The Political Winds Are Blowing . . . or Are They?

Written by Roberta Biros

The headline in today’s Herald reads “Lack of challengers seen this cycle” and HERE is a link to the complete article for your reading pleasure. Perhaps the headline could have been “Lark implies that Biros was a horrible candidate and would have been an equally horrible Treasurer”.

The direction of the article was that there is a sad lack of interest in running for political office against the incumbents in Mercer County. This is a very disturbing problem as it leaves the voters in Mercer County with no hope for any escape from political cronyism. Political offices will continue to be held by “friends of friends” until the cycle is broken by a political outsider. Until that happens it will be “business as usual” for the “political elite” . . . Robbins, Stevenson, Brooks, and Longietti . . . otherwise known as the “anointed ones”.

Unfortunately, Bob Lark’s comments had to be directed at his sad obsession with me, Roberta Biros, for having the nerve to run a political race last year. According to the Herald, “Lark called the lack of challengers “unfortunate,” but added that he’s not interested in running just anyone. He wants a candidate who knows how to run a race and would be a good office holder.” The Herald further explained as follows:

“He referenced last year’s election, when candidate Roberta Biros ran as a Democrat for Mercer County Treasurer and had a very public dust-up with Lark. Mrs. Biros said she campaigned to give voters a choice, but Lark had questioned her allegiance to the Democratic Party, which she had switched to from Republican just before filing.”

It is unfortunate that the ONLY candidate willing to run against an incumbent last year received NO support from the Chairman or Party leaders, but it is more unfortunate that they continue to vilify that same candidate for her willingness to run for office in the first place (and on her own dime . . . I might add). I sense that The Herald may have gotten Bob Lark’s quote wrong when they said “he’s not interested in running just anyone”. My gut tells me that the Chairman’s words were actually “I’m not interested in running ANYONE”.

It is no surprise that there are no willing candidates out there to take on the entrenched politicians in both parties. After all, (to steal a phrase from a very good friend of mine) the "Mercer County Incumbent Party" does control the political offices in this part of Commonwealth. Is it possible to challenge that mentality? Are there candidates out there that are willing to run a race for the sake of offering voters a choice? I, for one, would support them whole-heartedly.

As always, just my opinion. ~Mercer Conservatives

One Bad Apple Can Spoil the Whole Bushel

Written by Roberta Biros

I’ve been watching a story unfold for a little while now, and I’ve managed to hold my tongue patiently. I realize that might be hard for some of you to believe, but it IS possible. I’ve been known to hold my tongue once or twice in my lifetime, and this was one of those few instances.

There are several story lines that are all twisted together, and I’ve been following the individual threads for months. The general issue is the Borough of Greenville. The independent threads are the change of power in Greenville Borough government and the future of GALSA (Greenville Area Leisure Services Association).

Thread One: Greenville Borough Mayor: Miller is Out and Candela is In

First, allow me to talk in generalities about the change of power in Greenville Borough. Former Mayor Dick Miller (a Democrat) is an intelligent individual. Unfortunately, he wasn’t on top of his game when it came to last year’s election cycle. The Republicans found a willing participant last year in Pete Candela when he stepped forward to take on Miller, the incumbent. Miller decided to take the high road and NOT campaign . . . deciding instead to simply trust that the people of Greenville would re-elect him on his record. It was a nice concept, but the results weren’t quite what Miller had hoped. Dick Miller not only lost his post as Mayor of Greenville, but his lack of support for others in his own Party also resulted in loss for Dems in favor of Republican replacements.

Whether you agreed with Dick Miller’s politics or not, you had to give him credit for having testicular fortitude . . . something that can’t be said for most people in elected office. Whether Candela is a positive change for Greenville or not has yet to be seen, but I wish him well and hope that he provides some positive change for a struggling area.

Thread Two: Greenville Borough Council President Brian Shipley

With the change of power in Greenville’s Mayoral office also came many changes in Greenville Borough Council. In early January, Brian Shipley was selected to serve as Greenville Council President. ANY political change that mentions the name of “Brian Shipley” isn’t a good one. The irony of the selection was only touched on slightly by The Herald in their January 6th article [read HERE] as follows:

“Shipley’s selection as council president this week marks a political comeback of sorts. Shipley was picking up the pieces of a broken political career when he ran for borough council in 2007. A former Mercer County commissioner, Shipley resigned after a scandal in fall 2001 involving his use of a county-issued credit card and computer.”

The Herald is VERY generous when they used the term “broken political career”. The truth is that Brian Shipley should not have ANY kind of political career or "comeback" after his escapades of 2001. Based on the details that have come across my desk over the past year or so, Brian Shipley was lucky to find himself walking around a free man after his troubles in the courthouse. He was fortunate to walk away without handcuffs and leg irons, and his ‘friends’ in the courthouse and GOP were equally lucky to have escaped prosecution for their efforts toward aiding and abetting the then ‘commissioner Shipley’.

The fact that Brian Shipley found himself in ANY elected position is amazing, but the idea of putting him IN CHARGE of anything within any level of government is frightening. The people of Greenville should be afraid . . . very, very afraid.

The people of Mercer County seem to have very short memories, and it makes me sad. It is my opinion that once an elected official is involved in a “scandal”, they should be banished from politics and public service once and for all . . . but I guess I’m just old fashioned that way.

Thread Three: GALSA

This brings me to the final topic related to the Borough of Greenville . . . GALSA.

The Greenville Area Leisure Services Association has had issues for quite sometime. Financial problems, a lack of interest, and a lack of adequate leadership have left GALSA floating around directionless for too long. On November 10, 2009, The Record-Argus had a front page article that announced that GALSA would potentially be hiring a part-time fundraiser, grant writer and program director. While they weren’t sure ‘if’ or ‘how’ they could pay for the much needed staff member, all parties involved agreed that someone was needed . . . and desperately. After reading the article I drafted a letter to David Henderson (the then GALSA President). In my letter I explained that I would be willing to offer my time and effort to GALSA ‘free of charge’ in an effort to get fundraising and programming services underway. I would donate my time as a ‘public servant’ to the organization until such time that they were “over the hump” and could establish a long-term plan.

The day that David Henderson received my letter he called me. He left a message on my voice mail stating that they would accept my offer and that he wanted me to start as soon as possible. Unfortunately, Mr. Henderson spoke out of turn. My attempts to get in touch with Mr. Henderson were useless as he never bothered to return my numerous calls. While I’ll never know exactly what happened, I suspect that Mr. Shipley put an end to the discussion at the point he heard my name. Why? Because I dared to run a race against his “political friend” and accomplice, Ginny Steese-Richardson. That makes ME the enemy regardless of what assistance I could offer the people of Greenville.

So GALSA turns down free help to do what? Well, that is a great question. Recent articles in The Herald [read HERE and HERE] explain that Greenville Borough Council would LOVE to take over GALSA, but doing so would cut off their main source of income . . . funding from the United Way. Brian Shipley has made numerous statements to the press, but mark my words that whatever decisions are made regarding GALSA will be politically driven. If Brian Shipley’s hands are in it, it will be because he is looking for some way to “prop himself up” politically. While there may be others within the GALSA organization that have nothing but the best of intentions in mind, “one bad apple” in this bushel will mean bad things for the people of Greenville.

In Closing . . .

The people of Greenville have a difficult battle ahead. As a financially distressed community under Act 47, the Borough has its own set of special problems. To make matters worse, new leadership may take a little while to get a firm handle on exactly how to handle those problems. The final nail in the coffin is the burden of a Council President that is looking to make a ‘new name’ for himself in Mercer County politics (since the ‘old name’ was too badly soiled). Unfortunately, it is my opinion that this complex combination of problems will make Greenville “front page news” for the next few years . . . and Brian Shipley will be right in the middle of every single bit of it.



As always, just my opinion.



.

Google Maps Displays a Moment in Political History

Written by Roberta Biros

I was accessing Google Maps the other day in an effort to find directions to a high school basketball tournament. After generating my driving directions I noted that Google also provided photographs of various points along the designated route. This included a photo representing the starting point of my trip . . . my home.

I clicked on the icon to view the image and I was surprised to be provided with a photograph of my house. I was then equally shocked to notice that the photo included another interesting detail . . . political signs in my yard. How funny!

Upon closer examination, I was delighted to see that the signs were from the 2008 General Election. While the image may be meaningless to some, it has provided me with immeasurable entertainment. My “trained eye” can clearly see three (3) political signs in my yard. My special attention to detail can also see that two (2) of the signs were for McCain/Palin (or, as Chairman Bob Lark would say, Palin/McCain) and one (1) of the signs was for State Representative Michele Brooks. While some folks might not spot such details, the Google image triggered a photographic memory in my brain and managed to provide me with total recollection. I can see it all so clearly . . . two McCain/Palin signs (one at each end of the property) and one bright, fluorescent Brooks sign smack dab in the very center. I recall the sight with absolutely clarity . . . I also recall mowing around the signs for nearly two months that fall (I’m not sure which I recall more vividly).

First, I should explain for those of you that aren’t familiar with my background . . . back in fall of 2008 I was a Republican. As a Republican I openly supported the Republican Party and its candidates. It was not until early 2009 that I changed my party affiliation to Democrat. Considering the background information, it would not have been unusual for these particular signs to be displayed in my yard. My first thought after examining the photo, however, was how excited Bob Lark (Chairman of the Mercer County Democrat Committee) and others would be to see the sight. I know how much it bothered the Chairman that I was a conservative Republican that supported conservative candidates, but then I remembered that I am the only political figure who was held to this higher and stricter set of guidelines regarding “party” support. I’ve provided multiple photos from different angles below for your enjoyment (yes, these photos are all publicly available through Google Maps . . . disturbing, isn’t it?).

I’ve had discussions and ‘friendly disagreements’ with friends and foe in both parties regarding political yard signs. Some people see the placement of signs in their yards as “a responsibility to their party” . . . some people see the placement of signs in their yards as “a responsibility to long-time political friends” (if there is such a thing), others feel NO responsibility to their “party” but only loyalty to the “good ol’ boys club” of which they are a part. . . and still others (like myself) see political yard signs as a freedom of self expression. I’ve displayed political signs in my yard for MANY years. I have always hand selected which signs would be displayed in my yard (and which would not).

I only accept a sign if I am willing to accept the duty of caring for and maintaining it. It is a responsibility, after all. I only display signs for individuals that I support, and in most cases I have met the candidate personally and I am educated about that candidate’s qualifications so that I can discuss those qualifications with others who might be interested. When I ran my own campaign, my signs were ONLY in the yards of individuals that either met me or my husband personally. Every person with a Biros sign in their yard knew who I was, knew why I was running for office, knew why I was the most qualified candidate, and they had every intention of voting for me on Election Day (which obviously translates into the fact that I was about 6000 yard signs short in the 2008 General Election!).

After a tough campaign last year, I was left feeling a little disgruntled with some political acquaintances regarding the ‘yard sign issue’. There were those that couldn’t put my sign in their yard for obvious “party” differences, there were those that ONLY displayed my opponent’s sign because of “party” similarities, and there were those that ONLY displayed my opponent’s sign as a way to show me how much they hated me. This year I will have some very important decisions to make in that area. I am still a conservative and I am still a Democrat so the choices available to me are vast (or drastically limited depending on how you look at it). I must select wisely. I just hope that my yard signs are documented again by Google in 2010 as the sight might be very interesting.

I’m looking forward to it, and perhaps I’ll be writing about it sometime in the no-so-distant future.

.

Woodland Place Is Sold . . . Cha Ching?

Written by Roberta Biros

The news was official on December 31st. The former County Nursing home, Woodland Place, has officially been sold and is off the County’s books. The story was worthy of a multi-page write up in The Herald, and the current County Commissioners were reportedly celebratory. I hate to be the party pooper, but I’d like to step back and put the news story into perspective.

First, I’d like to thank Matt Snyder for a well-written and well-rounded article that appeared in the December 30, 2009, issue of The Herald (read the full story HERE). Matt did a great job of talking to all of the parties involved and organizing a neat little historical review. I’ve written many articles about Woodland Place and I know how difficult it is to pull the facts together (read my Woodland Place articles HERE). I only have one complaint about the article, and that is that Matt Snyder is just too darn nice sometimes. I, on the other hand, am not afraid of being a little more critical where I think it is deserved. That is, of course, the purpose of today’s blog post.

In the case of the article in The Herald, there seemed to be lots of back patting of the current Commissioners (or perhaps that was them patting their own backs . . . I’m not absolutely sure), but in my opinion Woodland Place was sold despite the efforts (or lack thereof) of the County Commissioners. My own experiences gave me the impression that the County Commissioners weren’t losing any sleep over finding a buyer for the failed nursing home. Instead, my perception (and the perception of others) has been that the Commissioners were sitting by waiting for someone to find a solution to the problem in hopes that they could take credit for it. Allow me to explain . . .

The article in The Herald stated that the current commissioners all ran for office in 2007 on the platform of cleaning up the mess that was Woodland Place. That part of the story is absolutely true. It was then implied that “once the commissioners were all on the same page”, they were able to work hard together to find a new buyer. This is the portion of the story that I have issues with (and I’ll come back to those issues in just a minute).

The Herald also mentions that the buyer of Woodland Place was brought to the commissioners by State Representative Michele Brooks. That tidbit of information is also factual. What the article doesn’t mention, however, is that the Commissioners weren’t falling over themselves to look for or court the potential manager / buyer. My sources within the Mercer County political scene tell me that the commissioners were somewhat unresponsive and actually ignored the original queries posed by John Hughes of South Western Alpha. It was only through contact with the office of Representative Michele Brooks that Hughes was able to get the attention of the Commissioners office. So I ask, should the commissioners get credit for the deal or were they simply taken along for the ride (kicking and screaming, perhaps)?

Some people might find the suggestion odd, but I do not. I was contacted by an interested party just last January under similar circumstances. An organization from eastern Pennsylvania contacted me by email asking if I could put them in touch with the people responsible for a possible deal regarding Woodland Place. They were interested in discussing the possible purchase of Woodland Place but their queries were going unanswered. I provided names, email addresses, and phone numbers of the three County Commissioners. Several weeks later I was contacted again by the same individual. This time the complaint was that none of the commissioners were returning calls or email messages. The contact asked if I could get involved to assist. I contacted the commissioners again by email but I never received a response.

How many other “potential buyers” were out there? How many “interested parties” were turned away or discouraged because Commissioners Ken Ammann, John Lechner, and Brian Beader weren’t doing their job? How many “opportunities” knocked but received no answer because Ammann, Lechner, and Beader ignored calls, letters, and email messages?

At that time, the ‘story’ was that the commissioners were already attempting to strike a deal with Hughes, and they weren’t interested in pursuing new offers. As a taxpayer in Mercer County I found the lack of interest from the Commissioners’ Office to be insulting. Even if a deal was in the works, it would have been to the benefit of Mercer County taxpayers for ALL offers to be put on the table. After all, a little competition could have gone a long way to sweeten the deal for taxpayers. Unfortunately, that never happened.

Based on my experiences and those reported to me by others, it seems that the commissioners were simply waiting for the right deal to “fall into their lap”. It gives the appearance that the commissioners wanted a solution with as little effort as possible . . . and that is exactly what they got. Unfortunately, that is also what Mercer County taxpayers have been asked to settle for. Why? . . . because Commissioners Ken Ammann, John Lechner, and Brian Beader were only willing to do the absolute minimum.

Was the final deal for Woodland Place the best deal for Mercer Countians? We will really never know. The people of Mercer County were simply treated like mushrooms . . . kept in the dark and fed “manure” (yes, I just edited myself there). If there was a better deal out there, none of us will ever know about it, and I would expect that the Commissioners weren’t looking for it either.

On another stream of consciousness, I’d like to discuss a different issue and concern. Commissioners make quite a deal of them “all being on the same page” and “presenting a united front”. I guess this is supposed to be a way to criticize past Commissioners, but I find the argument silly (at best) and misleading (at worst).

I’m of the opinion that maybe our three commissioners all being on the same page isn’t the best for us, the taxpayers. Government was originally established with a set of checks and balances in place. This prevented corruption and protected “we, the people”. Diversity promotes discussion, argument, and new ideas. The “three commissioners” (a.k.a., Moe, Larry, and Curly) all want to just sit comfortably in the courthouse and share in chuckles and back patting (nyuck, nyuck, nyuck). They figure that discord makes waves and waves make for difficult (and expensive) re-elections. Unfortunately, while they are celebrating the “Mercer County Good Ol’ Boys Club” the taxpayers of Mercer County will continue to be handed tax increases and excuses from “the team”.

I’d love to see one of the “three commissioners” stand up for something . . . anything! Rather than rubber stamping each other, the “three commissioners” should be double checking each other.

So I say to Ammann, Lechner, and Beader (Moe, Larry, and Curly) . . . “grow a pair (or 'find a pair') . . . if you can’t, let me know and I’ll lend you mine."

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer County Conservatives

.

Legislators Respond To COLA Questions (or not)

State Representatives Michele Brooks and Mark Longietti respond to query . . . Senator Robbins and Representative Stevenson do not

Written by Roberta Biros

You all know how much I enjoy musical references, and today I’d like to refer to a great classic by one of my favorite artists . . . Meatloaf. Today’s musical reference is “Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad”. In our case, I have to modify the reference to be “Two Out of Four Ain’t Bad”.

What on earth am I referring to?

In general, the issue is COLAs . . . cost of living adjustments. Our state legislators typically receive an automatic cost of living adjustment on December 1st of each year . . . a gift provided by Act 51 legislation which went into effect in 1995. In December of 2008, the annual COLA was a 2.8% increase in the salaries of legislators, judges, and the Governor. Many of you may recall that last year the issue of pay raises was front page news. At that time, our legislators were quick to talk to local papers in an effort to get some free press, but only SOME of those same legislators were open to discussing the issue with Mercer County’s own political blogger (that’s me). In December of 2008, the legislators representing Mercer County all pledged to ‘give back’ their pay raises. I applauded them all for it. [you can read all of my posts about COLAs HERE]

In mid-November of 2009, it looked as though there would be another automatic pay raise on December 1st. I published a blog about the issue on December 1st and I contacted the legislators representing Mercer County about the issue [read the post HERE]. I was contacted by Representative Mark Longietti (D-7th) that morning. Rep. Longietti explained that the official word from Harrisburg was that there would be NO raise for legislators in 2009-2010. One question still remained, however . . . what did our legislators intend on doing with the 2.8% increase from last year?

Well it has been a month since I sent my original query to Senator Bob Robbins (R-50), Representative Michele Brooks (R-17), Representative Mark Longietti (D-7), and Representative Dick Stevenson (R-8). This year (just like last) I only received responses from SOME of the legislators that represent Mercer County. This year, only half of our legislators were interested in discussing the issue regarding their annual raise with an interested constituent. I suppose you could say that “two out of four ain’t bad”.

I’m a bit confused, though. With people clamoring for a constitutional convention in Pennsylvania in an effort to cut back our state legislature (read HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) and voters (and ‘Tea Baggers’) seemingly annoyed with lazy incumbents and ‘business as usual’ in Harrisburg, you’d think that our legislators would be interested in staying in touch with interested voters. It appears, however, that if they aren’t getting press in a prestigious newspaper like The Herald (yes, that was tongue in cheek), then they simply aren’t interested in sharing their thoughts.

Let’s talk about the responses . . . or lack thereof.

WHO RESPONDED? (and how quickly):

Representative Mark Longietti (responded in 15 minutes)

I sent email messages to Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative Dick Stevenson. Within 15 minutes of sending my original email message, I received a phone call from Representative Mark Longietti. He was in his car on his way to Harrisburg and he decided to devote part of his drive time to a conversation with me regarding COLAs.

Representative Longietti explained first that there would be no COLA in 2009-2010, but he also explained that the 2008-2009 COLA that was received last year will still be included in his check in 2009-2010. Last year (when asked the same question), Representative Longietti explained that he would be donating the amount of his raise to a local charity. This year, Representative Longietti still intends on donating the amount of the 2008-2009 raise to a charity. This year his specific charity is again his local church where he has made a donation (with a specific earmark for the use of funds).

Representative Longietti and I also discussed the process of receiving automatic cost of living adjustments. Representative Longietti and I had a similar discussion last year at this time, and we both realize that we are on opposite ends of the issue as far as our personal opinions. Representative Longietti feels that a COLA is an earned increase and is well deserved. He feels that a cost of living increase simply makes him “whole” as it raises his pay automatically each year to adjust with the increases in the cost of living. Unfortunately, having worked in the private sector for my entire adult life, I don’t agree with the concept. I’ve worked for many different companies during many very difficult times in our economy, and there were quite a few years where I received no such raise regardless of the increase in the cost of living. Raises were based on performance (primarily), and the company’s ability to provide a raise (as a secondary consideration). I, therefore, don’t agree with anything that is assigned “automatically”. Representative Longietti and I have long agreed to disagree on this particular issue, but the conversation was interesting and entertaining. I thanked him for his time and I thanked him for taking the time to call me amidst his busy schedule.

Representative Michele Brooks (responded in one day)

On December 2nd (one day after receiving my email message), I received an email response from Representative Michele Brooks. She stated that she would be giving me a call to discuss the matter of COLAs personally as soon as time permitted. During our phone conversation, Representative Brooks pointed out that in both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 she returned her COLA to the State Treasury as a direct one-time payment. Although she will not be receiving a raise in 2009-2010, she still intends on ‘giving back’ her raise from 2008-2009. This year, however, she intends on donating the raise to a local charity. Rather than handing the money back to the State Treasury (like last year), Representative Brooks would like to see “100% of the funds make a difference in the local community”. Although she did not name the charity specifically (and I didn't ask), Representative Brooks was pleased that raise could help a local group directly.

THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVES MARK LONGIETTI AND MICHELE BROOKS

First, a much deserved APPLAUSE! My opinion on COLA give backs is the same as it was 12 months ago. I don’t care how the money is returned, but giving the money back to ‘the people’ is the most important issue and it should be applauded because it is COMPLETELY voluntary on the part of our legislators. In my opinion, both Representatives Longietti and Brooks EARNED their raises (unlike some of our State Legislators . . . or the Governor). It is their money and they can do with it what they wish. The fact that they are willing to give those raises back to people and organizations in Mercer County that NEED the help is honorable.

I would also like to thank Representatives Longietti and Brooks for responding to my inquiry . . . and VERY quickly I might add. It is refreshing to see that there are legislators representing Mercer County that try to make a difference (even when it isn’t front page news). While “Mercer Conservatives” may be seen as the “opinions of one blogger” in the eyes of some, this blog is representative of the voices of many conservatives and independents who support good government, transparency, and refreshing reform in Harrisburg and Mercer County. I am always willing to share "good news about good government" with my friends throughout Mercer County and across Pennsylvania.

WHO RESPONDED . . . BUT DIDN’T RESPOND?

Representative Dick Stevenson

Last year, Representative Stevenson explained to the local press that he would be returning his raise to the Pennsylvania Treasury. What happened this year?

Two days after receiving my email message, Representative Dick Stevenson sent me a response to my original email query. His email message read as follows:

Ms. Biros:
As I indicated previously, and as I have confirmed with our caucus ethics counsel after he reviewed your message, I am prohibited from responding to political emails from this taxpayer funded email account. If your would like to discuss these or any other issues, my home phone number is 724-XXX-XXXX.

Why are we suddenly so formal? Representatives Longietti and Brooks (a.k.a. Mark and Michele) simply call me "Roberta", and that is generally my preference. "Ms. Biros" is my mother-in-laws name, and it is so 'old fashioned'. It seems perfectly used, however, if you intended to set the tone for me to be scolded.

As many of you already know, Representative Stevenson has a history of sending these types of messages. Last year he sent a similar message by snail mail on his House of Representatives letterhead [READ THE FULL STORY HERE], and the comments received statewide criticisms. Just like last time, I was annoyed with the response. I sent an email message back to Representative Stevenson as follows:

First, all of the questions that I posed to you are regarding policies and legislative issues. The questions are specifically related to your record, your plans for representing Mercer County, and your legislative activities. If every email that is sent to you regarding policies and legislative issues is considered to be “political”; and you are, therefore, prohibited from responding, then what exactly is the purpose of your “taxpayer funded email account”?

Secondly, I provided sufficient contact information that you could have responded to my query in any other form other than email if you were interested. I invited you to respond to my message by email, phone, mail, or personal visit. Instead, you took the time ONLY to tell me that you can’t answer my question unless I call you.

While you could technically say that Representative Stevenson responded to my email message, I would clearly disagree. His only purpose of writing was to tell me to “go away and don’t come back”. He never responded to my questions regarding COLAs . . . he just said “I won’t talk to you”. I, therefore, classify Representative Stevenson’s response as a “non-response”.

WHO DID NOT RESPOND . . . PERIOD?

Senator Bob Robbins

Last year Senator Robbins took advantage of the local papers to publicize the fact that he was returning his raise. He did not respond to MY inquiry regarding COLAs until mid-January. At that time he sent a letter. Unfortunately, his written response had nothing to do with my original questions [read the full story HERE].

What is the fine Senator up to this year?

I’m sure this will shock many of my regular readers, but Senator Bob Robbins once again failed to respond to my inquiry in any way, shape, or form. Senator Robbins generally doesn’t like to talk to “the press”, so the chance of him responding to a little ol’ blogger like me is about nil. Unfortunately for our fine Senator, Mr. Robbins fails to realize that this blogger is also a VOTER with many FRIENDS (Republican, Democrat, and Independent) THAT VOTE. His repeated lack of responses (now and in the past) have been noted in my little brain . . . and in the brains of my friends. I’m a bit like an elephant . . . I never forget! (No GOP pun intended)

What does it all mean?

The good news for Mercer Countians is that we have hard-working legislators who care about the community, the taxpayers, and our best interests. Those legislators are willing to communicate with ALL OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS regardless of ‘Party’ and without the promise of ‘front page billing’. Those legislators are Representatives Michele Brooks and Mark Longietti.

The bad news for Mercer Countians is that we have an equal number of legislators who aren’t willing to communicate . . . aren’t willing to answer questions . . . and, apparently, don’t feel that the opinions of voters and taxpayers are important. Those legislators are unwilling to take the time to discuss policy unless they have a promise of publication on the front page above the fold. Those legislators are Senator Bob Robbins and Representative Dick Stevenson.

What’s Next, Roberta?

Gosh. I sure am glad you asked!

That was the story about COLAs. It was a short story, but an interesting one nonetheless. It is also a wonderful start to a New Year. It sets the stage for some interesting debate and some entertaining analyses. It is, however, just the beginning. In the next few weeks I will be publishing a number of stories regarding Mercer County’s legislators (and other elected officials). As a Mercer County EXCLUSIVE, I will be publishing the First Annual Edition of the Mercer Conservatives Index. The Mercer Conservatives Index will grade each of our elected officials on their accomplishments, service, and their ability to represent Mercer Countians. You might be surprised to see how Mercer County’s politicians stack up against each other . . . apples to apples.
As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer County Conservatives

.