Check the accounting
Dear Editor: In the Herald-Standard Aug. 5 article “HUD orders pre-approval of services contracts,” board member Angela M. Zimmerlink said the HUD procurement-related findings substantiate her lack of faith in the authority’s solicitor, the local Davis & Davis law firm, as well as the specialized Cohen & Grisby law firm from Pittsburgh. This firm was hired to assist with the selection of a real estate development partner.
The Fayette County Housing Authority used Cohen & Grisby to defend their position in terminating me as an employee on Aug. 11, 2000. The specialized law firm represented the Fayette County Housing Authority during my civil service hearing in October 2000.
This hearing was the first step in trying to keep my job that I had had since April 27, 1981. Further litigation procedures produced copies of legal forms of another attorney’s signature name working for Cohen & Grigsby other than the original attorney I encountered at the civil service hearing representing the housing authority.
Thus I have no idea as to how many attorneys, paralegals, assistants, clerks, typists worked for this specialized law firm when representing the Fayette County Housing Authority in my termination of employment legal proceedings. Nor do I have any idea as to what the total cost of my termination legal fees cost the authority.
What I am concerned with is this. From what account were the costs of litigating my termination allocated? Were these costs included in the accounting of preliminary development costs associated with the selection of a real estate development partner for the authority? Litigation costs should have been allocated to the general ledger expenses within the general fund and its budget constraints.
If the costs of litigating my termination are included or packaged in preliminary development costs as reimbursable development costs from a grant earmarked for capital expenditures, this echoes national news concern over large corporations having their financial woes due to poor quality accounting guidelines.
Perhaps Mrs. Zimmerlink should look into this as to find out what exactly Cohen & Grisby law firm does for the authority and where their fees are charged.
John A. Leoni
Uniontown
It’s all about campaign money
Dear Editor:
I read Luanne Traud’s commentary, “Cavanagh suffers from mirror-gazing syndrome” with much amusement and relief that apparently someone at the Herald-Standard has finally seen through the total smoke-screen that is Sean Cavanagh.
In 1995, I like many people believed that Sean was “in it for the people” and that he truly cared about Fayette County. Now in 2002 I know the truth.
Traud’s column talks about the cost overages at the new prison annex and questions why Cavanagh continues to support Molnar after he constantly under estimates the costs of projects.
Please allow me to answer the question for you Ms. Traud.
This is why Cavanagh is supporting Molnar.
According to Cavanagh’s 2001 Campaign Reports, which we have reviewed and copied, Molnar gave Sean $500 last year and in years past has donated even more to the commissioner.
Of course Molnar isn’t the only Cavanagh campaign contributor to be rewarded with contracts. The owner of Spartan Construction, the company that performed a good deal of the work at the new prison annex, Darin Agostini, contributed $200 to Cavanagh in 2001 also.
Then there is John Garlow, owner of Ford Business Machines, the company that provides county offices with photo-copiers, who donated $1000 and a 19-inch RCA television to Cavanagh’s campaign. I could go on.
All of this information is public and available at the Fayette County Election Bureau. Please go and read it for yourself.
I hope this answers your question of why Cavanagh continues to support Molnar.
Brian K. Lutes
Uniontown