Tuesday, March 25, 2008


I'm not going to try rehash the whole argument here, but here's the 10 second time line as I understand it:

  1. City Council was set to review a proposal to limit the number of "take home" vehicles available for city officials from 59 to 29, as dictated by the Act 47 Plan.
  2. Mayor Ravenstahl has a conversation with Councilman Kraus at a fund raiser where he informs Kraus of his opinion that if council limits spending based on Act 47 then they should look at their own spending in relation to Act 47. Just how cordial this conversation was is unclear.
  3. Council votes to indeed cut the number of take home vehicles 5-3.
  4. Councilman Motznik introduces a bill that would slash Council's budget and staff.
  5. Councilman Kraus claims that Motznik's resolution is consistent with the in his face threat that Ravenstahl made at the aforementioned fund raiser.
  6. Councilman Motznik says he heard the statement and it wasn't a threat.
  7. Councilman Kraus says "liar liar pants on fire."
  8. Mayor Ravenstahl says No, you're the liar."

2-8 are in this post-gazette article

  • Can Council and the Mayor's mother come and pick them up before someone throws a tantrum?
  • Ravenstahl, then a member of council, voted to approve the Act 47 plan. Although apparently only because it "would be approved anyway."
  • Why do 59 city employees have "take home" cars? If Luke wants to keep them I'd like to see a list of who has them and why.
  • In neither of the above articles is there a single quote from either side that starts, "I think we should do this because..." or "I voted against this because of X vital city function facilitated by these cars." The closest anyone came to a substantive opinion was Councilperson Harris arguing against an amendment that would eliminate reimbursement for councilpersons' mileage.
  • A humorous note in the article on Act 47 they point out that Twanda Carlisle opposed the Act 47 plan. Now why would she want to limit city spending?

No comments: