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
Kevin Acklin held a press conference this afternoon, following up on the bombshell his campaign dropped yesterday: a series of e-mails suggesting a very cozy relationship between Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and political insider John Verbanac.
In his prepared remarks, Acklin said little that was new. He reiterated that “This administration is focused on personal and corporate favoritism, and it’s hurting our neighborhoods as a result.” And he called on Ravenstahl to “give us full disclosure” about the extent of his interactions with Verbanac.
But in a Q&A with reporters, Acklin suggested that more was yet to come. The material he had already disclosed, he said, had led other insiders to turn over further material: “We are looking at documents that we have right now,” Acklin said. And he predicted that his campaign would be turning those over in “a couple days,” possibly early next week.
Acklin was asked (by me) whether any of this information would concern Ed Grattan, the other name he dropped during the Saturday debate on KDKA. He intimated that it very well might: None of the material realeased so far has touched on Grattan.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, Acklin has cited two cases of influence peddling — the deliberations about who should get the city’s casino license, and taxpayer financing for developing the old Hazelwood LTV site. And in neither case did Verbanac get what he wanted. In both situations, Verbanac was tied to the developer Forest City, who teamed up on a losing casino bid with Harrah’s, and who ended up missing out on state dollars for Hazelwood.
But Acklin maintained that “the fact that [Verbanac] and his business partners didn’t get [their way] means the Mayor is either incompetent or ineffective. It doesn’t mean he’s not corrupt.”
Ouch!
Even so, these things are never easy to prove. For example, Acklin noted that “As a city councilman, Mr. Ravensathl supported the Isle of Capri” — the casino developer favored by the Pittsburgh Penguins, who wanted to create a joint casino/area complex in the Hill District. “After he became mayor, he urged the Penguins … to support a Plan B, in which they would receieve payments from another casino licensee.”
Of course, such a Plan B would have made it easier for state gaming officials to approve Harrah’s. Isle of Capri’s ace in the hole was the threat that the Penguins would leave town if they didn’t get their way.
Ravenstahl’s shift was indeed eyebrow-raising, and prompted some observers to contend “the fix was in.” But of course Ravenstahl’s supporters argued at the time that Ravenstahl — who’d only just become mayor — had a new role to play, with new responsibilities. Having a Plan B was simply prudent.
Acklin and I had a bit of back-and-forth on this, and afterwards one of his staffers pointed out that Acklin’s position was similar to one I myself had taken a few years ago. “You were second-guessing yourself,” I was told.
Which is true. But I second-guess myself all the time. And anyway, the larger point is that suspicions are one thing, proof is another. And while Verbanac may be pernicious, he ain’t stupid. Trying to get the Pens to sign on to Plan B was arguably a pretty cagey political move. Consider this e-mail Verbanac sent late in 2006:
How does not one plan to build a new arena and fund it but two — Plan A and Plan B — result in uncertainty with the team’s future [as the Penguins were claiming]? …
Answer: Because [Isle of Capri] is the one plan that makes the most money for Ron Burkle. Ron Burkle is willing to play Russian Roullete [sic] with the franchises’s future to make the most money. It’s a gun to the head of Pittsburgh strategy …
I actually think that’s true. Even if Verbananc did have ulterior motives for pointing it out.
I don’t mean to diminish the important of this stuff. What Acklin is turning over may well prove to be the Rosetta Stone of this administration. (Though so far, his e-mails are dated no more recently than early 2008.) Some of it is funny — the parts about trying to handle the Post-Gazette‘s Rich Lord are great reading. And some of it is just plain sad.
In a June 2007 e-mail, for example, Verbanac damns the Murphy administration, urging Acklin to “Call the past performance on the carpet … Let’s restore people’s faith in government. Let’s lead. Let’s fix the City.” The next e-mail in Acklin’s packet is an apparent Verbanac communique urging the administration to spare a “less than exemplary performer” at the URA because of the employee’s family connections.
Perhaps Verbanac had in mind a different meaning of “fix the City”?
Some have cast doubt about whether this will have a real impact on the election: Acklin himself allowed that it probably would have a political downside for him. He also acknowledged that he had no evidence of any money actually changing hands between Verbanac and the city.
So where does this any of this go? It isn’t clear yet. But one thing is certain: It isn’t over.
This article appears in Oct 22-28, 2009.
One thing we tend to lose sight of in these situations (I just lost it) is that we’re electing somebody. The onus should not be to prove a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.
Is it okay to have somebody like Verbanac pulling the strings of several in the administration on a daily basis? Will that lead to good, equitable decisions? Will that help average Pittsburghers get what they want out of life? Having somebody as weak as Luke in office (and I mean that in every respect) who needs to lean so heavily on people like John and Ed is a BAD IDEA. We talk about why.
The problem is, we focus so much on “Was there a crime committed?” that we forget to ask other kinds of questions. What do you find so valuable about Verbanac’s counsel? What issues are important to him, what causes are important to him? Isn’t he an arch-conservative? Shouldn’t you be paying for your own high-octane political consulting? Why do you suppose he’s doing this for free?
So why doesn’t someone actually pose these questions to Luke?
I honestly have no idea how that would work, so I’m not being snarky. I’m assuming, just from reading the Mayor’s response in the PG, that he spoke exclusively with the PG and won’t be calling a press conference to address these issues. And that is equally unfortunate. So, then he can have people (erroneously) point out that Luke was never convicted or that Acklin doesn’t have enough proof….and John Verbanac can continue to be our Mayor, apparently.
@Bram: I hear you re: the focus on “was there a crime committed,” when voters have equally important questions about judgment to consider. But bear in mind that Acklin has accused the mayor not of weakness, or poor judgment, but of *corruption*. So I think the question about whether there’s evidence of a crime is important too.
@Pitt74: I don’t think the P-G story is going to be the last word on this.
The discussion caused me to search several online dictionaries (why should I bother going to the bookshelf?) and I can find no mention of legality or illegality in any definition of corruption or political corruption. Lots of stuff about selfish dealing and depravity, nothing about criminality. The Wikipedia page on “political corruption” makes mention of illegal acts in some of its examples but makes no statement stops far short saying criminality is necessary or sufficient. I think we’re again conflating two concepts… and I think generations of politicians and their lawyers have conspired to make us think this way.
Ha. I just noticed the link on your Web site. But as you noted, there are certainly legal connotations of the word “corruption.” And two can play at using the Interwebs!
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/corruption/
“Corruption in the legal context refers to a wrongful design to acquire or cause some pecuniary or other advantage.”
Anyway, you’d agree that Acklin upped the rhetorical ante here by using the term, wouldn’t you? He didn’t just say Luke Ravenstahl was a “weak mayor,” or a “dumbass.” And in his remarks yesterday, Acklin DID speculate about whether Verbanac had violated lobbying-disclosure laws. So allegations of criminality are very much in the air.
In any case, as you yourself write:
“I think we’re again conflating two concepts… and I think generations of politicians and their lawyers have conspired to make us think this way.”
Well, however else one feels about Kevin Acklin, he’s a lawyer and a politician. So I don’t feel a bit bad about trying to make precisely the distinction you seem to be asking for.
I see where you’re going with all this: Your argument is that the question of legality is replacing the question of bad judgment and moral turpitude. And like I said earlier, I understand where it’s coming from. Something can be legal … while also being a really bad idea, or a shocking abrogation of the public trust. No argument there.
Still, I think it’s worth looking into what the law allows and doesn’t allow. If only because what’s TRULY shocking in politics often isn’t the stuff that people do to break the law — it’s what the law allows.
We can go on arguing about what the meaning of “corruption” is. But I think there are more interesting topics to consider.