Apparently to build circulation, the faltering New Era on Jan. 23 ran a front page, five column headline “Sex for sale. Dozens of local women on Internet’s Craiglist offering ‘erotic services’.”

WATCHDOG: Our editors might not quibble with the regulation and control of prostitution (“legalization”), but promoting it by giving free advertisement of services on the front page smacks of avant-garde liberalism!

I am reminded that we will have Ted “Sick & Tired” Darcus to obstruct the public’s right to know. Here Darcus responds to the public’s cry for Stevens & Sleaze legal bills:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DHp0g5Mfx4A

I am sick & tired of Darcus already…

The Intelligencer Journal’s of Jan. 30 reports the following from newly-appointed Convention Center Authority Board Member Dr. Sharron Nelson:

“If there were extravagances or improprieties — or nothing … (we need to) know that so we can educate the public in terms of what happened and to make sure if it was inappropriate or too expensive, it doesn’t happen again.”

Bravo!

Nelson will be able to demonstrate her conviction tomorrow evening when the Convention Center Authority votes to choose its new officers. If she votes for Art Morris, Laura Douglas or R. B. Campbell for chair, the investigation of possible past improprieties or malfeasance by board members and / or staff should be in safe hands. (Highly competent Kevin Fry has not shown interest in the position. Julienne Dixson will be attending her first meeting.)

Since Ted Darcus was chair throughout much of the period to be investigated and for reasons obvious to those who witnessed his Draconian and wrong-headed tenure on the Board, he certainly should not be a candidate.

At Tuesday morning’s County Commissioners’ work session, former County Commissioner Sharron Nelson was unanimously appointed to the board of the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority. Nelson will fill the seat vacated by Thomas LeCrone.

Nelson was lauded by board members as well as the three members of the public who expressed their views.

Chair Dennis Stuckey opined: “When we get someone of the caliber of Sharron Nelson who is willing to serve, who has been there, who was a commissioner, who took an interest in the Convention Center, who knows the issue, I think it is prudent that we act quickly to get that quality of person there.”

During the public comment period, Robert Edwin Field said he is “also an admirer of former commissioner Sharron Nelson” and that “Sharron Nelson is a wonderful selection.”

Field expressed concerns, “Given the fact that members of the existing board have called for an investigation [of past dealings] … given the fact that officers of the authority will be selected at their Thursday meeting and given that Dr. Nelson would be coming in at the last minute without having an opportunity to be abreast of the important things that have transpired … this could lead to a choice of chair that could be detrimental to the County and the Board of Commissioners.” (Field is president of NewsLanc.com.)

Also speaking from the audience, Bruce Clark indicated he agreed with much that Field said but was concerned that “deliberately delaying, you are taking away [the possibility] of Sharron Nelson being elected as chair.”

Visitor Bill Bonnano added: “I am all for [Nelson] …. She has been going to convention center meetings. She is as smart as a whip, and honest and she is fair. You don’t have a lot of time. The last time they chose someone they had a lot of time…”

Following the public comments, Commissioner Scott Martin added: “Just for the record, it is important to note that when we received the letter I believe dated January 13 that Dennis [Stuckey] specifically called Mr. LeCrone to understand his wishes on how he wants us to proceed and we have only acted in that manner as to what he thought his intentions were.”

In his comments, Field also stated: “Because most of the [future] decisions have been contracted out … what is really very important at this point is not just looking forward but looking back. I cannot go further into that since this is a public session, but I do urge that you do not make an appointment in such haste that can change the choice of who would be the Chair of the Convention Center.”

When interviewed after the meeting, Field elaborated, “Given the three newly-appointed board members, my concern is that Ted Darcus might be returned to his position as Chair. His re-appointment would likely stifle any attempt for a meaningful investigation of questionable past payments of millions of dollars and bizarre contractual arrangements with Penn Square Partners that also are likely to cost the Authority millions.”

After modest debate regarding the pros and cons of each proposal, the Finance & Audit Committee of the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority voted unanimously, Monday night, to recommend that the full board act to hire the Harrisburg-based accounting firm Maher Duessel as the Authority’s auditor for FY2009-FY2012.

The Authority will cease using its current accountant, Trout Ebersole of Lancaster due primarily to significant cost increases in their proposed rate structure over the next five years.

Committee Chair Laura Douglas, while acknowledging potential difficulties, in transitioning to another auditor, said it would be good to have “a fresh set of eyes” on the project.

Authority Secretary Shelley Weikert expressed grave concern to the Committee that helping train a new auditor will add to the amount of overtime she already works. “I’m really really being stretched thin,” she said.

Interim Executive President Art Morris, assured her that the Board understands her concern and will see what it can do to hire additional help if necessary.

The Committee also discussed the shape of the Authority’s finances, which Morris deemed to be “in good shape,” despite the fact that the Authority is appealing to the State for $3.2 million in “contingency funds.”

As for that effort, Morris reported that although the State has not yet acted on the request, “They’re glad we’re looking ahead.”

Two members of the general public attended Monday night’s Committee meeting.

Randolph Carney of Lancaster City said, “I’m amazed at how proactive Art has been… I wish you were the Executive Director eight years ago.”

“I don’t,” Morris mumbled, triggering laughter.

Bruce Clark of New Holland proposed to the Committee that they consider the idea of putting a casino in the Convention Center, saying, “As much as we might hate doing something like that, it would attract a very large clientele of seniors and the retired.”

The Board did not comment on Clark’s proposal.

On page 39 of “Molly S. Henderson v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc., et al.,” a blog posting by Sunday News associate editor Gil Smart from Aug. 2, 2007 is referenced. Smart’s comments in response to ‘Artie See’ appear below:

“In the comments here, Artie See – whose writing I enjoy – notes that while we agree on many issues, he believed that ‘we disagree on the *single* largest expenditure of taxpayer dollars in Lancaster County history…’”

“Well, maybe. I wrote about the convention center all of once in my column, way back in 1999, when we were still talking about a 61,000-square-foot facility (which, these days, seems almost quaint). I expressed some doubts that the promises being made then could be kept. Now that the project’s been supersized, I’m virtually certain that the promises – the projections – won’t be met.

“And I agree that there has been much wrong with the way this project has progressed. That there was no itemization of the billing from Stevens & Lee was, and is, ridiculous. That project proponents decided to simply ignore the Brookings Institution and others who suggest that the convention market is soft – and that the assumptions underlying this project may be invalid – is reckless.

“But while I may dislike various aspects of the project, the jury’s still out on others – and perhaps on the project as a whole. I’m on the fence, in other words. And when am I, of all people, ever on the fence about anything?

“At the same time, I have some definitive ideas on how we got here in the first place.

“Lancaster Newspapers and Fulton Bank got involved in this project essentially for two reasons. The first was that both have multi-million dollar investments in the center city, and wanted to protect those investments. A falling-down structure just a few doors up from your corporate headquarters, on arguably the most important corner of the downtown crossroads, simply ain’t good for business.

“Beyond this, though, I will argue that a genuine altruistic impulse was involved in their decision to get involved in the project. I can tell you, working here, that this is an old-style paternalistic company, and that’s a very good thing for the people who work here. The company feels a sense of responsibility to its people, and to the community. And it was in part because of that sense of responsibility that LNP took on this project. Many of us who work for these newspapers wish it had been otherwise, for as my boss, Marvin Adams, has written on several occasions, *we have not covered this issue as we would have had someone else been running the show. We have absolutely pulled punches*. I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve seen of this community or that community which has similar, successful convention centers. But where are the stories on communities where convention centers have failed?

“I can tell you of one, I’ve been there personally: Niagara Falls, N.Y. We stayed in a Holiday Inn directly across the street from the convention center; it was nice, but we were literally half a block from the ‘hood. Boarded up buildings, liquor stores, you know the drill. Right next door to the hotel was this tree-lined courtyard, obviously meant to be an outdoor mall. Every single one of the shops was closed, out of business. Down closer to the falls itself was another outdoor mall, about a third occupied, including the smallest, saddest-looking Hard Rock Cafe I’ve ever seen.

“As I wrote shortly afterward, if this is the honeymoon capital of America, no wonder half of all marriages end in divorce.

“But on the other, Canadian side of the falls, the town is thriving. They’ve got a casino. And that has helped turn it into a tourist Mecca; the place was bustling where the American side was empty. I counted seven of those huge construction cranes – the likes of which now towers over the old Watt & Shand building – on the Canadian side. That is an undeniable sign of progress, of success.

“That is why I would wholeheartedly support the idea of putting a slots parlor into any Lancaster convention center/hotel. That is a persistent rumor that won’t go away, probably a whole bunch of nothing. But if it were something – it would go a very long way toward making the whole venture here a success, putting it on more secure fiscal footing.

“I wonder, though, if those who have opposed the convention center on the basis of fiscal doubt would then support it – or whether they’d cast their lot with the anti-gambling moralists of the world.

“Could the hotel/convention center be successful without this? Perhaps – though it depends on how you define “success.” I’ve had several local public officials assure me that there is all sorts of ancillary development waiting in the wings to make sure that this is actually going to happen, and that if it does this restaurateur or that retailer will certainly pull the trigger. And then we’ll have all sorts of concomitant, *taxable* growth in or near center city. And then, even if the center/hotel itself doesn’t meet projections, it still will have realized the goal of revitalizing Lancaster, and the financial impact of failing to meet projections could then be mitigated.

“Maybe. I’ve no idea how much of this waiting-in-the-wings development is real, concrete, committed, how much of it is theoretical. I do know that the job of luring retailers, restaurants and similar uses to the center of town is now in the hands of the James Street Improvement District and its director, Lisa Riggs, whom I’ve worked with on numerous occasions and about whom I can say, she knows what she’s doing and she’s good at it. It is not as if the city, at this point, is just permitting this thing to be built, sitting back and hoping they will come; the JSID in particular is out there beating the bushes. That is a hopeful development, and one wishes it might have materialized four or five years ago, rather than at this late date.

“And so this, then, is what I think about the convention center. A decidedly mixed bag. And I might have written about this at some point had it not been for the fact that I have, on occasion, been called upon to cover this. Now our staff writer Judy Strausbaugh, who has covered the convention center issue, is leaving to take a position down south, and I may have to begin covering this issue again. Personally, I’d rather spend the next year back in court. But as a general rule, I have tried to avoid opining about things that I have actually had to cover. And that’s true of this issue in particular.

“Those who have suspected this are right: Anti-convention center opinion hasn’t exactly been encouraged around here. Things might have been a little more, shall we say, fair and balanced had one of the newspapers, anyway, opposed it – or pushed harder for accountability. Even if all three newspapers supported it after long, thoughtful consideration, it just looks bad.

“A while back I wrote in the print edition of the parallels between this project, on the local level, and the Iraq war on the national level. Parallels in how the “product” was sold; you might consider Judith Miller and “The Watt & Shand Building will remain dark forever” (project opponents know exactly what I’m talking about) in the same vein. In both cases, the assertion that we had no choice but the current course of action was and is patently false.

“I have been a critic of how the national media treated the run-up to war, but locally I am *of* the establishment – a fact driven home to me when the establishment attorney kicked butt – as the establishment attorney would – and saved *my* butt in court last week (of course, as a buddy noted, had I not been of the establishment I wouldn’t have written the story, nor found myself in court as a result, in the first place). I’m not going to come out shiny happy in favor of the convention center, because I’m not shiny happy in favor of it. But neither am I convinced that it is guaranteed to fail in the broad scope of its aims; not *merely* to meet its own fiscal projections, but beyond that.

“And even if it does – well, this isn’t the war in Iraq. No one dies. At worst, taxes go up, perhaps way up; but if that were to happen, it in fact becomes – or could become, if the local “insurgents” managed it correctly – the death knell for the establishment as it is now constituted in Lancaster County. People here are going to remember, as well they should, whose idea this was, who pushed and pushed for it, the promises made. And there again is the parallel with Iraq, in that if it does fail, its proponents will be saddled with that failure, it will be hung around their necks like a yoke. I don’t know that the establishment grasps this; I don’t know that project opponents fully grasp it, either. Success *or* failure, the convention center marks a turning point, *the* turning point; and if it is to mark the end of an era, the question down here, as it is *up there* with the Iraq war, is the same:

“What comes next?”

Numerous historic articles, communications and documents pertaining to the Convention Center Project are now posted at www.LancasterFirst.org. The collection is a treasure chest for future historians and generations to come.

Included is a Jan. 1, 2006 column by Jeff Hawkes of the Intelligencer Journal entitled “Local Newspaper Prints The Truth (mostly)” that was Hawkes’s brave and perhaps last attempt to speak candidly, albeit cautiously, to ownership, the Power Elite and his readers.

Hawkes’s article can be read at: http://lookingatlancaster.blogspot.com/2006/01/local-newspaper-prints-truth-mostly.html

Crime and the movies have gone hand in hand since Edwin S. Porter made “The Great Train Robbery” in 1903. So it should come as no surprise that movie theaters were filled with the unlawful and their minions in 2007. But the range and quality was surprising. So let’s review the more noteworthy from last year’s wild bunch, even if, at this point, most of them are destined for screenings in your living room.

“Gone Baby Gone.” An Oscar contender for Amy Ryan’s fiery performance as a mother whose only redeeming quality is her raging life force. “Gone” was generally overlooked by audiences when it was released in early fall.

It’s a nerve jangling, twisty thriller about a kidnap/murder that takes no prisoners in depicting lower middle class life in Boston’s south bay. You rarely get such unvarnished portrayals of social disarray, even in low budget genre pieces, but Ben Affleck’s focused direction translates Dennis Lehane’s dependable novel with true grit.

A key sequence, the cause of much confusion, is repeated a little too often, mainly to present “new” information, but this is a minor caveat; the material stays true to core beliefs about its people. The cast including Casey Affleck, Michelle Monahan, Morgan Freeman. And the inimitable Ed Harris is uniformly up to the challenge. This is the sort of movie where even the smallest roles stick to your guts.

“Michael Clayton.” I think the temptation among critics was to credit Tony Gilroy and George Clooney for getting a smart movie made, then to overlook the more subtle and complex virtues of their good lawyer/ bad lawyer story. Thankfully, the Academy, which generally looks after its own, recognized Clooney’s complex performance as well as writer/director Gilroy’s smart material for what they are: terrific adult entertainment. These days it takes a major star and a proven writer for any studio to get behind material with such a low body count, so we have to be thankful that they persisted.

Clooney is an unsuspecting fall guy in amoral Sidney Pollack’s law firm, Tom Wilkerson is a partner losing his mind, and Tilda Swinton, as the opposition, sweats more than any woman ever in expensive business wear. In the process she becomes excellent competition for Amy Ryan’s Oscar bid. Gilroy ratchets up the tension with equal measures of precision and glee. The last few minutes show us once again, why Clooney is both a movie star and a terrific actor.

“Until the Devil Knows You’re Dead.” I’m not sure what, if anything, this wallow in family squalor amounts to, but its obsessive focus holds you in its grip from beginning to end. Credit that to 83 year old director Sidney Lumet, who delivers every lurid moment with matter of fact, but unflinching candor. The relationship between brothers Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke deteriorates in nano seconds after an attempted robbery of their parents’ jewelry store goes horribly awry. What’s surprising is how many others they take down with them. This isn’t up to the level of say, John Huston’s “Asphalt Jungle,” but those drawn to the dark side will not be disappointed.

“American Gangster.” In any other recent year, director Ridley Scott, writer Steve Zaillian, Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe, would have swept critics off their feet with this intelligent depiction of a drug dealer who takes his cues from corporate American. Instead they compared it unfavorably to “The Godfather,” or complained about insufficient screen time between the two leads.

But Washington delivered a restrained, thoughtful performance and Crowe, as his nemesis, playing of all things, a homely Jewish detective, gave a new spin to the genre.

“Gangster” isn’t so much an epic, as a study in contrasting personal styles. It’s a tortoise and hare race, vividly observed. And while the high end production values may be a bit showy, and the symmetry of the opposites (honest scumbag cop versus family loyal dope pusher) might have appeared superficially predictable, new and rich details abound. Also, keep an eye out for Ruby Dee in a small, but compelling part as a mom who keeps her mouth shut until she can’t.

“No Country For Old Men.” I wish I could flow with the wave of critical enthusiasm for the Coen brothers latest, I found it a far cry from “Fargo.” In fact I liked “Miller’s Crossing,” another indulgent, but livelier hodge podge, much more satisfying. The first half of “No Country,” meticulously detailed and tense, doesn’t really speak to the second, where the narrative flies apart in a hail of unlikely plot turns. Wily wrongdoers suddenly turn stupid, while robotic killers become psychic.

Tommy Lee Jones provides a stoic narration, a novelistic device that’s supposed to ground the movie with a “theme,” but his part is only tangential. For all the impact he has on events he might as well have been reading off screen. And while graduate student types are likely to proclaim the Coen’s methods as the stuff of art (largely because they so self consciously depart from audience expectations,) don’t believe it.

“Country” will be the cause of much late night babble in dorms and coffee houses, but the results of that are likely to be little more than bleary eyes and missed morning classes. And I know it was taken from a novel. Novels are different.

Former Commissioner Molly Henderson’s lawsuit against Lancaster Newspapers will rely on New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254,1964), the landmark case which establishes the “actual malice” standard that a “public figure” must prove to win a libel action.

It is inconceivable to me as a professional journalist that the reporters, editors, and columnist named in the complaint were not aware that what they were publishing was recklessly false. The reckless part is important. The Grand Jury Report, and the earlier Myers-Hofmann report, clearly exonerates Henderson of any criminal activity. Yet the Lancaster Newspapers’ staff continued to mislead the public and taint Henderson’s reputation after the release of the reports. Either they read the reports and recklessly disregarded the conclusions, or they recklessly disregarded the truth by not reading them at all.

Lancaster Newspapers’ continual trashing of Henderson had very real consequences. By libeling and defaming Molly Henderson, Lancaster Newspapers undermined the democratic process by painting this duly elected and honest official as a criminal. Henderson lost an election due in large part to the smear campaign led by Lancaster Newspapers.

The damage that the false accusations did to Molly Henderson was also personal, not just political. This is a person — a woman — who grew up in this insular little county, and was faced with the ignominy of having her fellow Countians look at her as a pariah with no good reason other than the press took advantage of its monopoly status.

Lancaster Newspapers took a good name and covered it with mud for more than a year. To my mind, a crime doesn’t get more serious than that.

Mr. LeCrone:

Of course we are all sorry that personal circumstances have caused you to leave the Convention Center Authority Board, but you accomplished some monumental things during your few months tenure.

1) By insisting that a future Executive Director be chosen through a deliberative process, you safeguarded against a rush to mediocrity and ended the omnipotence of the position of board chair.

2) Your successful advocacy of an agreement that the LCCCA will always pay debt service before expenses will prevent any attempt to conceal a future fiscal crisis. A future authority board will have to ask the County Commissioners to waive that provision, and that will publicly vindicate the warnings provided by two brave former commissioners and many of us that the project is fiscally unsound.

(This was the first real debate and substantive vote with the results contrary to the position of the chair in years, and possibly since the Authority’s inception.)

3) You were supportive of an investigation of the propriety of the $20 million dollars in past expenditures.

4) You sought an explanation of any business rationale and why past board members were apparently not briefed by counsel concerning “gifting” of millions of dollars in naming rights and future state grants from the Authority to Penn Square Partners.

5) And lastly, you recognized the unfairness of there being only three persons on a nominating committee where a nomination and a seconding was required for each office, making more than one nominee per office unlikely. And you would not stand still for Ted Darcus misleading you and the nominating committee by erroneously insisting that the chair was not permitted to nominate or second a nomination.

By invalidating the tainted committee meeting and requesting that Chair Art Morris convene a new nominating committee consisting of all seven board members, you proposed a fair and appropriate method for providing two or more candidates for each position.

———————————–

It seems likely that next week’s LCCCA Board meeting will be your last one. We hope you will demonstrate the same vigor in advocating a fair election and selecting the best possible chair, be it Morris or another, as has been characteristic of your entire brave, wise and productive tenure as a board member.

Thank you for your invaluable service on behalf of the LCCCA and the public.