Delegated Authority

Pennsylvania is about to become center stage in the 2012 road show known as the Republican presidential primary race. Already the robocalls have begun, the mailbox is filling up, and the four, no, make that three, remaining Republican presidential candidates have begun spending more and more time in the Keystone State making appearances. Endorsements are starting to come in from key Pennsylvania political players. All of these are mere opening acts to the main event, our April 24 primary.

If you've been paying attention, Mitt Romney, the heir apparent, isn't going over so well with the conservative base of the Republican Party, and those folks had mostly thrown their support behind Pennsylvania's native son, Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are hanging in as spoilers for the time being.

Usually, one candidate breaks out of the pack of contenders and gathers up the minimum number of delegates needed - 1144 - to secure the nomination.  Delegates are those folks elected in each state to go to the party's national convention (this year, the Republicans are meeting in Tampa, Florida at the end of August) and cast their votes in support of the eventual nominee.

This year, that hasn't happened, although Romney leads the pack so far with 651 delegates collected (of a total of 2,286 available) as the result of the states that have held primaries so far. Santorum was in second with 275 before dropping out and releasing his delegates, and as of this writing, Gingrich and Paul bring up the back of the field with 138 and 71, respectively (updates can be found here).

For awhile, it was looking more and more like a brokered convention would be how our 2012 nominee is selected, and Gingrich, at least, is apparently still banking on that.

Not much attention is often paid to the delegate races, because usually it's a foregone conclusion long before the convention who the (one) nominee will be. However, this election cycle, they may play a larger role in determining how our next presidential candidate is chosen.

If you didn't know, delegates are the 'official' way a nominee is selected. You and other voters go and cast your choices at the polls, but it's often a 'beauty pageant' showing of who's most popular, because the delegates you elect at the same time make the actual choice for you. Some states' delegate awards are proportional; some are winner-take-all. In many states, delegates are committed to a particular candidate, and run that way. If you vote for them, you know you are also casting a vote for the candidate they support. 

In others, such as Pennsylvania, they are "uncommitted" and can vote for anyone. Even if they support one candidate early on, they can change their mind and vote for someone else. Pennsylvania's are mostly uncommitted.

The last time a Republican presidential convention opened without the nominee having already been decided in the primaries, resulting in a brokered convention, was in 1976. That year, the Republican primaries gave Gerald Ford a slight lead in the popular vote and delegates entering the Convention, but not enough delegates to secure the nomination. A brokered convention was predicted;however, Ford was able to secure the necessary support on the first ballot to edge out Ronald Reagan.

Gingrich ,who had hoped for better results in Southern states (thus far he's only won in Georgia and South Carolina), at least accurately predicted the likelihood of this scenario early on, and has been pretty upfront about his current, Plan B strategy, which is to hang on long enough to get to the convention (assuming no one assembles those elusive 1,144 minimum delegates) and negotiate to secure the nomination there. Historically convention delegates tend to be more conservative and vote accordingly.

Pennsylvania has a fairly large number of delegate votes up for grabs next Tuesday. Of the total 72 available, 52 are elected, usually 3 or 4 per Congressional District. Anyone can run if you get the minimum number of petition signatures; however, those receiving the party's endorsement are usually party insiders. The remainder are chosen by the PA GOP and are given to party brass who do not have to run for those slots.

I presume our counterparts on the Democrat side of the aisle proceed in a similar fashion.

As a Republican committeewoman, I do what many of my counterparts don't - I reach out to the campaigns directly and volunteer. I've made many great friends and connections that way, and have learned much about how campaigns are run and how to get out the vote.

As I do every election cycle, earlier this year I reached out to the various presidential campaigns and offered to help  circulate nominating petitions to get them on the ballot. Many of you in my own voting district in Lower Providence know I came to your doors asking you to sign whichever candidate's petition was your preference, along with petitions for other Republican candidates for local office.

One of the presidential campaigns asked me to consider running for a delegate slot in my Congressional District (6). It's something that's been on my "bucket list" for a long time, and I thought it might offer our residents a unique perspective and voice into the process, so after learning what I needed to do, I agreed. It involved gathering at least 250 petition signatures to get myself on the ballot, and although that meant being out in snow, ice, sleet, rain and howling winds in early February to get them for me and all the other candidates whose petitions I carried, we got it done and I hand delivered most of them in Harrisburg in person.

Despite being a good Republican party soldier for a long time (the very first campaign I ever worked on was back in 1984 as part of the Arizona effort for Reagan-Bush, let alone the numerous ones I've worked on in Pennsylvania), I was then served with a petition challenge from my own party. Even though I had not declared myself for any particular candidate, the PA GOP tried hard to knock me off the ballot (as it turns out they had already chosen Romney as their guy, and presumed since they hadn't asked me to run, I wasn't one of 'them'). Talk about no good deed going unpunished! It turned out to be a time consuming distraction from my real job for a couple of weeks.

(I am constantly amazed by how many in party leadership selectively choose to forget that the primary is supposed to be all about the voters vetting and selecting a candidate to be the nominee...and not the powers that be in the party's hierarchy dictating to voters which candidate they should line up behind. All too often, those annointed candidates are selected for reasons that have little to do with how well they represent their party's values and, lately, are more likely a reflection of how well they can self-fund their campaigns).

There's a whole eye-opening story behind how that played out which, if you're a Republican, should disgust you, but I'll go into that another day. I didn't mind the challenge, per se; it's merely a tactical strategy used all the time in campaigns, and I knew I could survive it since I'd followed the rules. It was how they went about it that I took issue with. Long story short, I didn't fold my tent in response to their bully tactics, threats and attemps to intimidate, and they withdrew their challenge before we had a hearing on it.

So, I'm on the ballot in Congressional District 6, the only woman among the 9 total candidates vying for the 3 available delegate positions. The GOP organizations of the three counties that make up CD6, Berks, Chester and Montgomery Counties, all conspired to pick the three folks they'd jointly endorse for these slots, and of course, I wasn't one of them.

All three endorsed delegate candidates currently hold some sort of elected position, from township supervisor up to a US House of Representatives incumbent who's House seat is also up for election this year, and for whom I personally gathered almost 100 petition signatures. Arguably, I may be the only 'outsider' of the entire group of 9 candidates.  For a list of the other 2012 Republican delegate candidates in Congressional District 6 and who they are/where they're from, click here.

As to which candidate I support,  let me preface my comments by stating that there are things I like, and don't like, about each. None of them are perfect, and frankly, I think this year's field is not a strong one. When I circulated petitions, voters in my district were all over the place - no clear preferred candidate was evident. I'm currently leaning toward Gingrich, but whomever the voters of CD6 cast the majority of their votes for is who will receive my support if I'm elected. And if I'm not...here's to 2016!

PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO VOTE ON APRIL 24!!

As The Township Turns

In the latest episode of the soap opera known as 'As the Township Turns", I got another piece of smear mail today ... the one I had heard last week was coming, and to which I've already responded in a mailer that dropped over the weekend.  Honestly, people, I didn't start this nonsense, but when attacked I will finish it. One only gets one reputation, and over the years I have been diligent in defending myself. This race has been no exception.

While it claims that I am saying anything to scare voters, this piece from opponent Sorgini claims all kinds of outrageous things, many of which were raised and responded to in the Spring before I won the primary.

To me, the most ridiculous ones - again ,from someone who never attended so much as one meeting or hearing that I participated in during all my years of service, so he has no personal knowledge as to whether what he's being told is true - were Sorgini's claims regarding the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB), including that 'she exceeded her budget'.

While I served 5 years, and chaired for two, the ZHB has no budget to exceed (in any municipality). The ZHB cannot control who files challenges to ordinances passed by the supervisors, nor can it control who appeals their decisions. The Township is obligated to pay the ZHB's legal bills, whatever they are, and the individual zoning members have absolutely no control over nor say in how much is allocated or spent on conducting its business. It didn't help that our current supervisors' chairman saw fit to cause the Township to sue his own ZHB several times to help his political friends. We can't control that either.

There was also never a time I "voted" not to allow residents to speak. Questions from the public, and public comment periods, are by law a part of every public hearing conducted by any municipal board. The mailer doesn't even reference with any specificity within which  of dozens of hearings this allegedly occured. 

The rest is pure nonsense, again put forth by someone with no personal knowledge and who either doesn't understand legal process, evidentiary rules, when a party is considered to have standing or not,  or how municipal meetings and hearings are conducted, or is intentionally bending the facts to mislead voters. Either way, they're not qualities you want in your leaders.

The information we put forth about the landfill was fact checked by an MCRC attorney, appeared on the supervisors' most recent agenda  (for Nov. 3), and I stand by what it said. 

Curiously, that same meeting on which the landfill topic appeared was inexplicably canceled at the last minute. I can't remember the last time that happened, if ever, and it couldn't have been because they didn't have a quorum, because three of the five supervisors were seen by me and my family having dinner at a restaurant we were at, that same evening, during the time the meeting would have been in session. Things that make you go "hmmm"... perhaps they wanted to wait until after the election?

I have always been diligent about making my personal phone numbers available. Residents with legitimate questions are always welcome to contact me to get all sides of an issue. Otherwise, the nonsense on this mailer belongs in the circular file.

Notes from the campaign trail

You might have noticed I haven't posted anything in about six weeks, and there's a good reason for that. Running for elected office of any kind is, if done correctly, time consuming. Let me just say that my home needs a thorough cleaning, the laundry pile needs tackling, and my grocery list is approaching the size of the federal tax code, so you know I have been focused on the race!

One thing my running mate, Jill Zimmerman and I did was sit for interviews with the Times Herald. While I was misquoted and/or quoted out of context in a couple places, overall I was happy with how it went. I believe the print version is available today.

Just knocking on hundreds of doors to introduce yourself to voters and ask for their support takes every spare hour you have, but it's so important. How else do you have any idea what is on people's minds? Jill and I have spent the last 8 weeks or so traversing the ten voting districts that comprise Lower Providence. We believe that elected officials should listen to, not dictate to, its residents.

My understanding is that during the primary, one of our opponents, Jason Sorgini considered this a 'waste of time' and that he 'doesn't see the value in it'. Even though he claims he’s knocking, not one home out of the hundreds we've visited has ever mentioned that he had been by, which is unheard of in a contested race. We've not seen so much as one of his door cards. We have actually crossed paths with the other candidate, Kelbin Carolina, however and seen evidence that HE’S been hitting the pavement. I have to wonder why Sorgini doesn't want to hear what issues are of concern to ALL our residents, not just those he surrounds himself with.

Anyway, some miscellaneous observations from the campaign trail:

• If I and Jill are elected, it will be the first time in Lower Providence’s 200+ year history that we’ve had a three women to two men majority on the Board. Not that this is a reason to vote for us, but I have a funny feeling that we ladies can get a lot more positive things done than the guys have.

• I’m aware of emails going around to voters from sitting supervisor Rick Brown, encouraging voters to support his candidate by bullet voting for him and claiming that I have ‘duped voters once again’. Rick, if anyone is duping voters, it’s you with your never-heard-from-before-2011 candidate trying to dupe voters into thinking he’s ‘dedicated’ and ‘committed’ (yes this is the same guy who’s so dedicated and committed he can’t manage to find time to attend township meetings or knock on doors). Heck, half of what comes out of his mouth came off my campaign literature or website. Why buy the copy when you can have the original?

• Several contested races have generated a ton of mail, and this one is no exception. If the stakes weren't so high, some of it would be laughable. Sorgini attempted to frame legal opinions rendered after hearings he did not attend & has no personal knowledge of as somehow faulty, and it's clear to me he has no idea what he's talking about. Perhaps he needs to add one more degree to the three he already has – a law degree.

For example, one case he referenced in his latest mailer hinged on several legal issues, one of which was the legal definition of abandonment. Even though he attended none of the public hearings and heard no testimony upon which to arrive at a conclusion, he attempts to blame me alone for a decision arrived at by a board of five after hours of painstaking hearings, mountains of evidence and oral argument, and exhaustive review of applicable case law. Mr. Baird and his buddy Rick, at taxpayer expense, appealed this decision twice; it was denied twice and is now on appellate review that is substantially narrower in scope on only one of the several issues initially raised.

 Try asking Sorgini what any of the other complex legal issues raised in this particular case were. I bet he can't name one without first getting it, and regurgitating it, from someone else.

 In another case regarding billboards, it’s important to note that state law prohibits a municipality from legislating against specific uses such as billboards, adult entertainment, cell towers or mobile home parks. Bottom line, our zoning must accommodate these things.

The case we were presented with raised the issue that our ordinance was defective because it constructively did not provide for billboards at all. We had to cure the ordinance and rule on the application. We elected to allow them on the outskirts of the township along 422 where the least number of our residents would be subjected to them, rather than adding more along Egypt road, where a larger number of our residents WOULD have to look at them.

We have a duty on our boards and commissions to be fair to the applicant property owner and surrounding residents, and, in the instance of the Zoning Hearing Board, can only render decisions that comply with state and municipal law and case law, based on what's entered onto the record, or we risk being overturned on appeal. The resident who was on the losing end of this particular decision, Ted Baird, has (besides sour grapes) a powerful friend – Rick Brown – who’s arguably backing Mr. Sorgini for his own political survival – and Baird and Brown are undoubtedly where this version came from, since Sorgini himself was never there. No decision I was a part of rendering was ever overturned.

Sorgini’s arguments about the rest of the cases he mentioned – including the sewer lawsuit – is similarly defective. Yes LP was sued by the regional sewer authority, but it sued the sewer authority first. The regional sewer authority countersued.

• Some may wonder why my running mate and I declined to attend the candidate forum held on Oct. 24. From my perspective, any event sponsored by a group started in the early 80's by supervisor Rick Brown, (who has come out publicly in support of Sorgini), and which is a group populated by Mr. Brown's cronies (some of whom were on the losing end of the above-referenced case, among others), cannot possibly be UNbiased.

Instead of asking the League of Women Voters to sponsor such an event, this group clearly only held the event to turn it into the Jason Sorgini show, and when you also consider:

• it was held on township property (when the township has historically been apolitical)
•  that long-standing policy against political broadcasts was thrown out the window to allow for rebroadcast of the forum on our cable channel
•  AND that it was all paid for using taxpayer funds

               it was definitely something we did not want any part of.

Anyway, win or lose, it’s been an adventure that’s been both rewarding and trying at times. There are other aspects I’ll write about after Tuesday. Either way the best part for me has been getting to know our residents and our community better, and I’ve made some terrific new friends as a result.

Whoever you support, wherever you are, whichever party you identify with, come out and vote on Tuesday.

Winning!

Yesterday's local election resulted in my earning one of two positions that cleared the primary to run in the General Election in November on the Republican ticket for Lower Providence Township supervisor.

Of course, although it's my name that's out front on the ticket, nobody gets to victory alone. Although there were far too many individual contributors in ways big and small to list here, special thanks goes:

First and foremost to my family - my parents and my children. They each were there for me in tangible and intangible ways, and their support of something I love doing so much meant the world to me, especially since their lives were impacted the most by my campaign. Of course, I am now on the hook for a new dog, which my kids extracted from me as my first campaign promise that I must deliver !

To each and every friend of mine who worked the call list hard, wrote a letter or sent an email supporting me, put a sign up in their yard, came to my fundraiser, gave valuable advice or moral support, worked long into the night on my behalf, or did something else on a long list of things that had to be done. My longtime friends were there for me, and I made some wonderful new ones, too. I love you all, and from the bottom of my heart, thanks.

One of those newer friends is Lisa Mossie, who was just elected township supervisor in our sister township, Upper Providence. We bonded last year over blogging and politics in general, and share similar sensibilities and work ethic. We collaborated, shared resources and lent each other moral support this election season, and I am looking forward to working with her on things that may impact both our communities.

Thanks to my employer for allowing me the flexibility of time and location to get this done and still carry my workload. Their support of my passion is one thing that makes me work harder for them, and they know it. I appreciate their belief in my talents and allowing me to follow my dream.

Extra-special thanks to all my poll workers who stepped up to do this tough job, and happily got it done in the trenches - in the rain, no less. No matter if they worked a few hours or all day, they delivered big. They kept us from being in the position of having run a great campaign only to fumble the ball on the goal line - so thanks for your dedication, perseverance and work ethic.

With nothing but All-Star players and a bench loaded with talent, I couldn't lose.

Last but certainly not least, thanks to each voter who took the time to talk with me at the door, to read my literature, to research who I am and what I've done, to call me with questions, and to trust me with your vote. It's something I hold precious and pledge not to lose sight of going forward. You will always know where I stand and be able to find me to talk.

 ~ Janice Kearney