Pittsburgh City Council Election: The Fix Is In!

Just got off the phone with a political insider who had a sad sad story to tell.

It's a confusing tale, to be sure, but the bottom line is that back room deals were struck, backs were stabbed, and the fix seems to be in for the next Pittsburgh City Council President.

Not a pretty picture.

As there are 9 members of the City Council, a majority of 5 votes is needed to elect a president. It seems that 4 vote blocks are easy to get. It's that last, fifth vote that's all important.

Here's Rich Lord's setup from the end of December:

Pittsburgh City Council will pick a new leader Monday, and the biennial jockeying is in full swing.

On its surface a contest between Councilmen Ricky Burgess and William Peduto, it is also an opportunity for council to declare either a more collaborative approach to the mayor's office or a more independent stance. The last two years have seen the city's nine lawmakers swing wildly between those poles.

With a week left before two new members are sworn in and a president is picked, the post could still easily go to some other member.

Which is true. While it looks as though a deal's been struck, things could swing around. Perhaps if the details saw the light of day.

This is what I know so far:

A deal was struck between Ricky Burgess and Patrick Dowd on the one hand and Theresa Smith and Darlene Harris on the other to form a voting block. But what of the fifth vote?

Enter Representative Jake Wheatley. In a deal orchestrated by Mayor Ravenstahl and Representative Wheatley, Theresa Smith would get the City Council Presidency, Patrick Dowd would step down as Finance Chair and in exchange for his vote (the all-important fifth) incoming member R. Daniel Lavelle would be named Finance Committee Chair - on his very first day on City Council. Has that ever happened in Pittsburgh history?

Smith would be elected president with 8 months experience on Council. Has that ever happened in Pittsburgh history?

I was told that the deal was struck in mid-December at this meeting described by Rich Lord:

A similar tango occurred Dec. 17, when Mr. Burgess, Ms. Smith, Ms. Harris, Patrick Dowd and departing members Jim Motznik and Tonya Payne shuffled in and out of the mayor's office, talking about the since-killed tuition tax and the presidency.

Participants in those meetings said that if Mr. Peduto wins, he has pledged to give the high-profile post of finance chair to Mr. Kraus. Mr. Burgess is said to have promised that job to Mr. Dowd.

The choice of one or the other -- or neither of the above -- may be made by incoming member R. Daniel Lavelle. Members agreed that he's a likely swing vote, being wooed by both sides.

It was at this time that Wheatley and Ravenstahl struck the deal for the fifth vote. Read between the lines here:

When Tonya Payne wanted help during her four just-ended years on Pittsburgh City Council, she turned to her friend Luke Ravenstahl.

"The biggest thing that I had in my arsenal was: Luke Ravenstahl became the mayor," she said in an interview.

Now, as she embarks on a bid for a state House seat, she's doubtful that she can pull that arrow from the quiver again. This time, the mayor needs support in Harrisburg and in Council Chamber that can only come from her foes, Rep. Jake Wheatley, D-Hill District, and incoming Councilman R. Daniel Lavelle.

And a few paragraphs later:

Now Mr. Lavelle is believed to be a pivotal player in Monday's vote for the council presidency, courted by mayor-friendly and mayor-skeptical factions. Mr. Wheatley could be key to Mr. Ravenstahl's hopes of getting state help next year with the city's fiscal problems. And Ms. Payne has a seat on the powerful Urban Redevelopment Authority board, but needs a job.

"Tonya has always been a great supporter of mine, and I'm thankful for her leadership on council and her friendship," said Mr. Ravenstahl. "But we haven't had a discussion, despite some of the reports that are out there, about a job, or [campaign] support. ... I'm sure we will."

So Lavelle votes with Burgess and Dowd and gets finance chair, Luke gets a far more friendly City Council and more friends in Harrisburg.

And Patrick Dowd? He gets the satisfaction (as I was told) of beating Bill Peduto and Doug Shields.

And that's all I heard.

UPDATE: From Super Bob's blog:

Patrick Dowd confirms he now backs Smith for Council President. Says they need someone who can work together with others and reach across divides. Says Smith has shown that capacity and will serve them well, moving forward.

Interesting...

UPDATE: From Chris Potter:

I'm going to suggest -- just for a second -- that we put aside the questions of who supports the mayor and who doesn't. Let's just analyze whether council will be led by people who know what the hell they are doing.

Like I said last week, I think Kail Smith's handling of the tuition tax could betoken a promising future. If she were being chosen as a compromise candidate -- if Ravenstahl hadn't just pulled his prevailing wage stunt -- there'd be reason to see a silver lining in her presidency. In such circumstances, she'd likely have a steady hand at her side -- Peduto serving as finance chair, for example. She'd have the benefit of experience, but without being laden with all the baggage.

But so far, at least, that ain't what's happening. Instead, the two city legislators with the most experience seem likely to end up with the least amount of power.

That is a surefire recipe for a weak, ineffectual council -- however well intentioned Kail-Smith or anyone else might be. Like I said last week, if council's choice isn't Peduto, "what other choice is there if council wants to be taken seriously?" I'm still not sure. But the choice definitely isn't a president and finance chair with less than a year's experience between them. That makes council a joke -- which of course would suit the mayor's agenda perfectly. It suggests council doesn't even take itself seriously -- so why should anyone else?

Again, though, things can change between now and council's meeting.

Anything can happen.

Potter's Post-Mortem on District 6 Election

Read it here.

The core of his article:

So ... how did Tonya Payne, a one-term incumbent, lose to Daniel Lavelle? How could Payne, who beat Sala Udin in 2005, lose to Udin's former assistant just four years later?

On paper, these races were very similar. In both, Payne was running against either Udin or his ally. And in both, the same dark-horse candidate -- school board member Mark Brentley -- was also in the running. So how did Lavelle find the means to defeat her this time around?

The answer is simple: He didn't. Payne beat herself.

There's lots of really interesting numbers to support his conclusion. Payne was too cocky leading up to the primary and lost important support in Ward 5.

The conclusion:

Maybe it doesn't really matter, since Lavelle won in any case. But Lavelle should make sure he doesn't get cocky. He won with just 44.5 percent of the vote -- almost exactly the same percentage Payne earned in 2005. And while a lot of folks outside the district are excited by his victory, the numbers show little evidence that people inside the district were swept up in the enthusiasm.

Other than a modest improvement in precincts near the arena site, Lavelle did nothing to expand on the base that Udin bequeathed him. In fact, Lavelle actually lost ground in the district's North Side wards (where perhaps other voters shared Sue Kerr's doubts about his commitment to the North Side).

This election was about voters turning on Payne ... just as 2005 seems to have been about voters turning on Udin. If he's smart, Lavelle will be mindful of the trend here.

Go read Potter.

Big Election Wrap-up

I think that we can all agree that City Council victories by Natalia Rudiak and Robert Daniel Lavelle do not bode well for Lil Mayor Luke or his coattails.

Change Lukey would rather not believe in:

Bram's interview with Matt Merriman-Preston, political consultant to Natalia Rudiak (& Chelsa Wagner & Bill Peduto), is definitely worth a look. (And, as I'm sure Matt knows by now Lil Mayor Luke did not break 60%.)

That Dastardly Dowd refuses to apologize to Pittsburgh's Favorite Grandson.

For the junkies who like to obsess over numbers, graphs and maps there's Allegheny County's web site, Chris Briem's last few posts at Null Space, Pitt's map and the Post-Gazette's ward map.

There's a discussion on the "power of the blogosphere" as pertains to elections in the comments section of this Slag Heap post. IMHO, the blogosphere in general can be used to raise awareness, to raise funds, to move the conversation and occasionally to actually make news. All of this is more likely to occur on the national level where you can have a viral effect -- not so much here with Pittsburgh's older demographic. That said, as Pittsburgh's MSM (print anyway) tends to read the blogs, it's probably easiest here to make the news (as in the case of the Smith Liar Flier or MacYapper's Opie in handcuffs story).

In those same comments, Potter makes the point that, "In the case of district 2, my guess would be that your door-knocking for Blotzer did more to help her than anything anyone posted online."

Here, I'm in agreement. but I'll add that having someone work the polls can be a big asset as well. Case in point would be Hugh McGough's performance in the 16th Ward. While precincts 3 - 13 pretty much had the same results as his overall unfortunate performance (cause who'd want to vote for someone for judge who was highly recommended by the Bar and endorsed by both the P-G and the Trib...). However, in precincts 1 and 2 where there was a poll watcher (and inattentive Committee folk) he came in second and third respectively. Don't know if someone clued Don Walko that a majority of voters were walking in with McGough flyers or if he went to all the polls, but he and his wife came running over with more yard signs.

Speaking of 16-1, at least a couple of registered Democrats complained that when they went to vote, the screen gave them no choices for mayor and only offered them the option to write-in a name...hmmm, just like a Republican ballot would function. A technician was called and confirmed that nothing was wrong with the machines/software. Ya think maybe a poll worker was occasionally keying in D voters as R's? This would be the same polling place that had to temporarily shut down at 7:00 PM last November because of some poll worker freak out. Voters ended up in line until 9:30 (well, those who didn't give up and leave).

Finally, speaking of temporary shut downs, could the biggest victim of Tuesday's results be Matt H?


Time will tell...
.

A Loaded Deck

Man, I really didn't want to go back here again, but the painfully punny "Payneful Mistake" blog has left me no choice:


Really, Payneful Mistake? The number one problem you have with Councilwoman Tonya Payne is that she supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic PRIMARY despite her district's preference for Barack Obama?

Let's set aside that elected officials often come out for a candidate far earlier in the process than regular voters. Let's set aside that the whole reason for Super Delegates is to have a group of voters who don't necessarily represent the popular vote (not that I even like that system). Let's set aside that Payne has been a longtime supporter of the Clintons and a real fan of Hillary. Let's set aside that Clinton's candidacy was historic as well. Let's even set aside that President Obama has gotten over the primary and appointed Hillary to Secretary of State.

Let's just follow the logic of this blog where it takes us.

If Payne's judgment is so poor for having supported Hillary Clinton, if it's the number one mistake she's made and doesn't deserve reelection because of it, and if she's one of the "haters" for voting for Hillary, then so is this woman:


Well not just that woman, all of these women:




Those would be the nine out of twelve female members of the Congressional Black Caucus in 2008 who supported Clinton over Obama. All, I will add, in districts which supported Obama over Clinton. (It is true that Waters and Cheeks Kilpatrick switched their support to Obama, but only at the last possible moment -- the day of the last state primary and after they had cast their votes for Clinton in their own state primaries -- when it no longer really mattered.)

So, I ask the Payneful Mistake blog if all of the above women have poor judgement, don't deserve reelection and are haters?

[OK, now I can sleep tonight.]
.

This Just In (Part II), Progress Pittsburgh PAC Endorsments

Progress Pittsburgh PAC (P2PAC) announced their endorsements for the May 19th primary. This is the first time that P2PAC has endorsed candidates.

As they put it:

P2PAC develops, supports, and helps to elect candidates who demonstrate vision, progressive values, and electability. It considers candidates whose districts touch the City of Pittsburgh, and supports candidates that will make good, progressive leaders at higher levels of government.

[snip]

These endorsements represent four races where a group of dedicated citizens can make a MAJOR impact on the race. While there are other candidates that support the progressive ideals of social and economic justice (Amanda Green, Bill Peduto, and Patrick Dowd are three who met with us that come to mind), we are confident that your money and your time will be invested wisely, should you choose to support the candidates below.

Their endorsements:

Natalia Rudiak, City Council District 4, http://www.nataliarudiak.com/

Robert Daniel Lavelle, City Council District 6, http://www.lavelleforcouncil.com/

Susan Banahasky, Magisterial District Judge 5-3-10, http://www.susanformagistrate.com/

Hugh McGough, Court of Common Pleas, http://www.mcgough4judge.com/

P2PAC will have a Happy Hour this Tuesday, April 21, 6-8pm, 900 Cafe & Lounge, 900 Western Ave, North Side to celebrate their endorsed candidates and to talk about how you can make a difference in these races.

You can contribute to P2PAC here.
.