to know what happened next, don’t you?  I was off to help plan E-Day for John Moran (my guy in the 114^th), but that’s not what’s crazy.  Suspense even higher now?

Okay.

I don’t know if it’ll shock all of you, but what happened shocked me.  Bill Clinton was on the radio supporting Chris Doherty.

What?!?!

A former President has weighed in on PA-22.  A Pennsylvania State Senate race.

Allow me to say, “Holy shit.”

Thank you.

I have to admit that I am impressed.  That’s a pretty tall order.  Given the negative campaigning that’s gone on in this race lately, ending positive is probably a necessity for these campaigns.  Wansacz and Volpe have come out swinging at each other yesterday.  With the focus off of Doherty, and this insanely huge endorsement, it may give him the boost he needs to cross the line.

Bill Clinton.

Volpe is hitting Doherty hard. The war of words evolved into offical campaign attacks from his camp. The first was the “Doherty is a pig who feasts on money” mailer, and now there is the “Doherty took more money from corrupt Highland Associates than Corrupt Cordaro did” ad on television. Volpe is swinging.

Here’s why this is so fascinating: The two major attacks that the Doherty camp supposedly directed at Volpe were not actually from Doherty, or his camp. The first, a civil rights suit, is from a private citizen alleging discrimination from Volpe. The second is that Volpe signs were pulled from heavily trafficked rights-of-way, but Doherty’s were not. The DPW does this every election cycle. The Doherty connection to both of these cannot be proved. But Volpe’s attacks on Doherty (to whom he’s donated thousands in the past) are direct. How will this play with voters?

Negative campaigning, perceived or otherwise, tends not to resonate with voters. It drives up negative opinions of candidates, simple as that. So, Doherty may look worse because of Volpe’s attacks, and vice versa. But they themselves will take a hit from people who don’t like negative campaigning in the first place. Here, Doherty hasn’t been directly involved, so he’ll likely take less of a hit.

Volpe stated in today’s times that he’s not saying the Doherty did anything illegal by connecting him to Highland. No, he’s not saying that. He’s just implying it and hoping viewers make the connection themselves. It’s a legitimate strategy, but it is what it is. The additional problem here is that more Volpe info can come to the surface. Corbett has hit him on allowing politicians to stay at his various homes. Lackawanna County has been spending a fortune on litigation with Volpe’s company over the Montage Mountain Pavilion collapse. It’s basically a he-said-she-said issue (I got the story from the Volpe camp, and they have their ducks in a row), but if the insurance policy doesn’t come through, the county is out big money and people will be upset whether or not Volpe is in the right.

I think that this battle only benefits the other candidates, the strongest of whom appears to be Jim Wansacz. We’ll find out for sure on Election Day.

The continuing battle between PA-22 State Senate candidates Chuck Volpe and Chris Doherty has gotten nastier. Chuck Volpe is currently being sued for violating the civil rights of a former employee. She says she was laid off and then not rehired because of her gender and age. On the surface, her case sounds compelling. She claims a man, older than her but with less experience, was rehired rather than her. Volpe claims she’s disgruntled. Not only that, his campaign claims that this is a Doherty campaign stunt.

The PA Human Relations Commission rejected this suit four times, and Volpe’s campaign manager points out. However, to claim that the woman is doing this on Doherty’s behalf is a bit much. I think going after an elderly woman who wants her day in court might not look good. On top of that, she tried to get the PAHRC to side with her, and they did not. It’s not like her complaints have materialized out of nowhere. Whether or not this will turn out badly remains to be seen.

In addition, Volpe has taken hits for giving politicians stays at his beach house. This also doesn’t look good and is ammunition that other campaigns can use.

The response from Volpe’s camp, which speaks for itself:

“The lawsuit is frivolous, and a non-issue. It was rejected four times by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. The last time it was rejected was September of last year. Carol has two Doherty signs in her yard. Her family works in the Doherty administration. She had 10 days to appeal the decision, and chose not to. Now, weeks before an election she decides to file a case in federal civil court.

“As for the beach house, the District Attorney, Andrew Jarbola asked Chuck if he could rent the beach house on behalf of the county while the D.A.’s office attended a convention in Ocean City, MD. There were very few rooms left and it would’ve cost the county thousands of dollars to attend. Chuck offered the beach house for free, but to be safe Jarbola and Chuck documented the transaction as a $2,000 gift.

“Everyday the Doherty campaign gets more and more desperate. Just today City workers were out taking down and destroying Volpe signs. They will obviously do anything to win no matter the cost.”

From the beginning of the battle over the budget between Council and the Mayor, I’ve thought it was a waste of time.  The last Council passed the budget in December.  The only reason Evans wanted to amend the budget was to stick it to the Mayor, because now she had the power to do it (I await angry e-mails from Evans supporters).

The Judge pointed out how much of a joke this all was.  I happened to catch his comments on WNEP (the Times didn’t quote too much) but he pointed out how mindless it is to cut 4 federally funded positions.  I mean, the City isn’t paying for them.  You can’t just move the money around (I think that’s what Council believed).

Look, next year, they’ll be able to cut Mayor-friendly positions and add Council-friendly positions all they want.  The fact that this budget ADDED clerical jobs just shows how Council was just using this as a way to pad city government in their favor.  Good governance?  Necessary cuts?  Give me a break.  I’m glad they lost this game.  They can be glad that next year, they’ll win.

So I got my hands on a Doherty internal poll that the campaign supposedly paid big bucks for. The last internal poll released by a campaign had Doherty in the lead and Wansacz within 6 points of him.

Here’s what I have:

Doherty 31
Wansacz 21
Volpe 19
Corcoran 15
Blake 10

Based on these numbers, the pollster pushed people to pick a candidate, as there are few undecideds. This means that voters can switch, and I would love to see the amount of people who would consider another candidate. I imagine that this is still anybody’s game, especially with the Volpe surge and the Doherty/Volpe slugfest (which I’m guessing will intensify).

I have every reason to believe the poll is legitimate in the statistical sense, and my source is believable. Questions can, of course, be skewed (see Rasmussen) but the poll was done by a legit firm out of DC. But since it is internal, obviously you can take this with a grain of salt.

Doherty and Evans are doing the impossible: Meeting! Yes, I said it and you heard it right, they are going to sit down and talk with each other!

I’m dumbfounded and have nothing more to say. I’m going to stare blankly at the walls for twenty minutes or so while I try to comprehend the magnitude of this moment.

Yesterday, I sat down with Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty to talk about his candidacy in the State Senate race in the 22nd. I opened up by asking him what his top priority was (I’m sick of talking about per diems, honestly – there are bigger problems in this state).

His focus? Jobs. He pointed to his record of creating thousands of jobs in the city over his tenure as Mayor. Critics of the Mayor often say that we’ve lost just as many, so I pointed that out and he responded that Scranton has been ranked the Best City in PA, Top 10 in Real Estate and said, “The truth is, it’s better than it was before I got into office, even my harshest critics will agree.”

Doherty highlighted one problem with the Legislature that gets in the way of important issues like job creation: the Legislature is too focused on itself and not focused on the state. I can buy that, given all the endless corruption cases and rhetoric about per diems. Seriously, there are much bigger fish to fry out there.

Given that I teach, I asked about the PSERS problem and the imminent tax increases that will come if the state doesn’t act on the coming pension crisis. The Mayor offered an idea I hadn’t heard yet: float a bond to close the gap. That may be less painful in the short term, and long term, for that matter, as it’ll spread the debt out over time. I’m open to ideas. I don’t want to kill pensioners or taxpayers. I’m both.

The Mayor has had a contentious relationship with the police and fire unions in Scranton, so I brought this issue up as well, as he will inevitably be dealing now with the Pennsylvania State Police. In his tenure, he built the city’s first Police headquarters, invested in training and equipment all of which has led to a very low murder rate. Wilkes-Barre had 10 last year to Scranton’s 1. He attributed this to the excellent work of the police force and saturation patrols which, he said, discourage criminals from even coming here.

He’s also in favor of taxing municipalities which use the PSP as their police force. This will help fund a new class of Troopers (which hasn’t happened in years – they are currently understaffed) and it’ll encourage regionalization.

On social issues, he said he’s grown more liberal over time. He’s pro-choice and believes that gay marriage is an issue of equality and should be legal.
With the State Democratic Party having endorsed Single Payer Health Care as a platform issue, I brought it up. The Mayor said Health Care is a right, but acknowledged Single Payer would be hard to implement. What we can do, he said, is improve nutrition in schools and possibly teach nutrition in health classes.

In Marcellus Shale, he described just how… ugly drilling looks. Five eighty-foot tall drills next to a huge water fracking farm, plus truck traffic and water re-routing really destroys the land. Not to mention the whole chemicals in the ground thing. Doherty said a severance tax should be used to create a reserve fund for long term damage and to fix immediate damage done to roads and property. The science is there to protect the environment, he said, it’s just that regulation isn’t what it needs to be.

Doherty closed by saying he’s the right candidate for the job because of two things: he’s running on his record of turning around the city, and, secondly, he’s got passion. From the Med School, to Nay Aug, to low crime rates, the city is better.

All in all the meeting was pretty solid! That’s my report, enjoy! The rest of the candidates will trickle in!

Let the games begin!  Chris Doherty, candidate in the 22nd senatorial, decided to bash his opponent, Chuck Volpe, over Volpe’s employment of Tom Gaughan, who is a convicted felon and recently got into more trouble by failing to report a bribe.

From Doherty:

EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR!

VOLPE’S “BEST HIRE” IS AN EX-FELON WHO JUST PLEAD GUILTY TO FAILING TO REPORT A FELONY

** Volpe called him “one of the best hires I ever made” **

** Development raises questions about Volpe’s campaign pledge to run a clean office **

SCRANTON, PA – As reported in today’s Scranton Times, Thomas P. Gaughan, “a claims manager for the insurance company administering the Luzerne County and Wilkes-Barre workers’ compensation programs was aware an elected official pocketed a bribe in 2007 but never told federal investigators.” [Scranton Times, 4/16/10]

Gaughan, an “ex-bookie . . . who once took bets from former [Luzerne] county commissioner Frank Crossin” previously served time in prison for money laundering. [Wilkes Barre Times Leader, 7/16/00]

Despite Gaughan’s track record, he was described by his boss, insurance mogul and state senate candidate Chuck Volpe, as “tremendous” and “one of the best hires I ever made.” Volpe touted the fact that he put Gaughan in charge of “millions of dollars in accounts for his company.” Adding that, “‘[Luzerne] county is just a thumbnail of what he has.’” [Wilkes Barre Times Leader, 10/24/02]

“Is this the kind of judgment we can expect from Chuck Volpe?” asked Doherty campaign spokesman Mark Nevins. “The best hire he’s ever made is a former bookie who did time and might be going back to prison again? When Volpe was entrusted with taxpayer money, he put an ex-felon in charge. I can only imagine what his office staff would look like if he were a state senator. Maybe Mike Veon would be available to be his chief of staff. In all seriousness, this is not the kind of approach we need in Harrisburg.”

Volpe is currently running a campaign focused on his ability to deliver change in state government.

This is some pretty hard-hitting stuff, but the fact that Doherty even put it out there tells me one thing: Volpe must be doing well.  If this happened to John Blake, Doherty wouldn’t have bothered because Blake isn’t closing in (that I can tell, anyway).

Volpe must’ve had his rapid response team all fired up, because it seemed like minutes later, I got Volpe’s response:

Desperate Career Politician Chris Doherty Lashes Out Against Chuck Volpe

A desperate and fading Chris Doherty for State Senate campaign lashed out against Chuck Volpe today and suggested Volpe hire convicted and disgraced felon and fmr. State Rep. Mike Veon to run his State Senate office.

“While I appreciate the staffing advice from the Doherty campaign no one knows Mike Veon better than Chris Doherty. Chris Doherty is a major contributor and friend of Mike Veon’s,” said Democratic State Senate candidate Chuck Volpe. 

From 2004 to 2007 Chris Doherty contributed $6,000 to convicted felon Mike Veon. Doherty even cut Veon a $1,000 check while Veon was being investigated in the infamous bonus gate scandal. 

“This is what career politicians do. When they see there jobs are at risk, they make up lies and attack anyone who they see as a threat. Chris Doherty questioned my judgment in hiring decisions as our potential next State Senator. Yes, I hired this man because he had served his time and this is America, everyone deserves a second chance. But only would a typical politician like Doherty claim I did something wrong after I suspended this man the moment I learned of this investigation. That’s just more politics as usual, and that is the last thing we need more of in Harrisburg, and that’s why our campaign is winning,” said Chuck Volpe.

Yeah.  It was probably a mistake when Doherty suggested Volpe hire recently convicted former State Rep. Veon… because Doherty gave him money.

This is probably the first of many exchanges of blows.  Keep em coming!  It’s what makes these things interesting.  Expect it to start getting nasty.

The Scranton Times gave some attention to the finances of State Senate candidates, so I thought today wouldn’t be a bad day to do a little round-up of the race, which I’ve been working on for the past few days.  The reason this race fascinates me more than many others is because it’s extraordinarily hard to make a prediction.  I frankly have no clue who the front-runner is and I have no idea who will win.

So, let’s take a look:

John Blake is a “regular guy” according to the article, though he made $123,000 a year working for the State.  That doesn’t sound remotely regular and is probably more than triple what most people in NEPA make.  This aggravated me, which is why it’s here.  As for analysis, Blake will likely do well in the Midvalley and even the Upvalley, as there are no Upvalley candidates in the race.  Joe Corcoran has a lot of connections up here from his Commissioner days, but regions tend to be loyal to their sons.   I don’t see Blake doing well outside this area, as he doesn’t have a high profile.  His yard signs are hard to read, are poorly designed, and have too much on them.

Joe Corcoran has a long history that he can call on as the former Commissioner of Lackawanna County.  That said, he got voted out after the Prison scandal.  Sure, the Times slandered him (and are rightly getting sued for it), but do the voters know?  Also, the national political climate is anti-incumbent.  Joe, of course, isn’t an incumbent, but he is an old face and people might be wanting fresh faces.  He will have a decent base in Scranton, particularly North Scranton and the Plot, but those areas aren’t big enough to carry him.  He also has the potential to do decently in the Midvalley and Upvalley given his connection to Alberigi (former Commissioner with whom he got his start).  In Scranton, he’ll likely end up splitting some votes with Phillips.  He should benefit from some name recognition, but, as I said, that may be tempered by the circumstances surrounding his ouster.  People may feel he had his time.

Chris Doherty arguably has the highest profile in the race, this is both good and bad for him.  His constant battles with Evans might not look good to residents outside the city, as it may seem as though he doesn’t have his own house in order.  However, a lot of his money has come from the Abingtons over the years, so expect him to do well there.  Not only that, I expect there to be an absolutely solid 4,000 votes in the City of Scranton that reliably vote Doherty whenever he runs.  There are a few schools of thought on how the City will go, one says that anti-Doherty people will vote for him to get him out, the other says they won’t back him because, hey, they’re still not fans.  The area of Scranton to watch is West Side.  No candidates have deep West Side connections, and it’s the largest voting bloc of the city.  Without DiBileo in a race against Doherty, it’s up for grabs.  My gut feeling says Phillips will do well here, but it’s anybody’s game.  As for the rest of the district, Doherty is supposedly doing well in Monroe and spent a lot of time down there early on.

Chris Phillips is a worker.  He got his name out by prominently opposing the sale of the South Side complex and got himself elected to Scranton School Board.  I would call him the dark horse in the race, because people will inevitably underestimate this man’s tenacity.  He is perhaps the most active in the race in social media (like Facebook) and he was the first one running.  His base will be in Scranton, but Joe Corcoran’s presence in the race will likely cut into his vote totals.  Mayor Doherty supporters likely wouldn’t be voting for him anyway.  If he can pick up a lot of votes in West Side, Phillips can do very well.  As the first guy in the race (he was actively putting out feelers before Mellow ever thought of retirement), he was also the first in Monroe County, which, something tells me, might not be getting as much attention from candidates as it should.

Frank Scavo is the only Republican in the race and will get his party’s nomination.  He is a Teabagger and was hard for me to speak to, as per my previous post on my meeting with him, because his views are so illogical.  He sent me a press release on health care that contained a blatant Republican lie/talking point and I asked him to back it up with facts, which he never did.  I’m sure I’ll be writing more about him in the fall.  I honestly enjoy analyzing Teabagger “logic”.

Chuck Volpe is the wealthiest man in the race, and that goes a long, long way.  If Phillips is the dark horse, Volpe is the wild card.  He has blanketed the district with advertising of every kind, and I think I’ve gotten a letter from him once a day for the past week.  I got a phone call from a relative recently telling me she thinks he’s the bees knees.  Volpe is very conservative, which scares me.  He also hasn’t really said what he’s going to do, he said what he’s NOT going to do.  No pay, no per diems, etc.  Well, that’s not a platform.  But the mood is so anti-incumbent, he’s capitalizing on it.  Smart man, smart campaign.  If he wins, it’s because he bought the race.  I don’t trust money, frankly.  So between that and the lack of information on what he actually thinks, on the issues, Volpe is not very ideal.  That may change, however.

Jim Wansacz has a solid Downvalley base to call on, as well as a district that overwhelmingly supports him.  He has, however, gotten a lot of bad press in the Scranton Times, and so is likely suffering in the court of public opinion.  This will make it hard for him to break out of his base.  He has quite a bit of money on hand, though, and he was the first up with an ad.  He also knows how to pound pavement and will likely knock on a lot of doors before this is over.

That’s my look at where the race is at.  I have no clue who is the frontrunner.   I have a poll on the right, Doherty and Phillips are topping it.  It’s unscientific, but feel free to express your opinion.  It’ll feed my curiosity, at the least.

Any thoughts from all of you out there in readerland?

The other day, I criticized the Times for giving Doherty a whole story on his rejection of per diems while totally ignoring that pretty much every other State Senate candidate will not be taking them either. Today, Chuck Volpe gets a whole story on the issue. Right under it, a story about Doherty touring Marcellus Shale. Doherty 2, Volpe 1, Wansacz -5. I hope the Times covers every candidate’s views on per diems and lets them talk about whether or not they’re taking them. That’s only fair in terms of space and time and free publicity. Now, with the Doherty-visits-Marcellus Shale-write-up, every candidate deserves yet another article, in the interest of fairness.

That’s a lot of space they’ll need to devote to this race. Something tells me it won’t happen. A few weeks ago, they didn’t even include Chris Phillips in their list of candidates running for the office!

I’m now at the point where all I want to do is plead to City government to just get along. I probably should’ve reached this point earlier, but I’m starting to lose what little faith I had in city progress.

Both Janet Evans and Mayor Doherty look like mutual obstructionists, subservient not to the people, but to their own public personas and agendas. That’s my take. Doherty has never been inclusive or cooperative. Neither has Evans, and now that Evans has Supermajority power, she’s using it.

The issue is whether or not Evans can amend a lawfully passed budget. It appears that she cannot.

The Times coverage of this is fascinating, because, as user Canoe pointed out, whether or not Council talked to Doherty before making budgetary changes is irrelevant. That issue is routinely mentioned in the Times, and while it may make Evans & Co. look bad, it isn’t really an argument for Doherty. Doherty’s actual argument would be whether or not Evans had authority.

But, as per Scranton politics, this issue has degenerated and degenerated. It isn’t fun anymore.

Is it so much to ask both sides to sit down and talk this over and maybe just fix it?

I often hear a rumor that the Times really won’t bother covering candidates or races unless that candidate takes out an ad in their paper.  This has been underground conventional wisdom for a while, and some candidates I know have been wondering why the Times doesn’t really do anything with their press releases and doesn’t cover their races.

That’s probably one reason that blogs have been gaining popularity.  We talk about what the Times doesn’t.  We analyze what the Times will not.

I saw Saturday’s paper, and low and behold, Doherty gets a huge headline about how he would work to outlaw per diems.  Okay, why didn’t all the other candidates get that kind of press for their positions and beliefs?  It’s pretty obvious.  Aside from constant rumors that the Times is slanted toward Doherty, he took out a huge, expensive ad promoting a birthday party.  It was on Page A3 earlier in the week.  Of course, quid-pro-quo can’t be proven here, but circumstantial evidence pops up often enough that it seems pretty obvious.

Seriously?  Who read that article?  And with Chris Phillips, Joe Corcoran, Chuck Volpe, John Blake, Jim Wansacz, and Frank Scavo in the race, where are their headlines?  It’s not just odd, it’s just another in a long line of shameful bias hid behind what they call “objective journalism”.  It’s sad, and as a blogger with some sense of integrity and standards about myself (hey, I’m biased, but I’ll tell you), I can understand why people read blogs and move further away from traditional media.

Here’s an offer for you: Send me stuff that I think is relevant, and I’ll post it, even if I disagree with you or don’t like your positions.  Open dialogue and dissemination of information is important.  Oh, and while I welcome people who want to advertise (as you see on the right), it isn’t necessary for me to write about your campaign.  Just an FYI.

Judge Mazzoni has issued an injunction preventing Scranton City Council’s budget amendments from taking effect until their legality can be determined.

As I’ve said, it looks like the budget changes won’t stand. Evans should just live up to her word, you know, the one where she said she wouldn’t waste taxpayer dollars, and drop this until next year, when she’ll have full, obvious authority to screw the Mayor however she wants.

More than anything, I’m wondering how much money the taxpayers will have to waste (on both Doherty and Evans’ end) before this sideshow is over with.

The Council vs. Doherty battle is hobbling along just fine. Council rejected Doherty’s appointments to city authorities and then moved to put their own people in.

Janet called for resumes and said she didn’t get them from Doherty’s nominees, and so went with her people. I’m sure that’s the only reason. I would like to see all of these resumes and qualifications, by the way.

But I think this is all a farcical waste of time, just as the budget issue, which I’m sure Evans will lose as well. Not that I enjoy agreeing with Lee Morgan, but he’s right, she should make the cuts for next year because she will lawfully be able to do so then. The 2010 budget was voted on by the 2009 Council. That’s just how it works.
It’s amusing that she said she “won’t play political games on the backs of the taxpayers” when that is pretty much a given for everything she, or any politician, does. That’s just how the game works.

I know most Scrantonians are sick of this fighting. When do you think Evans and Doherty will be?

Both Joe Albert and Gary DiBileo have said they will not be running for the State Senate seat up for grabs in the 22nd. This is likely good news for Chris Phillips and Joe Corcoran in the City, ad news for Corcoran in the Mid-valley and good news for John Blake in the Mid-valley.

Phillips and DiBileo would’ve spilt the anti-Doherty vote, with Corcoran picking up pieces of that as well. Albert is a Mid-Valley candidate, where Corcoran has some connection, but with John Blake in the race, the less candidates up the line, the worse for Corcoran, as Blake will have less competition.

DiBileo didn’t really have much of a chance. Nor does Corcoran, party endorsement or no. Phillips is hitting the grassroots pretty hard, but so is Doherty. Wansacz is looking stained over this per diem issue.

The dynamics have shifted a little with Albert and DiBileo out, but it’s still anybody’s game. It is too bad that they’re out though. I think the more the merrier in elections.

Chris Kelly’s op-ed on Janet Evans says it all today.  Janet Evans and the Mayor both are more interested in themselves than actual governance.

I often criticize Evans for her behavior and I want to highlight two points that Kelly makes.  First, Evans often criticizes and rarely provides solutions.  This I’ve written about.  And second, far more worse, and something I’ve never considered, is that Evans, in constantly disparaging what she says the Mayor has done to the city, continually makes the city look bad.

Think about it.  Every time she says the city is a fiscal disaster, that the parks are wastes of money, that businesses close because of the Mayor, that people suffer because of the Mayor, that the city suffers because of the Mayor, she is harming the city as much as her political enemy.

To hear Evans speak, you would think Scranton was the biggest disaster on the East Coast.  But not so.  Like the Mayor or not, the city looks better than it has in years.

Kelly points out that this disparagement only discourages the business community.  After all, if a prominent Councilwoman is deriding her own city, how great can Scranton be?

It can’t.

So, Janet Evans should stop being a Negative Nancy, and, instead of talking about how bad everything is, talk about how good the city can be.  Drop the constant barrage and provide real solutions.  And sorry, that budget is not a solution.  It’s revenge.

New entrant into the State Senate race for Mellow’s seat, Chris Doherty, is still a’battlin with Janet Evans and Scranton City Council.  No wonder he wants to get out.

Doherty points out something a little fishy.  Evans was a member of Council during the original passage of the budget and brought up absolutely none of the amendments she ended up putting into this budget, which proves her changes are just there to stick it to the Mayor.

He won’t be going to Council meetings, he says, but Council can come to him.  It’s his budget, he says, they can come to him to talk about it.

Fair enough.  We know they won’t.  Strike against them.

But much like the President’s question time, which I loved, Doherty should be open to questions. We know he won’t.  Strike against him.

Maybe they need to meet on neutral ground?  Anybody have a free kitchen table then can sit down at?

Or maybe both sides should stop trying to score points against the other and just govern.

Fat chance.

In Doherty’s announcement speech, he cited job creation as one of his qualifications for State Senate. I don’t want to sound like all the blind haters who would inevitably yell, “What jobs?!?!” But… What jobs?

To lend credence to Doherty’s statement, those numbers should be released and job loss should be factored in. Sure, Doherty brought jobs here. But many jobs were also loss. Subtract jobs lost from jobs created and then release a figure. If the number is positive, then Doherty can claim net job creation. But he didn’t say anything about net job creation, so I’m doubtful.

He also said he won’t take per diems. Okay.

Then he said he won’t take WAMs, which stands for Walking Around Money. Not okay.

WAMs are good for districts, even if anti-government hawks hate them. Legislators get money to throw around their districts as they see fit. What’s wrong with that? I have no problem with WAMs or Pork, as long as the projects are logical. And who can say the money Mellow brought to this area has been harmful? Next to nobody (okay, maybe Frank Scavo, but he doesn’t count). It’s better for legislators to have discretionary funds for their districts, because that’s a guaranteed investment in our communities. Doherty made a poor choice in opposing these.

Doherty also pointed to the growth of the city as evidence of his being the right man for the job. This we can give him. The city looks a lot nicer than it did before he got into office. While people complain about the parks, they look better, they encourage community bonding (nobody’s going to a park that’s a dump), and they are essential to the revitalization of the city. Scranton is a nicer place, and Doherty did have a lot to do with that, whether or not you like his governing style.