Slung Mud II

The following comment has appeared in Limerick Patch in response my posting about Jane Peronteau’s recent election mailing.  I print it verbatim…

“Mr. Pavesi is a self-involved henchmen [sic] for Mr. Rivkin. Mr. Rivkin broke the Right to Know Law as an appointed Township official. Now Mr. Rivkin thinks he should be elected to a Township positionm after breaking the law as an appointed Township official. Mr. Pavesi, Mr. Rivkin's former Campaign Chair, pretends as though he is leaving his neutral position to somehow reluctantly take a partisan position; this is bogus and reflects Mr. Pavesi's lack of journalistic integrity. Saul broke the law. Period. Why doesn't Mr. Pavesi acknowledge it? That's what is disappointing. Focusing on Ms. Peronteau when Mr. Rivkin is the problem is a red herring. Mud? It ain't mud if it's the truth. Pull out your thesaurus Mr. Pavesi, let's see how you rationalize your partisan agenda.”  This was sent in by
Truthteller today to Patch.

Wow, I’m a henchman.  Saul Rivkin’s unscrupulous and ruthless subordinate.  I think I’ll include that in my resume.

Enough levity.  Fact: Yes, I was Mr. Rivkin’s Campaign Chairman at the very beginning of his candidacy.  I ceased that role in June of this year for personal reasons, and there is nothing insidious to be read in that.  Fact: The only agenda I have ever had (and continue to have) is the ending of the Pennhurst Asylum and monitoring East Vincent government ensuring the electorate and citizens of East Vincent are aware of its actions.  Fact: Yes, I am personally supporting Mr. Rivkin, but that fact has never been included in anything I’ve written.  You could look it up.  Fact:  I have severely criticized all three EVT Supervisors equally centering on issues and not personalities. You can look that up too.

Let’s get to the essence of “Truthteller’s” comment.  The single issue raised is Mr. Rivkin’s alleged breaking of the law regarding making emails available at the EVT Zoning Hearing Board appeal of the Pennhurst Asylum use by right determination.  Those communications were wanted by Pennhurst’s counsel of the record, Ryan Costello, in an attempt to invalidate the appeal owing to Mr. Costello's contention that the time period for that appeal had been exhausted.

It was a legal tactic designed to stop the appeal based on the rules of engagement.  The ZHB ruled in its March 17, 2011 decision, on page six listing the Board’s conclusions, that Mr. Rivkin had standing to assert the appeal and that the appeal was filed in a timely manner.  Thus, the emails referred to in Mrs. Peronteau’s election mailer, and “Truthteller’s” comment, were deemed of no consequence.  Let Mr. Rivkin struggle with his decision to not supply what was asked.  It has no substantial impact on his candidacy.

As to my journalistic integrity being bogus, I leave that to those who read what I write.  The words I share will always stand on their own merit.  If a reader feels I have an agenda other than that I confess to having, I’d appreciate the chance to have honest debate about that.

I seek no office.  I receive no remuneration.  I call them as I see them.  There’s nothing for me to rationalize.  I’m out there, not hiding anonymously, speaking my mind.  I'm protecting my property and residence in East Vincent.  Readers may agree or disagree with me, and that is the point.  I’m not looking for sycophants; I’m looking for real discussion about issues facing all East Vincent residents.

Sorry, my posting is not a red herring.  There’s a part of me that believes that Mrs. Peronteau may not have written much of what appears on her mailer; I suspect others involved with her campaign actually composed it.  But she approved it and it was sent out with her name and picture.  She owns it and the subsequent fallout from it.

Mr. Rivkin’s emails had nothing to do with the essence of the ZHB appeal.  And Mr. Costello’s attempts at that appeal hearing to paint Mr. Rivkin as a serial lawbreaker by insisting that his wife ran a kennel on their property in violation of EVT zoning, was laughable.  Mr. Costello tried to introduce testimony designed to impugn Mr. Rivkin’s character, any of which had zero to do with the essence of the appeal.  It was as if showing Mr. Rivkin as Satan made his appeal that much less valid.

Truthtelling be told, Mrs. Peronteau brought the integrity of her campaign into the gutter, and that’s the shame of it all.