The end
Fayette County Commission Chairman Vince Zapotosky ended speculation about his plans for re-election this fall with the news Monday that he won’t be seeking a third-term in office.
In his announcement, Zapotosky said that part of the reason he wasn’t running was to keep a campaign promise to seek only two terms as a commissioner. However, it’s interesting that Zapotosky made no mention of the promise when he switched from the Democratic Party to the Independent Party last spring. In fact, Zapotosky gave all indications back then that he would seek a third term, saying, “I am hopeful that those that voted for me in the past will support my candidacy in the fall.”
So, who knows what his real reasons were for not seeking a third term? He said stress and family concerns were issues, and there’s probably a lot of truth to that. Or was it a lack of political support? With six other candidates in the race, there’s no doubt that Zapotosky would have faced an uphill battle for re-election.
Whatever the reason, though, the decision brings his interesting political career to a close, at least for the immediate future. A former aide to U.S. Reps. Austin Murphy and Frank Mascara, Zapotosky made his first foray into politics back in 2003, when he finished fourth in the Democratic primary for county commissioner.
Then, Zapotosky had the good fortune to win two terms as a county commissioner. However, it was interesting that in both primary campaigns Zapotosky ran with other candidates, who both finished third and out of the running. In 2007, while Zapotosky finished first in the Democratic Party primary, his partner, former commissioner Sean Cavanagh, finished third. In 2011, he finished second, while his runningmate, commissioner Vince Vicites, finished third.
Zapotosky will be best remembered, though, for his controversial decision last August to reverse his stance on building a new county prison. Zapotosky had been in lock step with Ambrosini on the need for a new $30 million prison to replace the current facility which was built in 1889. But then suddenly he announced that he had concerns about the cost of the project and wondered aloud if the plans were “done right.” He eventually stopped the project in its tracks by refusing to sign documents allowing for bids for the new prison to be published.
We faulted Zapotosky then, and still do, that he didn’t elaborate on his reasons for stopping the prison project in its tracks. We also thought it would have been better if the bids had been allowed to go out so taxpayers could have seen how much the proposed prison would have actually cost.
Zapotosky then sided with fellow Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink in hiring the Pittsburgh architectural firm of Astorino-CanonDesign, which unveiled a two-phase project, including the addition of 128 beds to the current jail. However, the the cost was estimated to be $30 million, around the same price as the prison plan proposed by Ambrosini
So far, no action has been taken on the plans, and Zapotosky said he was disappointed that nothing has been finalized about the project. But he promised to continue working on the prison project until his term ends in December.
It was interesting that Zimmerlink was nowhere to be found at Zapotosky’s announcement and didn’t answer a newspaper request via email for a comment. However, Ambrosini did show up and praise Zapotosky for his efforts.
Is that a sign that perhaps Zapotosky will work with Ambrosini on plans for a new prison? Is it possible that Zapotosky might even reverse course again and support Ambrosini’s original prison plans? Who knows? In politics anything is possible, as we’ve seen time and time again.
If Zapotosky is able to help plan and build a new prison at a reasonable price, that would certainly improve his legacy. But if nothing further develops along those lines, then Zapotosky’s tenure will be remembered mostly for one of missed opportunities and unanswered questions.