PureBunkum

If you’ve been reading the local papers lately before heading to work, or like some of the subjects in the stories, after getting up at noon to check the mail for their welfare checks, you’d have to ask yourself, what’s happening to the Wyoming Valley?

There was another deadly shooting recently, but at least it led to the discovery of a methamphetamine operation in Salem Township.  Thank God for silver linings.

There was a vigil held a week ago for a killer – a nice, young man, who helped raise his 19 brothers and sisters.  Just like you, I thought that had to be a typo, that the man who killed a woman in a Hanover Twp. housing development really only had nine siblings, not 19.  But his sister-in-law, Alicia Crich, whose husband is Muadhadin Sharif, wanted to tell the other side of the story about her brother-in-law, whose name was James Cooper.  Obviously, those 19 kids were not the offspring of one set of parents.

The Times Leader devoted a lot of valuable newsprint to this vigil story – for some odd reason.  Ms. Crich told the paper that Cooper was diagnosed with a tumor on his brain, was schizophrenic and depressed and had a metal plate in his skull.  The brother said Cooper was a little reckless and a little wild.  He said a man can take only so much, especially when it comes to his children, explaining why he gunned down his ex’s friend before shooting himself.  His ex, who had been awarded custody, was hiding in the closet.

Unfortunately, the article provided no information on whether this walking time bomb was receiving treatment.

Who are these people?  Do they work?  Or is society simply willing to give them an unconditional free ride, enabling them to never get off the gravy train?

Many people suspect that the downtrodden and drug dealers migrate here because it’s a piece of cake getting subsidized housing and other benefits.

Not too long ago, The Times Leader reported that drug pushers come here, impregnate their girlfriends and then use their public housing as stash houses.

WHAT HAVE WE BECOME?

We’re not done.

Also last week, the paper reported that Wilkes-Barre police found a car that may have been involved in three robberies.

Even city Councilwoman Kathy Kane said she’s nervous walking downtown, which was quite an admission.  Do you  think she got a scolding from Mayor Leighton?

So what do we do?  It’s pretty obvious.

Stop making it so easy for people whose ambition goes no further than sponging off those who do work.  Do better background checks on those who apply for subsidized housing.  Make them earn a roof over their heads like the rest of us who go to work each day do.

And, for crying out loud, find a way to stop the proliferation of drugs in this area.

And for the record, I’m with you Kathy.  On the few occasions I have to be downtown, I’m ususally looking over my shoulder.

Betty Roccograndi

There’s no denying that politically-connected Michael Pasonick was a good boss.

He was even willing to break the law so he would not have to lay off his employees.  Pasonick, the latest inductee into the Luzerne County Hall of Corruption, admitted he bribed a local school board member to obtain future contracts so he wouldn’t have to hand out any pink slips at his huge engineering firm.

So there you go, just when you thought you heard all the lame excuses, Pasonick offers up a new one.

Prosecutors won’t tell us who the school director was or even what school district was involved.

They won’t even tell us if, by giving the contract to Pasonick’s firm, taxpayers got the best bang for the buck.

So, as in other cases, we are left to wonder about the other players in the multitude of pay-to-play shafts that permeated Luzerne and Lackawanna counties.

This corruption probe is turning into one gigantic jigsaw puzzle.  The feds give us little pieces of the picture, leaving us to our own devices to figure out the rest.

For instance.  Whom did Pasonick bribe?  That’s a tough one because there are so many likely contenders.  And what’s with the “more than $1,000″ Pasonick gave to said school board member?  Was it $1,005 or $50,000?  We really have a right to know this.

The charge against Pasonick goes back to 2007.  Are we to assume that he’s been clean since then?  But how can we assume that when Attorney Michael Butera outed Pasonick as the one who sprung for Billy Macguire’s 2009 luxury trip to Sanibel Harbour, a “haven of gracious hospitality” overlooking Florida’s southwest Gulf Coast?

Macguire, who’s also awaiting sentencing, was employed by Luzerne County but was of use to Pasonick because he was also a member of the county Housing Authority board, which also hired Pasonick’s firm – as did almost every other entity throughout the Wyoming Valley.

Anyway, The Times Leader described Pasonick at his hearing Tuesday as “haggard and disheveled.”  The paper also said that at times, he also “appeared to be confused,” particularly after the judge advised him that he could respond to a pre-sentence investigation of him.

The paper didn’t elaborate on Pasonick’s confusion, like whether he scratched his head.  All it reported was that he consulted several times with his attorney, Joseph Sklarosky Sr.

Pasonick’s crime calls for a prison sentence of 18-24 months.

But since he’s cooperating, we all know that he will be  fitted for an ankle bracelet and sent home to repent.

- Betty Roccograndi

What do Wilkes-Barre City Mayor Tom Leighton and racketeering former Luzerne County judge, Michael Conahan, have in common?

The two turned an unreasonable demand for $11,000 in legal fees into a $263,000 settlement for the woman they bullied and for her lawyer.

Nice job, fellas.

Leighton and other city officials were furious years back when Heights resident Denise Carey challenged their decision to close her neighborhood fire station.  She fought back; then the city went after her with a vengeance, demanding that she pay $11,000 Leighton claimed the city spent fighting the frivolous petition she circulated.

The case went before Conahan, around the same time he had other things on his mind, like cashing in on the privately-owned juvenile detention center his buddy co-owned.

Conahan slammed down the gavel and ordered Carey to pay the $11,000.  She was so shocked, she reportedly burst into tears.

Carey filed a civil suit claiming the city violated her constitutional freedom of  speech rights.  Ultimately, she was awarded $67,000.  Her lawyer, Cynthia Pollick, fared much better.  Pollick sought legal fees and costs totalling $240,000, including obscene hourly rates of $300 for herself, $75 for her assistant and $100 for a researcher, or a total of $475-an-hour to defend Carey.

On Thursday, a federal judge said she’s only entitled to $196,000.

City attorney John Dean said the city will not appeal, and that its insurance company is aware of the case, that “they’re on board.”

No problem.  Don’t sweat the small stuff.

One thing is clear.  Mayor Leighton isn’t doing very well picking his battles.  Remember the other years-long court case with city firefighters, whose contract said they were entitled to be paid for not collecting money from meters, just like the police?  Although that parity clause was right there in black and white, the mayor fought on.

After these two whoppers, let’s see how much the city’s insurance premium increases the next time it’s up for renewal.

- Betty Roccograndi

Buried among the avalanche of  Election Day coverage, we learned that yet another elected official who sold his influence and betrayed the public will head home for his punishment.

Former Hanover Area School director Anthony Spinozza “was all smiles before and after” his sentencing hearing, The Times Leader reported on Wednesday.

He had good reason to smile.  He plead guilty to taking “at least” $5,000 from a contractor while serving on the school board and could have gone to prison.  Instead, like several others nabbed in the county-wide corruption probe, Spinozza will serve his time in the comfort of his home for eight months.   His slap on the wrist also includes an additional 16 months of probation.  There was no mention of whether he had to return the  $5,000 or more.

U.S. District Court Judge Edwin Kosik was apparently moved when Spinozza openly cried in court and apologized to everyone for the “pain that I caused.”  Kosik said his cooperation with prosecutors was “pivotal” in granting him probation.  I’d like to see someone in that position refuse to cooperate. 

Although he’ll have to wear an electronic monitoring device, Spinozza will be allowed to work, go to church, keep doctor’s appointments and shop when necessary. 

Hey, hon, want to go to the mall?  I could us a few new shirts.

So, eight months of home confinement boils down to sleeping in his own bedroom and putting off that summer vacation.

Judge Kosik, you may remember, was the presiding judge in the trial of racketeering former judge, Mark Ciavarella.

We can hear it now.  If Ciavarella’s sentencing hearing ever takes place in our lifetime, and Kosik sentences him to prison, don’t be surprised to hear his attorney, Al Flora Jr., arguing discrimination.

Flora:  Hey, judge, how can you send my client to Graterford and let Spinozza sit home.  Spinozza admitted he took a $5,000 illegal pay-off.  How many times do I have to tell you that Robert Mericle said the $1 million he gave to Mark was a legal finder’s fee?  What’s WITH you?

Let the record show that I plan to file infinite objections over this blatant display of favortism, your honor.  And, with all due respect, I’ll appeal this all the way to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary.

Spinozza’s attorney, Frank Nocito, said his client accepted responsibility for what he did.  Come on, who doesn’t when caught red-handed?

Just think if he refused to accept responsibility.  He might have been forced to stay home for a full year instead of just eight months, that is, except to work, go to church and shop.

- Betty Roccograndi  

The “little guys” may be in big trouble, and they have the union guys to thank.

The fun has already started, and Election Day has just begun.

“Mailing promoting 8 to be probed,” blared a Times Leader headline on Page 3 Tuesday morning.

The complainant?  “Working Families for Better Government, aka, The Candidates The Unions Want On The New Luzerne County Council.

The defendants?  Eight Democratic candidates not endorsed by the unions who have banded together to get elected.  They are John Adonizio, Michelle Bednar, Stanley Knick Jr., Tim McGinley, Michael McGlynn, Thomas Rovinski, Fred Stuccio and Wayne Wolfe.

“We’re the little guys,” Stuccio said after learning of the complaint against the little guy slate for sending out a promotional flier.  The problem is that they didn’t state who sent and funded the promotion as required by law.

And these guys want to be seated on the county council, which will be responsible for approving contracts, when they cannot even dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s on their own promotion?

The union candidates promptly filed a complaint with the county election bureau, and Director Leonard Piazza promised, ”It is going to be pursued aggressively,” declaring that this is serious. 

Geez!  Sounds more like a simple mistake than some devious plot to undo the powerful unions, but the law is the law.

Piazza said he received “far too many complaints” about the mailing and not all of them were from the Working Families for Better Government, aka, Union Candidates for More Days Off.  Piazza did not elaborate on all the other complainers.

Piazza said he will forward the complaint to the county District Attorney’s Office and the state Attorney General’s Office.  That’ll teach you, little guys, for messing with the unions.

Piazza said one person was confused because the allegedly illegal handout contained an altered image of the official Democratic ballot, and the person thought that the Election Bureau put it out.

We can only pray that this voter sits out today’s important election.

“The people of Luzerne County deserve better than a shady ‘business-as-usual’ approach to politics,” said union-backed candidate Jane Walsh-Waitkus.  Someone actually sent the handout to her home.

Little guy Adonizio said he knew of the mailing but was unsure of the specifics.  Well, you better get up to speed, bud, because the Attorney General may be coming after you.

McGlynn said he would have to do more research before commenting.  Stuccio said he is a political novice and didn’t notice the missing statement.  Yep, he’s one we’d want reviewing county employment contracts.

McGinley said he did not have a “clear answer” on the matter.  Well then, could you tell us your unclear answer?

Stuccio and Wolfe said the eight little guys remain independent but teamed up to jointly fund the mailing believing they would work well together on the council.

What part of “independent” are we missing here?

“We have to be smart because none of us has any funds.  “We’re the little guys,” Stuccio said.

Well, these little guys and gal can only hope that voters don’t read the paper before heading to the polls today because they may have just shot themselves in the foot.

Not a very smart move especially so close to Election Day.  Good luck today.  You’re going to need it.

- Betty Roccograndi

The Times Leader asks this morning whether judicial candidates should accept campaign contributions from lawyers.

Instinctively, one might say, no.

But judicial candidate Joseph Sklarosky Jr. probably made the best point that “making a campaign pledge not to take money from lawyers is no barometer of ethical behavior of a judge.”  He said Michael Conahan did not accept money from lawyers the first time he ran. 

And we all know that Conahan turned out to be probably the most corrupt judge in Luzerne County history.

Candidate Richard Hughes, whom many consider  a frontrunner among the 16 lawyers seeking six judgeships, said, if elected, he’d keep a list of his contributors in his chambers.  “Anyone who comes before me, I will make sure there is full disclosure,” Hughes said.

Fair enough.  But why should we only worry about potential conflicts of interest with lawyers?

What’s  stopping a judge who can’t hear a case, because Attorney Joe Shmo gave his campaign $1,000, from picking up the phone and telling a colleague to be nice to Attorney Shmo’s client?

And what about all the individuals who made campaign contributions that flew under the radar because they were less than $250?  The TL didn’t list those because campaign finance reports do not indicate the donor’s occupation.

Some of those donors could include family friends or the candidate’s barber or his wife’s manicurist.  Won’t they be remembered for their support if they one day find themselves facing the judge?

Then there’s former attorney Harry Cardoni, who may or may not have contributed to the campaign coffers of disgraced former judge, Michael Toole.  He upped the ante later when he offered Toole his ocean front beach house for fixing a case for him.

And who says that an honest, good-intentioned judge wouldn’t be tempted if someone like Robert Mericle came bearing gifts if the judge did him a little favor, like helping land him a multi-million dollar construction contract?

“You can’t restore confidence in the courts by taking money from those who appear in the courts every day,” said candidate Michael Blazick, who refused donations from attorneys.

Then again, maybe lawyers, who as a whole don’t enjoy a good reputation, are looking, like the rest of us are, for fair and honest judges who will give them and everyone else a fair shake.

Let’s hope so.  And let’s hope Luzerne County voters elect those men and women who will bring honor not only to themselves but will also restore it to the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas.

On the up side, they have small shoes to fill.

- Betty Roccograndi

The Times Leader editorial board has debated from time to time whether to endorse candidates.  One such debate occurred when I sat on the paper’s community advisory board.

Some believed that it was a newspaper’s duty to do so because it had the advantage of interviewing the candidates and learning more about them than could the average citizen.

Others thought it was presumptuous to do so, believing that voters should make up their own minds.  Some thought it was a waste of time because voters didn’t care what a newspaper thought.

An endorsement from a newspaper can carry a lot of weight especially from lazy voters who don’t educate themselves on the candidates.  But they’re the same voters who might elect someone county commissioner because he was a famous NFL football player.

Here’s what a newspaper shouldn’t do, I believe:  tell someone how to vote, which The Times Leader is doing in a way.  It’s pretty nervy telling readers to “clip and carry our picks to (the) poll.”   

I read the bios of the candidates when they appeared in the paper.  That was a great public service.  But I put a big “NO” over some of their heads.  Some of my no’s and maybe’s were the TL’s “strongly recommended” and “recommended” candidates.

The paper had a third category, “adequate,” which, wouldn’t you agree is rather insulting?

As a reader, I would be very interested in knowing who specifically at The Times Leader made these endorsements.  The paper expects us to trust its judgment and “clip and carry”  its picks to the polls.  So who did the picking?

All the paper will disclose is that it ranked the candidates through a “prism as newspaper employees, county taxpayers and homeowners who met with the candidates individually.”  Why should anyone consider agreeing with your choices if we don’t know who you are or how many of you determined someone was strongly recommended as opposed to adequate?

TL columnist Kevin Blaum personally endorsed six candidates for county judge and told readers to “feel free to clip this column and take it to the polls.”  Thanks, but no thanks, Kevin.  Why would I vote for someone just because you like him or her.  As it happens, I don’t agree with all of your selections.  For that matter, neither do the anonymous members of the TL’s endorsement panel.

No, I’ll make my own decisions, thank you.  I, for one, do not need The Times Leader or any newspaper to provide me with their list of picks to carry to the poll.  I hope a majority of Luzerne County voters also take this election seriously because the future of Luzerne County is riding on it.

- Betty Roccograndi