Resident asks for new election board, judge in prison referendum issue
A Uniontown man is requesting that a new election board be empaneled to hear testimony from prison referendum petition signers.
However, the chairman of the current board said he will not convene a meeting to reconsider the matter.
In his letter to election bureau director Larry Blosser, election board members and Commissioners Al Ambrosini, Vincent Zapotosky and Angela M. Zimmerlink and Court of Common Pleas President Judge John F. Wagner Jr. on Thursday, Michael Cavanagh said that in fairness to the 3,450 signers, the current election board and the ranking county judge and other members of the local judiciary should step aside and let unbiased replacements hear the matter.
“The conflicts of interest and the very nature of my complaint now dictate that this board be replaced by a fair and impartial election board to hear the testimony and render a fair decision as to the violated process by the present election board,” he said. “Additionally, the current Court of Common Pleas needs a complete recusal based on the court having a conflict of interest in any of these proceedings.”
Pointing to a June 17 letter from Wagner to the commissioners stating that the court “is supportive of the commissioners initiating the process to construct a new prison,” Cavanagh said that the judges should be disqualified and another judge be appointed.
The request follows an election board meeting held Tuesday where Ambrosini and Zapotosky agreed to deny a referendum question be added to the May 20 ballot, that, if approved by the electorate, would halt the planning for the construction of a new county prison.
Zimmerlink declined to vote in the action, stating that the meeting was not held in compliance with county regulations or policies. A hearing, not a meeting, should have been conducted within seven days of the March 11 filing of the petitions, she added.
“(The election board) is clearly disenfranchising all of the 3,450 people that signed the petition and has clearly violated the election code and (the) board’s very own resolutions with regard to referendums in Fayette County,” said Cavanagh. “(The) board is charged with upholding the state and federal constitutions, as well as adhering to the state Election Code.”
After months of criticizing the commissioners for not including the public in the decision-making process for the planned new prison, six residents formed a “referendum committee” to reverse any in-place construction or financing plans and mandate that officials include taxpayers in any future decision-making through a binding ballot question.
During the election board meeting, Ambrosini and Zapotosky agreed that the proposed question had no specific authority statute and denied its placement on the ballot.
“The legal memorandum of our solicitor and the (county’s) referendum handbook clearly spell out that unless a specific authority statute is referenced, the referendum would only be advisory, and under (state) case law, the election board is not permitted to place advisory referendum on the ballot,” said Ambrosini. “The committee was advised twice that there was no constitutional support for the referendum.”
Ambrosini called Cavanagh’s request a “political tactic” aimed to help Zimmerlink retain her seat in 2016.
“We need a new prison,” Ambrosini said. “We are wasting $200,000 a month by operating an ineffective and inefficient prison.
“I am focused on getting this done so that I can turn my attention to economic development. I am not going to waste my time on holding meetings that will not change the outcome. There is no court that is going to say this can be on an election ballot,” added Ambrosini.
Cavanagh, meanwhile, said county voters should have the opportunity to weigh-in in the matter.
“This is an issue of paramount importance and any delay in action is disenfranchising all of the citizens of Fayette County the right to address this issue at the ballot box and with the election board,” he said.
Blosser said that he delivered a copy of Cavanagh’s letter to the election board members and is awaiting direction from them as to whether an emergency hearing will be held.
Blosser said the clock is ticking to have the ballots printed and equipment tested prior to the May 20 primary.
“I should be starting that process next week,” he said.
The referendum committee has requested the court to order the election board to convene a hearing. Wagner delayed action pending the outcome of the election board decision.
“The judge is aware of the board decision, but has yet to hear the case,” said Blosser, adding that a court date has not been set.
Cavanagh, meanwhile, said that the issue should be addressed in a timely manner.
“When the election process is violated in such an egregious manner, our whole system of government falls under suspicion,” he said.