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
Remember John Verbanac? The guy who was at the heart of investigative reporter Rich Lord’s series “The Network” — a look at how influence works in local government? The guy who literally helped write Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s speeches? And who became a central campaign issue during Kevin Acklin’s quixotic 2009 mayoral bid?
Turns out he’s helping Ricky Burgess now.
The city councilor has filed an April 5 campaign-finance report which reveals that Verbanac — the CEO of Cranberry-based Summa Development — contributed $1,000 to Burgess’ campaign. So did the president of Summa, fellow reputed Network A-lister Charles Zappala.
On one level, their support for Burgess isn’t surprising. Burgess has been the city councilor closest to Ravenstahl, after all. In fact, the two men appeared at an event to announce a master plan for Homewood just this afternoon, and Ravenstahl was brimming with praise for Burgess.
On the other hand, I was surprised to see the contribution listed. As I wrote a year-and-a-half ago, the thing about Verbanac is that “For a guy with such long arms, he leaves very few fingerprints”:
[W]hatever else John Verbanac may be, he’s … adept at avoiding the public eye. In fact, [Common Cause head Barry] Kaufmann himself was surprised to find that Verbanac’s name never seems to crop up on campaign finance reports. (Which it doesn’t — one reason Verbanac’s name has come up so rarely until now.) “I find it hard to believe a person of this cache isn’t making donations,” Kauffman told me.
I, for one, can’t recall ever having seen Verbanac’s name on a campaign finance report. But it’s there now, along with that of Zappala and William K. Lieberman, who also appears on Lord’s roster of “Network” players, and who gave Burgess $500.
Our Lauren Daley caught up with Burgess this afternoon to ask about the donations. Burgess said that he had never spoken with Verbanac et al about their contributions. But he noted that “My commitment is to continue to advocate for low- to moderate-income families and their community.” He cited such causes as his efforts to distribute federal community-development money more fairly. And he added that, “I assume anyone who donates to my campaign shares my vision, because that’s the vision I advocate 24-7 … I like to think that people who contribute to my campaign agree with my position on issues that I unapologetically advocate for.”
In any case, Burgess has scored a major political coup: It’s not often that Verbanac makes such a public show of support.
This article appears in Apr 28 – May 4, 2011.
Chris,What happened to the 5 comments that were here and hour ago?????CarlS
Chris,Excuse me,I was posting about CDBG FUNDS in the March,2010 comments,Sorry.CarlS
I think it’s pretty stellar that V signed his name to a check this go-round.
If Verbanac is really so powerful, Burgess should hit him up for a private PowerPoint presentation, and describe ways the state DCED etc. might more efficiently fulfill their intended missions. I’d like to see a copy of that myself.
Strategically thinking: The Mayor’s Camp would keep a tarnished candidate like Prater-Holliday in the race to split the votes easily. Isn’t it strange that she’s received so much support over a clean, democratically endorsed candidate such as Copeland-Mitchell? If Prater-Holliday is paid to stay in the race and she takes votes away from the more credible candidate, it will be an easy slide-in for Burgess. Great Strategy and the Winner is Rev. Ricky Burgess!
Think, it is the only way for Burgess’s camp (Mayor) to win by trying to Strangle Copeland-Mitchell’s chances of winning by firing Copeland-Mitchell from her job to smother her finances, stop union support by overlooking or lying to Union Leaders about Prater-Holliday’s real record as revealed in four past elections for different offices.
PS: Chris Potter doesn’t help much either. He is very partial to Prater-Holliday (Very Tarnished) in all his comments. I think Chris Potter should report the facts and leave partiality out of his comments.
“Chris Potter doesn’t help much either. He is very partial to Prater-Holliday (Very Tarnished) in all his comments. I think Chris Potter should report the facts and leave partiality out of his comments. “
>>> Ell-oh-ell, as the kids say. I’ve barely mentioned Prater-Holliday — the job of covering that race falls to another CP staffer — except in round-ups of campaign-finance reports and endorsements. Here are links to the stories I’ve written in this election cycle where Prater-Holliday is mentioned. (Comments aren’t html-enabled, so you’ll have to cut and paste, or do a search of your own):
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A90799 (one-sentence mention)
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A91208 (Prater-Holliday’s name included in a lengthy e-mail reprinted from Jacque Fielder, a backer of Copeland-Mitchell.)
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A91439 (Prater-Holliday named-dropped as one of nearly a dozen candidates endorsed by Young Democrats)
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A93934 (Prater-Holliday name-dropped in lists of endorsements by Sierra Club and Democracy for Pittsburgh)
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A94843 (Prater-Holliday’s campaign-finance reporting discussed alongside that of other city-council candidates)
That’s it. If there’s someone who sees me making a lot of pro-Prater commentary in that selection — all of which together probably amounts to two paragraphs — it would take some pretty creative reading. It is true, of course, that I deigned to mention Prater-Holliday receiving endorsements from progressive groups. But hey, this is an alt-weekly: We’re interested in what progressive groups do.
I’ll also point out that this blog has run a Q&A with Copeland-Mitchell (written not by me, but by Lauren Daley). We DIDN’T publish such a Q&A from Prater-Holliday.
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A90804
I could take issue with your larger argument — the insinuation that Prater-Holliday is a mayoral plant — too. But if you’ve seen evidence of some pro-Prater-Holliday bias in the paltry amount I’ve written so far, I don’t think there’s much point in continuing a discussion.
Good luck to your candidate next Tuesday.