It's Time For Eachus To Answer To His Constituents

In today's Standard Speaker the following Letter To The Editor appeared from Tiffany Cloud, local resident and an Eachus constituent.

Eachus should answer Toohil's questions
Published: September 18, 2010

Editor,

Candidate Tarah Toohil provided State Rep. Todd Eachus a deadline of 5 p.m. Sept. 9 to answer a series of questions related to Bonusgate and various investigations of misuse of legislative time and funding, as was reported in this newspaper.

A week has passed and Eachus has yet to answer those questions, and I feel it is his obligation to do so and, as his constituents, our absolute right to know. And all in the community should keep demanding Eachus respond to every single question until all they are answered to our satisfaction. This is not an election about him. It is an election about us, the people and we have rights to know the ethics and practices of those in office.

Apparently, not answering is a trend with Mr. Eachus. Ms. Toohil also sent him a certified mail request for a debate in early August and, an entire month later, no response.

So, why so mum? Why can't he answer the Bonusgate questions? And why is he so afraid to debate?

Granted, perhaps he's too busy paying off the mortgage of his Harrisburg home with per diems he took ($27K last year alone, in fact...on top of his salary) to answer questions and debate?

Or maybe he is too busy campaigning at events that are legislative events (such as his campaigning at the Senior Expo at the mall - he took an interview on Channel 13 at that event to discuss his opponent and the campaign.

But, as the man apparently keeps his campaign team working out of the same space as his legislative team in Hazleton, I suppose the concept of "separation" of legislation and campaigning has never quite registered with our state representative?

Answer Ms. Toohil's questions. Agree to a debate so your positions vs. Ms. Toohil's can be heard by all.

I'm really not asking for much. Just what I'd expect of any representative.

Tiffany Cloud,

Conyngham

Eachus had no problem self promoting on the parking decks for Hazleton's Intermodal Center. He should have told the public that project won on its own merits, not any influence from a legislator.

I truly believe that Mr. Eachus actually believes what he says. It's just that the rest of us don't trust him anymore.

Legislative Corruption

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Editorial Department:

Legislative corruption: The frayed thread

There is a troubling thread emerging from the ongoing legislative corruption prosecutions. And it should be considered a frayed thread, a troubling metaphor for what too many public servants consider "public service" to be.

How many times have we heard from attorneys defending those charged with politicking on the public dime that the laws prohibiting such activities are "vague." We've heard that even from legal eagles representing state legislators who voted for the measures.

Or, how about this oldie but goodie: "Everybody does it." That's not a defense. That's a whine more typically associated with a sixth-grader whose parents won't let their 12-year-old daughter go on an unsupervised camping trip with the seventh-grade boys hockey team.

And the excuse-making knows no party or gender bounds and no limit on audacity.

State Sen. Jane Orie, R-McCandless, claims a political persecution by Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala. But she's been ordered to stand trial on charges that she used one of her offices and legislative staff to politick, a contention staffer after staffer has corroborated.

State Rep. Bill DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, admitted in his grand jury testimony that he was on the other side of the statute. That was the clincher for his being held for trial on public corruption charges. Yet his attorney, William Costopoulos (also employed by Ms. Orie), refers to Mr. DeWeese's actions as "pettygate."

But this isn't petty stuff. The law says it's a crime. And it should be. Taxpayers should not be forced to underwrite an incumbent protection program.

From yesterday's post, tell me this isn't incumbent protection:

Jones testified that Eachus wanted to spend "soft dollars" through state-paid public service announcements so the campaigns would spend less of their resources.