In a council vote headed by Daryl Hendricks, Tom Muller was rejected to start serving as Managing Director. He correctly told council, “The mayor is across the street all the time right now and someone needs to be tending the shop,” Although Hendricks stated that he would favor the appointment after the trial, Muller stated that he would have to re-evaluate his offer to serve. I know that Hendricks' dissenting vote wasn't unexpected, but Muller thought that he would be appointed by a 6 to 1 margin. I believe that Allentown may have lost the option of an experienced administrator for a political reason, nothing unusual for this city.
This meeting was covered by Daryl Nerl, now a freelancer for the Morning Call. Nerl was Pawlowski's first and last supporter. As the full time Allentown beat reporter for the paper in 2005, his coverage of that election was notably biased for Pawlowski. When Mike Fleck closed his office and fled Allentown, Nerl was in his employ promoting Pawlowski. His assignment to cover Pawlowski related news is ill-advised, nothing unusual for this paper.
photocredit: WFMZ-TV/ 69 News
Council did the right thing. If Pawlowski is found guilty, who wants his political buddies around. Surely, the interim mayor will not be able to appoint temporary cabinet appointments, therefore, the city will have to make do, [as they are now], with the "Status Quo".
ReplyDeletePrior to Prince Pawlowski, there was no Managing Director. It was the Mayor's job to run the city. This ability to have a managing director run the city is what led to all the problems that are being tried across the street. Mayor Bill Heydt aptly ran the city without a managing director and turned over surpluses after surpluses without fees or tax increases. Anyway, Tom Muller is only a temporary fix at best. His desire to move to Florida, along with the fact that he won't move into Allentown within a year, is a stiff reason not to accept him for the position.
Leave the two positions empty until the trial is over and hopefully a new mayor can evaluate the position of Managing Director and fill the Solicitor's position with a non-political hack. In other words "start anew".
Mike, On Daryl we agree. He allowed his own bias to heavily influence his reporting. (But of course that has become the norm now.) The worst example was when Ed labeled the city's many community groups as "racist" at a public meeting at Zion Church. Daryl didn't report it I did on the group site. Later at a 69NEWS debate I called him on it, Ed called me a liar, that he never said it. Daryl just smirked and wrote nothing. That is just one example.
ReplyDeleteOn Muller we disagree, I think it is a huge mistake to bring anyone who was collaborating with Ed into city government. We need to be doing just the opposite. There is plenty of evidence Tom Muller was engaged in some very questionable dealings when he was executive. Remember, the FBI was looking at them as well.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletefire@7:37, i agree that the position of managing director should have never been approved back in 2006, and should not have existed throughout pawlowski's first terms. however, now we need it, because there is no executive on board. even if pawlowski is acquitted, he will be totally ineffective from here on forward.
ReplyDeletescott@7:53, I consider Muller to be pawlowski's first good appointment
60@9:32, I do not host two word comments
Mike,
ReplyDeleteNo one should doubt Muller's professional credentials. As well, he did do/try to do, good things as county executive, Cedar Brook for instance. But honestly there are plenty of people who have the credentials to do the job of city manager. I prefer we make a fresh start. If Tom had not enmeshed himself so completely with Ed and his crowd I doubt anyone would object to this possible appointment.
This isn't our first disagreement and it won't be the last but I certainly respect your thinking and courage to state your thoughts publicly.
Why would the Mayor be anymore ineffective if acquitted? If acquitted, I would presume it was because the government didn't possess any tape wherein Pawlowski is heard to explicitly link a specific contribution to a specific contract. The whole rest of the government's case is simply flipped government witnesses testifying about "he said - I heard" type conversations in order to secure reduced sentences for crimes they already plead to.
ReplyDeleteIf the government secretly records you for an extended time, with informants trying to verbally set you up and say the magic incriminating words, and after all that, they can't produce a single tape wherein the specific quid pro quo is heard, then at least one juror will be inclined to acquit.....which is all it takes. It wouldn't prove that Pawlowski is innocent; it would just demonstrate that he is smart enough not to cross the line when speaking to subordinates. And there would be no reason in the future to believe that he couldn't continue to award contracts to his friends and deny them to those that didn't support him with contributions. And there would be no shortage of law firms and other vendors seeking the contracts from the city under Pawlowski.
When you strike the King...you must kill him. Anything less, and you have failed.....miserably. Prosecutors simply go on to another case, but, those who testified against Pawlowski if he is acquitted.....they are finished. No elected official will ever give them another contract.
Yes Trent, the Feds might lose on the bribery counts for the reasons you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteThere are still charges of lying to the FBI which are far easier to prove, thanks to the FBI's taped interview in which Pawlowski denies multiple facts which the government has shown were true. To acquit, the jury would have to buy a lengthy string of dubious explanations by Pawlowski along the lines of "I forgot" and "I thought the question referred to something else". If the jury convicts on just one of those counts of lying to the FBI, it's a felony and I believe Pawlowski is done as mayor, regardless of any appeal.