This post contains a quick (?) update on the statewide ambitions of Jim Burn, the Allegheny County Democratic commtitee chair who wants to head up the party’s statewide apparatus. It also discusses some potential rules changes that may be coming down the pike in the years to come … and offers yet another installment of the 19th ward saga.
As such, if you skip reading the rest of this thing, I’ll understand.
Anyway. Alex Roarty of PoliticsPa noted yesterday that Burn’s effort to be the next state chair may be stumbling. County executive Dan Onorato, the party’s gubernatorial nominee, is not endorsing Burn — or anyone else. Onorato says he respects “the process” of having committee folk make their own choice.
My guess — and that of some other party insiders — is that Onorato is worried Burn doesn’t help further Onorato’s statewide ambitions. In order to win, Onorato is gonna need as many votes as he can get out of the Philly area … and a fellow Allegheny Countian may not be much help with that.
I asked Burn about this theory. He notes that Bob Brady, who chairs the Democratic committee in Philadelphia, is an avowed supporter. That, he says, should allay concern about Burn’s reach. As for Onorato, Burn says he respects Onorato’s desire to “respect the process.”
“It’s important to see what the rank-and-file thinks,” Burn says.
In any case, the state commitee is set to meet on June 19. In the meantime, Burn will be seeking another term as county chair tomorrow, at a meeting of the Allegheny County committee. Oh, and among the items on the agenda? A survey about whether committee members have the stomach for another battle over endorsements.
You may recall that county Dems have previously argued over whether party endorsements should be binding in primaries. If, for example, Luke Ravenstahl is the endorsed Democrat in a mayoral race, should a Democratic committee person be barred from putting up a Bill Peduto sign before the spring primary?
The last time the committee examined the matter, committee members decided to table the whole issue. So Burn is circulating a survey to gauge the party members’ interest in dealing with this again. The survey asks a handful of questions, reprinted here:
1.) Do you support the Party’s current process of endorsing candidates in the spring primary?
2.) Do you support “open primaries”? i.e., no Party endorsements of any candidates in the Spring primary?
3.) Do you support modifying or amending our current endorsement process?
4.) If you answer to Number 3 is “yes”, do you: A.) Prefer that endorsements require a majority(vs. a plurality) in multi candidate fields? __________ B.) Prefer the 2/3 endorsement requirement as utilized by the Pa State Democratic Committee? __________ C.) Prefer removing the requirement that endorsements are binding on all Party members? __________
Such matters will be taken up by a new bylaws committee, whose members will be chosen by Burn (or whoever the next county chair turns out to be).
Another topic Burn expects to have come up: the curious, if common, practice of allowing people to serve as ward chairs and other officers even if they are not on the committee. This is a longstanding pratice among local Democratic committees, both inside and outside the city, but Burn says “I’ve been hearing a lot of complaints about it in the past six months.”
To take one example that’s been much on my mind, the city’s 19th ward has a commitee chair (Pete Wagner) who wasn’t actually elected as committeepeople last month. And that’s not very unusual. You can find similar examples all around the county. The only qualifications to serve as a ward officer are that you be a registered Democrat, and that you live in the district.
Still, it is sort of a strange practice. As one would-be reformer told me, “It’s like, ‘You won’t join our club, but we’ll make you the president.'”
Such sentiments may soon get a thorough airing. Burn pledges that when he convenes the bylaws committee. “I’m going to put people on it that don’t agree on anything.”
Sounds like fun, doesn’t it? With my luck, I’ll end up having to cover it.
Speaking of utterly intractable disputes, and the 19th ward … for anyone still following along at home — as I know a few folks in Beechview certainly are — I asked Burn about the latest on the Kimberly Cagni residency question. As of Friday, Burn said Cagni had yet to respond to a residency challenge filed as part of a battle for control of the 19th ward — a fact which surprised him. Cagni has about two weeks left to reply; if she doesn’t, Burn says he will have to remove her from the committee. “I would have expected somebody to send me some documentation by now,” he says.
When I asked what kind of documentation would be germane, he indicated that a “consistent voting record in the 19th ward” would be one “compelling argument” for retaining her. Such information is publically available, but Burn says that in the event of a challenge like this one, he only considers evidence brought before him.
I, of course, am under no such restriction. And I can tell you that according to county election records, Cagni has indeed consistently been listing the 19th ward as her home for voting purposes.
Of course, it is possible to vote in one place even if, for most intents and purposes, you live in another. (Just ask Dok Harris.) But Burn says that establishing residency often involves weighing various factors, since a person can have various residencies while having only one “domicile.” A steady voting record would be “a significant factor” in Cagni’s favor, he says.
This article appears in Jun 10-16, 2010.
![Best OnlyFans Accounts [2024] Top OnlyFans Girls & Models to Follow!](https://i0.wp.com/www.pghcitypaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image6-1.png-1.png?fit=950%2C621&ssl=1)
Public election and county real estate assessment records may indicate one thing, the truth can be another.
The “various factors” should also include copies of 2009 federal,state,city and county tax returns; last six months utility bills; a current and valid motor vehicle registration card(s); in force motor vehicle insurance declaration pages; current health insurance provider cards; etc., etc., etc.
Maybe an investigative reporter or any interested party can call the Mt. Lebanon Municipal Building and ask specific questions about their tax rolls and school records. All public records.
Absolute proof of having a “domicile” rather than a “residence” in the 19th.Ward is the only honest way to resolve the “compelling argument”.
But, why should this issue be a “compelling argument” if honest truthfull documentation of domicile is provided.
get a life mr. or ms. ingognito 19th ward resident,
You should involve yourself in helping the 19th ward rather than trying to insult or make negative comments towards the great people who are long standing committee members.
why don’t you lead up the investigation yourself.
the time you spent trying to belittle someone that has done more for the party and helped all who needed her from the goodness of heart.never using the political position for any self interest,like your liasian. coghill lost …period…. there was no fraud and no one can question anything about the entire matter.coghill wants to throw stones and get wantabe’s like you to help him with this free publicity .
So inspector clueso get a life and start by apoligizing to the young lady that you’ve chose to make frivilous allegations about.
You want to play policeman, district attorney, and judge.
Resident, I say the party is over!!!! kimmy won her seat again.she has proved her case prior to a judge and surely does not have to answer to the likes of you or a rooofer, with a track record as big as your IQ’s combined.
Carly Simon and James Taylor are the closing acts for our Arena.do you think with all your intellect, talent, and connections that you could have her dedicate” your so vein” to COGHILL??
Put your cash together and hire a mind for your crew.Maybe they will find some one else to grandstand on ,or a situation that has some substance and merit…
Not False allegations ,as well as personal matters.
But then look at what this coghill camp has accomplished????????
He should bury his head in the sand,out of shame.
Who I am doesn’t matter. Where were my insults? Why the personal attack on me? Are you “standing committee person”, if so lets hope the others don’t have your narrow vision.
The real issue again is; Was there a fraudulent Election Petition filed? The only reason Coghills challenge was quashed was because the person making the challenge must have their “domocile” were the challenge was made; Coghill lives in the 19th. Ward but in a different district.
Again — the issue is a possible fraudulent Election Petition!!!!
Coghill should really keep pounding away on this residency requirement thing. I’m sure it will play really well with all the cops who “live” in the 19th Ward.
What exactly is “the process”? Isn’t the Committee inherently an endorsing, politicking gang of folk? Hasn’t “the process” been for the party’s gov candidate to reshape the party leadership in his image?
Is there any chance that Onorato doesn’t want to endorse someone on the off chance that his someone won’t win, and thereby expose committee some indifference towards him?
These points might help who’s who down from the high horse:
1. Qualification to vote at the reorganizational meeting is a Democratic Committee matter.
2. Jim Burn, by interpreting the rules in a manner that enabled Ms. Cagni to vote unless and until ruled ineligible, determined that Ms. Cagni could vote at the reorganizational meeting.
3. The legality of Ms. Cagni’s sworn declarations in a petition submitted to the Allegheny County Division of Elections is an entirely different — and, for Ms. Cagni and her supporters, more ominous — issue.
4. If Ms. Cagni submitted a sworn lie concerning residency to the Division of Elections, that would appear to constitute election fraud (and a few related offenses).
5. No judge, or any other authority, has reviewed the propriety of Ms. Cagni’s petition. But it seems reasonable to expect that one will, because (a) publicly available evidence suggests Ms. Cagni is not a resident of the relevant voting district and (b) this matter has become a public spectacle. The district attorney could institute an investigation with or without a private citizen’s complaint.
6. It is highly unlikely that Jim Burn will be able to avoid issuing a formal decision (unless Ms. Cagni resigns before such a decision is to be issued) with an explanation of facts and reasoning. Unless nonpublic facts dispel the impressions creating by public evidence, Mr. Burn and Ms. Cagni should be expected to strive to avoid the issuance of such a decision.
7. The City Committee has been one of the major factors in turning Pittsburgh into InsolvenCity, a nearly unique wreck among the nation’s substantial cities. There are a some “great people” associated with the City Committee, but most are not. In aggregate the committee has been a disaster and those associated with it should apologize rather than crow about accomplishments.
That horse was pretty high. If you need a couple of additional steps, let us know. They’re easy to find.
P.S. Those proposing to opine concerning others’ intelligence should learn to distinguish “vein” from “vain.”
Aside to Chris Potter: Do you know whether any journalist has examined the relevant petition? Inexplicably, the answer seems to be “no.”
@Infi —
” Do you know whether any journalist has examined the relevant petition? Inexplicably, the answer seems to be ‘no.'”
Do you mean Ms. Cagni’s petition to get on the ballot? I have looked at it, as I think I indicated in my initial post on all this stuff.
Also, in the comments below, there’s some chatter about previous rulings on this matter. I should clarify that Coghill previously tried to challenge Cagni’s residency in court earlier this year — prior to the May primary. That challenge was thrown out, but it was due to a question of standing. No one has ruled on the merits of the challenge either way, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Dzerzhinsky:
If the “cops” you are referring to are City of Pittsburgh Police Officers who live in the 19th.Ward, there is no residency problem. The 19th.Ward is within the City of Pittsburgh boundaries, unlike, just to mention, the Municipal of Mt. Lebanon.
To the world —–
Coghills’Election Petition Challenge filed on 3-16-10; Cagnis’ Election Petition dated 3-9-10 and Judge Joseph M. James Order of Court dated 3-26-10 quashing the Challenge can be viewed on the Allegheny County Department of Court Records web-site. It is public information.
“If Ms. Cagni submitted a sworn lie concerning residency to the Division of Elections, that would appear to constitute election fraud (and a few related offenses).”
That’s the rock. The hard place is that the county Dept. of Real Estate has some stern language about the abuse of the Homestead Exemption, which she has taken on her Mt. Lebanon home.
It’s hard to imagine a background scenario to explain all of this that would not leave her with some serious explaining to do to one state official or another.
Missed your mention of the petition, Slagger. Sorry. Did she identify a residence other than the one for which she appears to claim entitlement to a homestead exemption tax break?
The difference between the quick-and-dirty proceeding associated with a knock-her-off-the-ballot challenge, and the criminal proceeding associated with a question of election fraud/false declaration, is substantial.
The best course may be to quit speculating and let Law Claus sort it out. He’s good at that.
To the 19th Warder: I was referring to the cops who likely keep a rental property in the city (19th Ward or otherwise) when in fact they live in the suburbs. Probably much like Cagni does. I’m not commenting on whether Cagni’s actions are acceptable or not; in fact it is a matter of such infinitesimal concern that I can’t be bothered to think much about it. But I am questioning Coghill’s political intelligence in raising this issue, since there are plenty of cops in the 19th Ward, and I’d bet that every one of them at least has a friend on the force who is violating the City residency requirement, even if they’re not doing it themselves.
Based upon the statements attributed to Jim Burn in the above article; can any knowlegeable standing committee person confirm that he (Burn) has the sole and exclusive authority to convene a By-Law Committee and fill what ever number of seats are created with hand picked members?
@ 19th Ward resident —
I’m not a committeeperson, but the county committee by-laws state that among the powers of the county chairperson is the ability
“To appointment [sic], and to supervise the functions of, such standing or special subcommittees as may be necessary or advisable to carry out party business and to delegate thereto such powers and duties as may be necessary or advisable”
Thanks for the response C.Potter — non-committee person.
Astonishing. Absolute authority with no input from the whole membership of the rank and file committee people concerning the establishment of a Committee, it’s chair members, including their purpose and responsibilites. Boy and Girl Scouts; Parent Teacher Associations; Church Sessions/Councils: School Boards; and beleive it or not even our City Council is more democracticly structured under Robert’s Rules of Order.
Autocratic is the anti-matter to Democratic.
Maybe Burn could set up a committee to look into whether chairs should be in charge of setting up committees!
No doubt —- he does have sole and exclusive authority to make it happen.
It is possible — he has the sole and exclusive authority to get it done.
The by-law committee will only be able to draft proposed by-law changes. Any changes must be voted on at a quorum of the county committee members. Even if he controls the by-law committee, he will not let the committee draft anything that the county committee as a whole would never pass.
Sentence One – Agreed
Sentence Two – Agreed
Sentence Three – How does he (County Chairperson) unilaterally make a determination that a proposed by-law or a revision would never be passed by the County Committee as a whole? Shouldn’t a proposed by-law change or a new by-law of what ever type be presented by the By-Laws Committee to the County Committee for their rejection or approval upon a properly called meeting and vote? What I am reading is that the County Chairperson has complete control of what ever committee he convenes and controls what is and what is not disseminated to the County Committee as a whole.