Zrinski's Campaign Funded in Part by County Employees and Vendors

We all know what happened in Allentown not all that long ago, when former Mayor Edwin "Fed Ed" Pawlowski was charged and eventually convicted of public corruption. For a brief time, it had a chilling effect on campaign contributions. But the Lehigh Valley's pay-to-play culture has gone on far too long to let a few federal bribery prosecutions get in the way. Pay-to-play is back, and with a vengeance. Candidates are spending more now than they ever have. 

Years ago, before I even started this blog, I used to be at nearly every county council meeting, asking them to curb he practice by enacting an ordinance that would bar anyone who contributed to a county elected official or candidate from county employment. I also would complain about county vendors who contribute to county candidates and asked for legislation that would bar them from doing business with that county or municipality for a limited period of time after the donation.

I was a real pain in the ass, unmindful of the simple reality that the more you harp on any topic at a public meeting, the less people effective you become. I thought I was dazzling them with my oratory. I was boring them instead. 

Though I've stopped haranguing elected officials on this topic, I do remain concerned about county candidates who accept donations from county employees and vendors. 

Executive Tara Zrinski presents herself as a grass roots candidate and truly is. Over the years, her finance reports demonstrate that she has a solid base of small and local donors. But when she ran for Executive, she began accepting money from county workers whose further employment with the county would be in her hands. She also accepted donations from two county vendors. 

COUNTY EMPLOYEE DONATIONS

Below is a listing of county employees who donated to her 2025 Executive race 

• Lamont McClure — $15,000. McClure was Northampton County Executive and supported Zrinski as his successor. After the election, he was appointed a PT Assistant County Solicitor 

• Susan Wandalowski — at least $1,090. County Human Services Director.

• Melissa Rudas — at least $1,050. County solicitor.

• Michael Corriere — at least $750. Former county council member and assistant county solicitor.

• Michael Emili — at least $815. County Public Works director.

• Tina Smith — at least $550. County DCED director.

• Stephen Baratta — $500. Northampton County district attorney. (Ironically, Zrinski suggests Baratta had political motives for a Grand Jury report critical of Gracedale when he actually supported her campaign).

• Mary Lou Kaboly — $500. Former county human-resources director.

• Mark Aurand — at least $300. former deputy county controller and now, the county administrator.

• Richard Groff — $500. Now a county election commissioner.

A COUNTY ARCHITECT GIVES $2,000

One contribution has a particularly direct connection to county business. Randy Galiotto contributed $2,000 to Zrinski. He is a principal of Alloy5, the Bethlehem architectural firm selected by Northampton County as project architect for replacement of the Government Center parking deck.

County procurement records identify Alloy5 as the project architect. County Council approved approximately $463,000 in architectural services for the project, but it is important to note that Alloy5 was selected on June 18, 2025, six months before Zrinski was ever elected. but six months after Zrinski's election, County Council unanimously approved a $62,400 increase to Alloy5. 

A $10,000 CONTRIBUTION FROM THE FAMILY OF A COUNTY LANDLORD

Another notable contribution came from Nimita Kapoor-Atiyeh, who gave Zrinski $10,000. Kapoor-Atiyeh is the wife of Abe Atiyeh, a local real-estate developer who owns the West Easton work-release facility leased by Northampton County. Thus, a $10,000 personal campaign contribution came from the immediate family of the owner of property being leased by the county.

In addition to the work release center, an Atiyeh company (Ridge Ventures recently agreed to lease a property in Bethlehem Township to the county for a DUI center at a rent of $2,500 a month over a period of 10 years.

These records establish the contribution and the family/property relationship. There is no evidence, aside from the contribution itself, that the contribution was made in exchange for favorable treatment by the county or that the county's lease was affected by it.

These donations are completely legal. I have no reason to believe that Zrinski's decision-making is in any way impacted by those who gave her money, especially because she has a broad base of grass roots support and is actually at odds with a District Attorney who donated to her. But to remove any uncertainty, these typews of contributions should be limited or outright banned. 

Why 6thTuesday Pre-Election Campaign Finance Reports Should Be Mandatory For All Elections in Pa.

Under current Pa. law, only statewide candidates must file 6th Tuesday pre-election reports, which cover the period between June 8 and September 22. Other nominees, including state house and senate candidates, can wait to detail their expenses until October 23, 2026, the 2d Friday before the actual election. This system worked when most people voted on election day. People could inform themselves in advance about who is financing electoral hopefuls.  That system no longer works. 

Changes in our election laws now permit Mail-in Ballots and Ballot by Demand well in advance of election day. Candidates have responded by intensifying their fundraising efforts much sooner than in previous campaigns. You can see this in your mailbox on a near daily basis. Those who wait to make their pitches risk losing a critical segment of voters who prefer the convenience and simplicity of MIBs and Ballot-by-Demand over standing in line at the polling place. 

The problem is that many who chose to exercise these voting alternatives have no idea who is funding the campaigns of the politicians they choose. They are unable to follow the money in any meaningful way. 

For that reason, the state legislature should change current campaign finance laws to make 6th Tuesday pre-election reports mandatory in all campaigns. 

NorCo Court Administrator Charged With Criminal Mischief After Domestic Dispute

Earlier this month, Lehigh Valley Live reported that Northampton County's Court Administrator Jermaine Greene has been the subject of a temporary Protection From Abuse Order (PFA) based on allegations by his wife that he soaked his wife's clothing in gasoline, broke her rib and threatened to kill her. 

It is important to note that a temporary PFA is based on allegations alone. Rightly or wrongly, I generally avoid writing about temporary PFAs unless they are accompanied by contemporaneous criminal charges or involve a police officer. I've taken a lot of heat for refusing to write about this story. Greene has many enemies at the courthouse. Moreover, there are those who would rather see me writing about Greene's PFA than a very negative Grand Jury report about Gracedale. 

I am writing about the PFA now because criminal charges have been filed. Greene been charged by Middle Smithfield Tp police with criminal mischief as a summary offense based on his wife's allegation that he soaked her clothing in gasoline on August 22. No charges have been filed concerning any assault or death threat. 

The courts have declined comment.  

(This was originally posted on 9/26, and is being reposted).

President Judge Craig Dally: DA Can Hire Assistants Without Interference By Executive

Back in August, I told you about a mandamus action that District Attorney Steve Barratta filed against the Northampton County Executive. The suit was filed after 11instances in which the Exec has prevented Baratta from onboarding new hires. 

A mandamus action is one that compels a government official to perform a clear and nondiscretionary duty that it has refused to perform. In this action, Baratta filed a motion for peremptory judgment, which can only be granted when his right to relief is clear. 

It is.

Late last week, President Judge Craig Dally ruled in Baratta's favor. (See links to Opinions  below)

In this action, Baratta filed a well-written brief that should serve as a primer for anyone interested in county government. 

Judge Dally ruled, as he did once before when John Morganelli was DA, that the county's top prosecutor has the right to select the pay grade for a newly hired assistant District Attorney so long as he remains within the budget allotted by County Council and stays within the pay grade scale they establish. "[T]he District Attorney has not asked this Court to grant him the 'unfettered authority to cut checks from a checkbook that belongs to the County,' is not asking the Court to grant him the ability to exceed the budget allocated to his office by County Council, nor is he arguing for the authority to construct salary standards for new hires by pulling numbers out of the sky on his own accord."

"A cursory review reveals that the Home Rule Charter bestows within the District Attorney a hiring power, which this Court has applied to encompass the authority to select the pay grade step, on the schedule and within his budget provided by County Council, at which his newly hired Assistant District Attorneys start. Any insinuation otherwise is flatly inconsistent with the law of this County."

The Pa County Code does provide that the "number of assistants and salary shall be fixed by the county salary board [which is county council]." But as Judge Dally observes, " Since the District Attorney is not pursuing the unilateral authority to select his pool of assistants or construct the salary schedules for his Office, the Court finds that the District Attorney's position is wholly compliant with [the County Code]. Simply selecting the pay grade step on the schedule produced by County Council does not constitute the District Attorney infringing upon County Council's authority to fix the salaries for his assistants."

What makes this case truly bizarre, aside from the Executive's interference with an independently elected official, is that Northampton County courts have already ruled on this exact question. In the Morganelli case, to which I alluded above, the Judge Dally ruled that "[w]hile the District Attorney is limited by Council in the numbers of assistants he can hire and the range of the salaries he sets for them, he, pursuant to his hiring power, selects the pay grade step at which each of his Assistant District Attorneys start."

Instead of following an established precedent, the county tried to have Dally recuse himself. Not only did that effort fail, but the county solicitor's office was itself disqualified because it was trying simultaneously to represent Lamont McClure, a former Exec and current assistant solicitor, who had been subpoenaed to testify. The solicitor's office was conflicted. Does that office represent him or the current Executive? 

(In the past, I've been able to upload judicial opinions and briefs to Scribd. That system is currently inoperable, but I have uploaded Judge Dally's Order Denying the County's Motion for Judgment as his Order granting DA Baratta's Motion for Peremptory Judgment to Google Drive. You can click on the links to read these matters). 

Should NorCo Council President Have Unfettered Authority to Appoint Committee Members and Chairs.

In early July, Northampton County Council voted 6-3 to establish a Gracedale Oversight Committee proposed by Council member David Holland. Earlier that evening, Executive Tara Zrinski condemned the idea. Council President Ken Kraft first tried to table the matter, and when that failed, he voted against it. So did Council members Kelly Keegan and Nadeem Qayyum. (Qayyum had argued in support of the Oversight Committee, so I think his No vote was a mistake.) Though he ultimately voted to establish the committee, Council member Jeff Warren said he had "serious" reservations about the word "oversight."

Each of County Council's standing committees exist for that express purpose - oversight.

After this vote, Kraft chose to ignore the expressed will of a Council majority and dragged his feet at establishing any oversight committee. July and August breezed by with nothing. It looked like that would happen in September, too, until District Attorney Steve Baratta released the findings of an Investigative Grand Jury highly critical of Gracedale's administration. 

Now the committee has been established and Kraft named Keegan the Chair even though she voted against it. He also put himself on the committee, although he voted against it, too. 

The Chair should have been Holland, who not only proposed the idea of a Gracedale Oversight Committee, but was also himself an administrator there and elsewhere. 

Near the end of last week's meeting of Northampton County Council (September 17), Holland suggested that it's time for the governing body to decide how committee members are appointed. Holland pointed out that though the Home Rule Charter provides that the Council President (currently Ken Kraft) has the authority to preside at meetings, nothing in either the Charter or its rules and regulations governing the conduct of meetings invests Council President with the authority to members to Council's various standing committees. That has been a matter of tradition rather than law. He believes the President should nominate the committee members and Chairs, but the vote to confirm should be made by Council's nine-member body. 

This matter has been referred to Council's Governance committee, which is next scheduled to meet in October. 

If Council does decide to take control of committee appointments, it should do so by ordinance so that it binds future county councils. 

What Government Reforms Would You Like to See - Part 2

Yesterday, I presented you with a list of governmental reforms that many of us would like to see. The comments were quite interesting.  

One person, likely a member of NorCo Council, attacked me for supporting term limits for county offices. I do believe term limits for state and federal office are way overdue. But the truth is that I never supported term limits on a county level and consider that a gray area. I would oppose them for offices like borough council or township supervisor because those offices pay very little but take up a lot of time. It is hard to attract good people. On the county level, I did support letting the people decide the question in a referendum. This was opposed by former Council members Kevin Lott, Ron Heckman and Tara Zrinski. It was also opposed by former Exec Lamont McClure, whose veto had to be overridden. One person suggested that a term limits bill should be called the Bob Freeman Act. 

Most of you would like to see some form of open primaries but a few of you would limit voters to party members. I know that outfits like Working Families oppose open primaries and I think this is probably because the only way they can get one of their more extreme candidates nominated is through a closed primary. 

One of you, a reader named Hoople, had a great idea. "If you cannot vote for a candidate - do not live in the area they will represent - you cannot contribute to their campaign. Exceptions for relatives - if your, for example, son is running for office and lives out the area, you can make a small donation to the campaign.

" "If you are a paid elected official and you vote for a tax increase, your pay is adjusted down by the percent you approved. 17% tax increase? Your pay takes a 17% cut.

"If you are a paid elected official, you cannot endorse candidates at campaign events. Writing an op-ed in support is sufficient. No more using a paid day to travel and rally for someone."

I've begun work on a post detailing elected officials who accept donations from their subordinates as well as people who have business interests with the municipality they represent. It is a fairly widespread pratice, but I consider it a form of soft corruption that should be banned. I expect to bring you that story in a day or two.