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
So, will 2010 witness the rise of a new, more elevated form of political discourse in city hall? A dialogue in which — no matter how the final vote proceedes — all participants feel their viewpoints are considered?
Maybe not. For example, on Monday city councilor Doug Shields sent out an e-mail notifying his colleagues that he’d be sponsoring the same prevailing wage legislation that Mayor Luke Ravenstahl had vetoed on New Year’s Eve.
“Please let me know if you will be a co-sponsor of the attached legislation for introduction on Tuesday,” Shields wrote.
Patrick Dowd — who was the only member of council NOT to sign on as a cosponsor — responded with an e-mail reply to everyone:
Thanks for the email and for the re-introduction of the prevailing wage bill. It is my hope that with a new year and a new council we can have serious discussion of the prevailing wage bill. As you know, in December I offered a number of amendments which, while admittedly not perfect in their construction, deserved discussion, debate and ultimately a vote one way or the other. I would hope that as the lead sponsor of the new bill you would guarantee at the outset that the bill and any amendments will receive ample time for deliberation.
Shields’ response, also cc’ed to the group:
I have no interest in your amendments. I said as much last year and I see no point in being inconsistent on the matter. I have, in my own estimation, already spent ample time on the matter and I am very comfortable with the language I and all the rest of the Council, including you, already voted.
Good day.
Given the contentious relationship between Dowd and others on council, this exchange is little surprise … especially since Dowd’s previous efforts to discuss the amendments didn’t generate much interest. Even so, I can already see another confrontation forming up on the horizon.
Maybe make that two confrontations.
As noted here yesterday, Ravenstahl announced a handful of board appointments this week, including some key selections to the Pittsburgh Parking Authority. But in council yesterday, councilor Bruce Kraus brought up a seperate concern. Kraus noted that neither he, nor Shields, nor Bill Peduto currently serve on any city-related authority boards or commissions. Kraus asked that a letter be sent over to the administration, asking when that situation might change.
Considering that Kraus, Shields and Peduto typically vote together — and that Shields and Peduto are among Ravenstahl’s toughest critics — it might be awhile.
There’s nothing in city law that says every councilor has to be appointed to an authority or city commission. But if Dowd — who’s been reappointed to HIS seat on the water authority — feels shut out, he and Shields may have something in common after all.
This article appears in Jan 7-13, 2010.
The Sinking Fund Commission still exists doesn’t it?
Let’s give it up for the Equipment Leasing Authority.
There’s something very Victorian about Doug Shields’ email. Especially the end: “Good day!”
“I said ‘Good day’ to you, sirrah!”
Did he then smack Patrick Dowd with his glove? Will they be dueling on Grant Street with flintlocks?
Or will Dowd be compelled to beat Shields into submission on the floor of council chambers with his gutta percha cane?
Or maybe Doug Shields thinks he’s Paul Harvey, and this is how he ends all of his emails now, with a wry twist:
“I have no interest in the amendments. Because as it turned out, council has already voted on almost identical language. It’s the language that was in … the prevailing wage legislation! (ironic chuckle) I’m Doug Shields … good day!”
@ Area man —
Yes, that “Good day!” thing struck me in exactly the same way. And bonus points for the Charles Sumner reference!
I know some folks at PCRG, as well as a couple other non-governmental development agencies, would like to see council be a bit more thoughtful about the prevailing wage bill (PCRG’s open letter to the PG: http://bit.ly/8D4cIv). And since they have to do it all over again, why not put a little more thought into it. Shields’ kneejerk rejection of Dowd’s request to review the amendments seems harsh, and maybe even small-minded.
Issue #1: Are there any remaining Authorities in need of council member representation? If there are not, I don’t see a problem.
Issue #2: If we’re going to talk about the more-poisonous-than-necessary tone continuing in our politics, it makes sense to start with the sneaky, imperious new year’s eve veto. Still — having said that — Shields is wrong on this one, tactically and in principle. Three weeks and another few rounds of editorials, op-eds and pr campaigns would be a small price to pay for squelching all conceivable doubt that prevailing wage requirements for subsidized projects is a Burgh thing through and through.
” Issue #1: Are there any remaining Authorities in need of council member representation?”
>>>> Yes. Darlene Harris sits on two authorities — the Sports and Exhibition Authority and the Stadium Authority. Council members are supposed to be limited to one authority each. Peduto, you’ll recall, was removed from the Stadium Authority after sharply questioning some development priorities on the North Side. That, I think, is the issue here: the use of appointments as a political cudgel.
@Pittsburgh Polemics: The question is what such a “guarantee” from Shields would mean. I’m no expert in parliamentary procedure, but it seems Dowd could get consideration of his amendments through the regular legislative process, assuming he can get a second from someone else at the table to discuss them. And if he can’t, well, those amendments aren’t going anywhere anyway.
Also, there’s nothing to stop PCRG or any other group of citizens from petitioning for a public hearing, as has happened many times before. In fact, it might be a nice change of pace for the DEVELOPERS to start having to deploy such tactics. Maybe we’ll see Walnut Capital execs shouting “No Justice, No Peace” on the portico of the City County Building.
Welcome to blogosphere, by the way.
So in my admittedly sketchy understanding of the prevailing wage thing, last year Peduto introduced some amendments right before the thing was to be voted on that passed. So is the re-introduced bill the original or is it one with the Peduto amendments?
Another thing I sketchily understand, Ravenstahl wants Council to consider a Prevailing Wage bill that came from his office, yes? My understanding is that it has a lot or perhaps all the provisions Dowd wanted in his amendments. Can Ravenstahl introduce bills into Council, or does Ravenstahl need a stooge … er, Councilor to sponsor Ravenstahl’s proposed legislation? If i am right that Ravenstahl’s bill matches what Dowd had wanted the prevailing wage bill to be with Dowd’s amendments, why doesn’t Dowd just sign on to Ravenstahl’s bill as a sponsor? And what is the air speed velocity of a sparrow carrying a coconut …
Imperious? By exercising his mayoral discretion?
Did Ravenstahl do anything illegal, as city council did?
@ Ed — This bill is the same one that council passed and that the mayor vetoed. So it includes the amendments Peduto added.
As for Ravenstahl’s bill … Yes, the mayor can introduce legislation to council. But council’s rules require the bill to be introduced prior to noon on Friday for them to come up for consideration the following week. Ravenstahl didn’t submit his legislation to the city clerk until Friday afternoon, so it was too late for this week’s business.
Had there been a council sponsor, Ravenstahl’s bill could have come up this week anyway: The rules allow a councilor to bring a bill forward after the Friday-noon deadline. But it’s sort of a moot point. The measure will automatically come up next week anyway.