Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from Pennsylvania’s newspapers:
Track bribes before moving nuke deal
Scranton Times-Tribune
July 29
Nuclear power remains crucial to Pennsylvania and should become even more so as pressure mounts for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Pennsylvania produces almost all of the electricity consumed in-state, and it is by far the largest exporter of electricity. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Pennsylvania exported an average of more than 65 million megawatthours of electricity from 2003 through 2017, well ahead of second-place Alabama’s 45 million megawatthours.
Pennsylvania also is the second-leading producer of nuclear power, at about 36% of the state’s total output even after the closing of the reactor at Three Mile Island, according to the EIA.
Natural gas is the leading fuel for power production in the state at 42.8% of the total. But gas is a fossil fuel, and the industry’s spotty record in controlling methane leakage raises the question of just how much the fuel’s rise reduces overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Wind and solar production have increased, but nuclear power still accounts for 92% of carbon-free power production. Pennsylvania cannot meet its ambitious carbon-reduction targets without nuclear power playing a major role.
The nuclear industry is trying to wrest subsidies from state governments to maintain profitability. Pennsylvania’s legislative rejection of a subsidy proposal resulted in Three Mile Island’s closure.
Another bill is pending that would make nuclear power part of the state’s renewable energy portfolio, which would subsidize nuclear power at a cost to ratepayers of about $500 million a year.
Before the Legislature goes any further, it carefully should review an appalling scandal in Ohio, where the government approved a $1.3 nuclear energy subsidy last year. The Ohio House speaker, Republican Larry Householder has been charged in a bribery scheme. Federal prosecutors allege that Householder steered $60 million from nuclear energy interests into a dark money political operation.
Prosecutors contend that one of the companies involved in the Ohio case is First Energy Corp., which denies any wrongdoing. The company also is the parent company of one of the Pennsylvania plants that would benefit from a state subsidy here. Before considering any subsidies, the Legislature and state Attorney General Josh Shapiro should ensure that the heavily lobbied matter is purely a matter of public policy.
Online: https://bit.ly/3fj36dj
___
Covid-19 calls for communication
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
July 25
On Wednesday, White House Coronavirus Task Force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx participated in a phone call with state and local officials from around the country.
Discussion included a number of cities that need to get “more aggressive” and step up contact tracing to address covid-19 numbers as increases are being charted.
Pittsburgh was one of 11 cities specified as having rising rates, alongside others such as Baltimore, Cleveland and Columbus - not to mention Miami, the largest city in Florida, where the virus is now burning hottest.
Not all of those cities were included in the call, a fact reported later that day by the nonprofit Center for Public Integrity. Neither Pittsburgh nor Allegheny County officials were on the call. At least five other cities have confirmed the same to various news outlets.
Because it’s hard to prove a negative, this isn’t necessarily indicative of anyone deliberately shutting out the local governments. A conference call can become more complicated with more voices. Task force spokesman Devin O’Malley said more than 320 similar calls have been conducted with a total roll call topping 150,000 participants.
The problem is when everyone isn’t on the same page. That comes down to communication.
The White House, like Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, has had issues with consistent messaging as the covid-19 pandemic has marched on for five months. Today’s recommendations are different from last week’s and last month’s. In many cases, this has been because of evolving data on a disease no one saw before December 2019.
But the novelty and unpredictability of the information makes it all the more important to keep all the players up on the changes.
Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Rachel Levine said her office had someone on Birx’s call. She also wasn’t surprised Southwestern Pennsylvania’s needs were noted.
“We know that Pittsburgh and Allegheny County have had increases,” she said, noting some of the recommendations already had been implemented by county Health Director Debra Bogen, who has taken measures to limit on-site restaurant dining before Wolf did.
While the federal government is steering the ship and the state is manning the engines, the cities are where the day-to-day work is being done. The local authorities are working to take care of sick people, test those who might be sick and try to keep people from getting sick in the first place.
So just get those 11 cities on the phone. If aggressive steps are needed to mitigate the covid-19 crisis, then a chain of communication isn’t the answer. It needs to be done directly rather than expecting the message gets passed along from state officials, who are busy themselves and pulled in multiple directions.
If there already have been more than 320 phone calls, one more shouldn’t be too much to ask. Overcommunication never has been the cause of problems in the middle of a crisis that depends on information flow to solve.
Online: https://bit.ly/338gkH1
___
Lebanon County commissioners were wrong, but Gov. Wolf should still release funds to county
LNP
July 27
Earlier this month, Gov. Tom Wolf confirmed he would withhold nearly $13 million in federal CARES Act funding from Lebanon County “after its commissioners moved it to the ‘yellow’ phase prior to the governor’s approval,” LNP ’ LancasterOnline’s Gillian McGoldrick reported last week. In response, Lebanon County sued Wolf on Wednesday, “claiming the governor overstepped his authority,” Spotlight PA’s Cynthia Fernandez reported. (Spotlight PA is a nonpartisan newsroom powered by The Philadelphia Inquirer; its partners include LNP Media Group.)
Once again, partisan squabbles and a lawsuit have stolen center stage in the midst of an ongoing health crisis that has claimed the lives of more than 7,100 Pennsylvanians.
As we have noted often - and wearily - the Wolf administration and the Republican-controlled state Legislature must find meaningful ways to work together in response to COVID-19. It’s imperative, and in the vital interest of all Pennsylvanians, that this chasm be bridged.
“Imagine all the ways, if the two sides actually had ongoing discussions through this crisis with the governor, that compromises might have been reached,” we wrote here Wednesday. “None of that happened, however, and we’re left wondering why.”
And we’re left with another lawsuit. Another headache-inducing legal challenge to the Wolf administration’s emergency powers.
Here’s how we arrived at this one: In May, the Lebanon County commissioners voted 2-1 to lift their county’s state-mandated restrictions without the Wolf administration’s permission. The governor had warned that “such a decision could jeopardize a county’s share of federal discretionary dollars for relief efforts,” Spotlight PA’s Fernandez wrote.
Following through, Wolf did not release the $12.8 million that the General Assembly appropriated to Lebanon County as part of the federal coronavirus response.
Lyndsay Kensinger, a spokesperson for Wolf, told Spotlight PA that Wolf’s decision is empowered by the state’s Emergency Management Services Code.
Wolf, more to the point, said it was simply a case of actions having consequences.
“Don’t come say you want something from the state when you haven’t followed the rules,” the governor said. “That was the commissioners that the majority of people elected in Lebanon County. They represent them. I think maybe I’d think twice about reelecting them.”
We think it’s reasonable - perhaps even necessary in some instances - that a defiance of emergency orders should have consequences. The two Lebanon County commissioners who voted to partially reopen the county without permission played fast and loose with the health of their constituents.
But we also believe Wolf should find another way to make this point. These consequences are too potentially disastrous for the 140,000-plus residents of Lebanon County, many of whom surely did not agree with the two commissioners. People there need the $12.8 million to help them through this still-unfolding emergency.
Lebanon County Commissioner Jo Ellen Litz, who voted against the county’s unilateral move to the yellow phase in May, told ABC 27 that Wolf’s action unfairly punishes small businesses and nonprofits.
“I’d rather not see every man, woman, and child in our community of over 140,000 punished for a vote by two people who later tried to make amends,” she said in an email to ABC 27.
Meanwhile, Lancaster County, which also defied the Wolf administration’s emergency orders with an early move to the yellow phase in May, is fortunate its own federal funding wasn’t jeopardized and that it doesn’t find itself in the same situation as its northern neighbor.
Online: https://bit.ly/3jLUoHT
___
We expect more from Gov. Wolf on Right-to-Know
Harrisburg Patriot News/Pennlive.com
July 24
House Bill 2463 is pretty simple.
It would require state agencies to follow Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law during declared emergencies. Like the current coronavirus pandemic emergency.
The Right-to-Know Law guarantees public access to government records.
The state legislature, which can agree on little more than the time of day, unanimously passed HB 2463 requiring compliance with the law during emergencies. Some state agencies had stopped processing public information requests during the first months of the COVID-19 emergency declaration-and there’s still foot-dragging on disclosing records related to nursing home deaths and business closure waivers.
This unanimous bill faces a veto from Gov. Tom Wolf, which would be the first veto of a unanimously passed bill since 1978. Remember, this is about compliance with an existing law, not something new, which makes this a surprising issue for a standoff.
The reasons given for objecting to the bill have been flimsy from the start. The administration’s objections fall under the general heading of “problematic and risky”-for instance, they contend that having to comply with the law would risk public safety or patient privacy. But these concerns are already addressed by the law.
Melissa Melewsky, an attorney for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia, told PA Post the existing law makes numerous exceptions to prevent the release of the information that would create harm.
They include: exemptions for trade secrets, confidential and proprietary information, individuals’ medical information, investigation exemptions, and exemptions related to safety and security of individuals, buildings, and critical infrastructure, she said.
Of course, emergencies are exactly when laws like Right-to-Know have their greatest value. Emergencies are the times that people most need to be fully informed and to understand why decisions are being made.
Our guess is that Wolf’s really objecting to Right-to-Know compliance for the same reasons many government leaders have objected to it since meaningful Right-to-Know legislation was passed in 2008: fear of inconvenience and embarrassment from disclosure, or partisan self-interest.
Certainly, anyone can succumb to the pressures of self-interest, even a governor who promised transparency during his campaign and again during the coronavirus crisis. No doubt the motives of GOP legislators wanting to know more about Wolf’s handling of the coronavirus crisis aren’t pure.
But times of crisis call for something bigger than partisanship: unqualified, no-holds barred, honest-to-God transparency. The kind of transparency that lets the chips fall where they may. That builds confidence in government for the people in Pennsylvania at a time when federal officials destroy such confidence daily in ways previously unimaginable.
But if you want to talk self-interest, vetoing HB 2463 would create bigger, more lasting disadvantages for Wolf in the long-term:
It ultimately cedes the high road.
It misses an easy opportunity to create political goodwill that Wolf can build on-and that he will need as the pandemic continually presents new challenges.
It suggests a lack of confidence.
It wastes energy and political capital on an unnecessary fight.
Arguments against openness are always feeble and are themselves transparent.
As a public official, you’re either for transparency or against it-there’s no sometimes. The Right-to-Know law isn’t about the person currently in office and their option to do with it as they please. The Right to Know is a public right to question the government and get answers. Our right.
Online: https://bit.ly/2Ex9bWJ
___
County ethics process failed in Crispell case
The Citizen’s Voice
July 28
It’s taken more than two years, but former Luzerne County election director Marisa Crispell has finally paid a price for failing to fully disclose her ties to a vendor that sold voting equipment to the county in 2018.
The state Ethics Commission has imposed fines and costs of $4,000 against Crispell for failing to report $2,500 in travel expenses paid by Election Systems & Software for trips to Las Vegas and Nebraska in 2017 when Crispell served on the firm’s advisory board.
Crispell did not reveal those payments on state ethics forms or inform county officials of her ties when she recommended the county buy a $325,000 poll book system from the company in 2018.
Crispell remained on the job for more than a year after a national press report named her among county election officials who had taken advantage of vendor-funded travel.
A law firm hired by the county to perform an independent review of the matter found potential violations of the county ethics code, but the county apparently took no formal action against Crispell, who resigned last September and subsequently took a job with the Orange County Supervisor of Elections in Florida.
In contrast to the state ethics process, the county one seems to have failed miserably in this case. Indeed, the independent review paid for by the county found a “general lack of awareness” among county employees of the ethical obligations imposed by the county ethics code.
The code gives the county ethics commission the power to censure, suspend, dismiss or fine employees who violate its rules, including its ban on accepting gifts, rewards or benefits from entities that have a financial relationship with the county.
Astonishingly, at least two county officials acknowledged Crispell asked their advice before joining the vendor’s advisory board, including Election Board Solicitor Michael Butera, who admitted he never consulted the ethics code or the county Home Rule Charter before telling Crispell her service and the expense-paid trips would not be a conflict of interest. Neither official informed the county council of Crispell’s ties to Election Systems & Software when it was considering buying equipment from the company.
The charter contains elaborate and detailed instructions on how ethics questions, complaints and investigations are to be handled. It appears few of them were followed in this case.
Now that Marisa Crispell is paying for her errors in this matter, county council should take a closer look at how county government mishandled it too.
Online: https://bit.ly/3geEB1Z
___
Please read our comment policy before commenting.