Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
UPDATE: 4:36 p.m.: In a meeting that took three minutes, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority voted to dump its embattled executive director Henry Sciortino, CP’s Ryan Deto reports from today’s meeting. Later Board Chair B.J. Leber was unanimously selected as the board’s new director.
However, Deto reports Leber’s tenure got off to a strange start:
After the short ICA meeting, the board members refused to answer questions saying it was a “personnel matter. It will not be addressed or discussed further.” Sciortino was not fired, however. THe board voted not to renew his contract which expires May 31. It is unclear if Sciortino will continue to work at the office until then.
The ICA and Sciortino came under fire after a Tribune-Review investigation uncovered that documents at the executive’s office, including no-bid contracts and financial records, had been destroyed. Auditor General Eugene DePasquale said earlier this week that he would be conducting a forensic investigation of the board.
Mayor BIll Peduto calls the ouster begins a “new day.”
“This is a new day for Pittsburgh. We welcome an oversight board who has expressed willingness to work for the benefit of the city, not against it. We look forward to collaborating with the ICA and our leaders in Harrisburg toward the long term financial stability of Pittsburgh.”
From Deto’s Twitter account:
This article appears in Apr 13-19, 2016.
The recent saga involving the Pittsburgh ICA Board and their executive director can be seen as Politics at its worst, followed by sensational journalism, and a failed attempt of a non- partisan entity.
From a political stand point, one must commend the current Mayors’ administration for the big stride in getting what they want, No oversight and freeing up Casino Money in the tune of 20 million Dollars. They have filed a lawsuit in effort to free up the Casino Money. It is absolutely a waste of tax payer dollars to file a law suit against the very agency entrusted by the state to work for the taxpayers. The ICA effort to lessen taxpayer burden and help get the city out of financial ruin will again be sidetracked by political maneuvering.
Instead of the Mayor working with the ICA, and possibly thinking of the casino money as a surplus that can be used to eliminate pension debt or use the money to purchase tools that can eliminate waste, The Mayor, files a lawsuit. This action has dried up any working capital the ICA uses to run its business. ICA budget money comes from the state not the city.
It is a political win for the Mayor. The elimination of oversight and getting casino cash will provide for the mayor’s own pet projects. Freeing up money for pet projects and political payback will be disguised as public service. This effort will provide for a nice long political career fed by the taxpayer dollar.
Forget that public servants work for the public.
As far the author of the articles published about the ICA, you need only to know that he has been accused in the past of “profiting from promotion of hysteria” as well as convicted for the offense of trespassing during an investigated report and accused by multiple railroad companies of sensationalism
that could lead to exposing information that could get into the wrong hands.
The reporter and the newspaper have continually used the ICA articles as self-promotion with facts that are circumstantial at best. The author implies wrongdoing and a guilty judgement of the ICA executive director. Self -promoting being the first to report and repeating the same thing in every article doesn’t make anything more believable or true.
Even though there is reason to be alarmed, the State auditor general states, “Over the years, the ICA has helped Pittsburgh realize financial progress by growing revenue, controlling expenditures, and turning projected deficits into operating surpluses. I am confident that the ICA board will fully cooperate with our forensic audit.” “There could be something that wasn’t illegal but wasn’t a good business practice. That’s something we’re going to try to find out,” he added.
The ICA Board is an appointed board. How and why does a member get the appointment? A more importantly question to ask, “Why does a member want to be a member of a watchdog agency?”
Future political endeavors, a sense of giving back to the community through devout civic duty, and personal and corporate gain are the most common reasons. I would bet the second reason is most rare.
It is clear that the board in recent years has swayed to some sense of partisanship and the Mayor,
A politician first, had concerns. Political concerns could be a reason for the law suit filed. On the other hand, a question would be, “Who benefits from the Mayors private meetings with individual board members” the mayor or board member? Is there an alliance being formed and corporate gain being planned?
Given the dynamics of the ICA Board, the executive director has to deal with each diverse personality.
Individual Board member motivations can be questioned. Dealing with city officials and the Mayor while representing a diverse group would be challenging since city officials don’t want questioned. After all, they serve the taxpayer with their best interest in mind. It has been properly noted of the battles over city budgets.
The executive director was definitely the most non-partisan person engaged in the betterment on city finances. The executive director endured 12 years. The executive director was very much knowledgeable and superbly qualified with how the city works and knows why transparency to some extent is a deterrent to get anything accomplished. This was the executive director’s downfall.
We now have a perfect storm coming down on the executive director.
We have it all. The “non-partisans “ trying to distance themselves, politician running for Public Office wanting to look good, Auditors covering their tracks, a mayor playing cat and mouse, and a newspaper enhancing the story.
There are lessons to be learned from all of this.
We would not need oversight if people past and present would be the watchdogs of their elected officials. It seems the only watchdogs are the people that have their own personal gain in mind.
It is not enough to vote for a candidate, but it is essential that we follow-up from time to time and hold them responsible.
We have come to a place where compromise is looked down upon, the attitude of “What’s in it for me”, is a prevalent theme and “if I don’t get something, someone else will take it”.
There is politics involved in non-partisanship.
These can be topics for another day.