Paul's public questions and his discussion

Paul Senter sent out this email. It isn't the best in formats, but I let it rip anyway on the quick. I think a copy also went out via snail mail to candidates. I'll reply in earnest to the issues raised when I have another moment to spare.

short-version:
--- the Pa. Attorney General's office was called = referred to AG Investigative Unit;
--- the AG Investigative Unit was called = seems to be a local matter; referred to District Attorney's IU;
--- the District Attorney's IU was called = suggested sending outline
for their overworked attorney to look at;
--- material was sent to DA's IU;
--- the DA's IU called to say they weren't going to do anything; doesn't seem to be anything outright criminal;
it seems to be a State or Federal matter.
--- AG'S IU was called again, relating DA' s IU verbal response.

if no penalties written into the law, then
possibly no grounds;

seems like a court determination is necessary to establish disregard of the State law by elected officials; extortion, etc.

= anyone can file a motion for a Common Pleas Court hearing seeking "relief from bad actions of City authorities"

---

On the phone the DA's office asked if there was Federal money involved;
the AG's office has said they deal with use of State monies;
the DA's office has not yet replied in writing, as later requested;
the AG has not yet been contacted in writing.

Neither the DA's nor AG's offices seem to have any incentive to dig into the details.

---

At first, filing a "citizen motion" seemed a possible way to go;
it could be a real test of just how well "government by the people",
and democracy itself, exists in Pittsburgh and in Pennsylvania.
It seemed it might be worth the effort just to see how real everything is.

---

Progress through Common Pleas Court would surely be time-consuming and tedious, and would "they" be willing to expose their political cronies/friends (Mr. Hertzberg, City Council members, and the Mayor)?

---

I got to thinking there's possibly a more direct way to RESULTS:

Therefore, on Tuesday, April 26, I mailed a letter with an addressed envelope to the six District 2 City Council candidates, and the three Pa. District 42 State Senator Candidates, requesting a reply be put in the mail by April 30. They were alerted that the results will be posted to the general public.

The letters had a cover-letter and a YES-NO chart, but this is the content
of the chart (I will soon post the cover-letters and charts on the website) :

---

If I am elected Pittsburgh City Council District 2 Representative, I will
persist in accomplishing:

YES NO

a) within 60 days of being elected, introduction, or support of introduction and passage of
a Bill that will
-- repeal Bill 1020-2005 of February 2005
(which took $1 from the partial refund to the 4000+ owners who paid the WE-HAV tax,
so as to give $100 to the 38 or so, who paid to enroll and received a WE-HAV appraisal.)

-- REQUIRE RESTITUTION by the West Pittsburgh Partnership for
Regional Development,
Inc. Community Development Corporation, of the shortage of WE-HAV
tax funds turned over to the City, upon the September 2004 Termination of the
District 2 NID and the WE-HAV operation,
so as to provide a full $20 refund of the WE-HAV taxes
collected by the West Pittsburgh
Partnership', Inc., which as the NID Managing Authority
(NIDMA), permitted spending collected money knowing it was involved in a lawsuit that
could be lost.

b) within 60 days of being elected, introduction, or support of
introduction and passage of a Bill requiring
-- the West Pittsburgh Partnership', Inc. to produce
- a complete and fully itemized public accounting of all
WE-HAV-related funds, funds sources, and expenditures (including the $150,000 of the
Mayor's UDAG funds, accrued interest, etc.)

-- a complete and fully itemized accounting by the City Finance
Department of the "WE-HAV" funds received by the City from the West Pittsburgh
Partnership for Regional Development, Inc., upon the September 2004 Termination
of the District 2 NID and the WE-HAV operation.
- and a complete accounting of the current state of those funds.

c) within 90 days of being elected, introduction, or support of
introduction and passage of a Bill establishing and funding an elected City of Pittsburgh Ombudsman who is charged with receiving, investigating, and appropriately bringing to prosecution, grievances of citizens against the City government and its officials.

Signed _____________________
Date ___________

17 May 2005 Candidate for Pittsburgh City Council District 2 Representative

---

If I am elected Pennsylvania District 42 State Senator,
I will persist in accomplishing within the two years of this elected term:

YES NO

1) introduction of, or support of introduction and passage of Amendments
to the
State NID Act 130-2000, including

--if not deleting Residential Improvement Districts (RIDs) from
the Act, then

-- replacement of the NO_vote mechanism, with referendum of
targeted property owners;

-- specifically-clear detailing of the initial owner-support
requirement,

-- specifically-clear detailing of the complete procedures
required for bringing a NID proposal to the point of presentation to the respective
local municipal authority for approval/passage.

-- adding specific criminal offenses for not adhering to the
instructions and procedures of the amended NID Act.

2) introduction of, or support of introduction and passage of legislation establishing and funding an elected Pennsylvania State Ombudsman who
is charged with
-- receiving, investigating, and appropriately bringing to prosecution, grievances of citizens against the State government and its officials,

-- as well as receiving, investigating, and appropriately bringing
to prosecution, neglected or otherwise un-addressed grievances of citizens of any County or municipality against their respective County or municipal government and its officials.

Signed _____________________________________
Date __________
17 May 2005 Candidate for Pennsylvania District 42 State
Senator

---

This SEEMS to be a real opportunity to put concrete issues, born of our first-hand experience with the WE-HAV scheming, on the record for candidates to publicly accept responsibility for -or not.
--and then to see how whoever is elected acts, according to what they have publicly agreed to do or not do.

Persisting in the introducing and enactment (or refusing or failing to do so) of definite legislation dealing with specific matters affecting us, are specific concrete actions which we the public can see done or not done.

--In my opinion, these specific actions are much do-able and realistic than the typical campaign-rhetoric-hot-air about "jobs", "taxes", "assessments", "the budget", and so on.

It seems this might be way to provide clear instructions to those we select as REPRESENTATIVES, to make commitments, and carry through once in office --or shut up and expect to be de-elected.

I personally do not need self-proclaimed sold-out "leaders" , I want
responsible accurate representation of the electorate, which includes me.

I'd prefer the opportunity of having to decide among all fine candidates, rather than having to figure who might be the best of the worst; and I would hope that whoever of the fine who didn't get elected would join in with getting things done thereafter.

Best Regards,