Donna Ellingsen Kim Kennedy Kudos — Kudos to Kim Kennedy of WFYL for her just ended (7:30 a.m.) interview with Elk Township GOP committeewoman Donna Ellingsen.
Donna and four other committeepersons are the subject of an inquisition with intent to remove by the Chester County Republican establishment.
Yes, the goal is to remove this elected people despite any denials the powers-that-be are making. Hearing dates have been picked without consulting the schedules of these volunteers. Initially, the four were not even told what charges they would be facing namely violating GOP bylaws by opposing candidates supported by the party.
Donna did not address the specifics of the charges saying she wanted to wait until the closed-door, any-thing-but-transparent hearing as to not jeopardize matters for the other three.
The hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 26 but the accused are attempting to change the date as it conflicts with matters to which they’ve already committed. One of those accused even has a long-scheduled out-of-the-country business trip. Donna has said the four are trying to find a list of alternative dates to offer the county powers.
Donna told Kim that she represents her constituents and her conscience, and does not blindly follow the dictates of her party boss who she pointed out is a paid lobbyist with numerous, and obvious, potential conflicts of interests.
She noted that the state Republican Party leaders are more than willing to almost suicidally push through unpopular legislation to benefit the political class i.e. the Corbett Gas Tax but fanatically oppose popular reforms that would hurt it i.e. getting out of the liquor business.
She noted that with paid lobbyists controlling the allegedly fiscal responsible political side, ridiculous spending occurs such as $477,000 public pensions.
She said she got involved in politics because she loves her country. Presumably, she believed what the Republican Party claimed it stood for.
Donna Ellingsen Kim Kennedy Kudos
“Donna told Kim that she represents her constituents and her conscience, and does not blindly follow the dictates of her party boss who she pointed out is a paid lobbyist with numerous, and obvious, potential conflicts of interests.”
Let me just repeat that… “Donna told Kim that she represents her constituents”
If this is true Bill…. why did she work against Estace in the general election?? Estace is the candidate her CONSTITUENTS picked in the Primary election!
I’ve been reading the articles and comments on this blog and I just don’t understand why nobody is asking why Donna believes she knows better than the constituents? If she believes she is there to represent them, then why would she go against them??
Here’s another issue with Ms. Ellingsen’s commentary…
“Hearing dates have been picked without consulting the schedules of these volunteers”
… Then why did you post an article saying the Chester County GOP changed the date of the hearing? If they gave an initial date and then they changed the date to try and accommodate the accused, why would Donna not point that out? Did Donna and the others provide the GOP with any dates? Don’t you think it is obvious that they will continue to have “conflicts” during the times the Chesco GOP would like to have a hearing? They will continue to push this back, back, back. This is more entertaining than the soap operas my wife watches in the afternoon. We are supposed to be fighting the DEMOCRATS, not one another!
I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading your gossip column over the last few weeks, Bill. Trust me, that’s all it is. You’re not reporting facts. You’re discussing gossip. You have a biased opinion and I can bet all the powerball money I didn’t win last night, that you have probably never once reached out to anyone in the ChesCo GOP to confirm Ms. Ellingsen’s comments. You have no problem making snide underhanded remarks about Mr. DiGiorgio’s wife but have you ever stopped to think that maybe Ms. Ellingsen and HER cronies are the problem? The people who believe they know better than the voters and can participate in an organization without following the rules because she believes she’s better than them?
Think about it…
Since you are asking questions, I will ask you one. What is “snide” and “underhanded” about stating the fact that Mr. DiGiorgio’s wife was hired by the Democrat-controlled Montgomery County government at a pay rate of $105,000.00. I guess those simple facts are snide and underhanded. That type of comment by you demonstrates where you are coming from. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and you are apparently against it.
Ms. Ellingsen was elected by her constituents. You say she is going against them. Isn’t it our system that they will now have the opportunity to speak at the polls. If they do not like what she is doing they can vote her out. I like that better than a lobbyist like Mr. DiGiorgio, not elected by voters at the polls, by fiat deciding that Ms. Ellingsen does not represent her constituents.
Freedom Lover – you obviously need a lesson on the difference between “facts” and “snide” comments so I took the time out of my day to look up snide in the dictionary for you.
Snide: derogatory or mocking in an indirect way.
“We are sure she is putting in the full 40-hours per week doing the brutal, thankless work that Commerce Department heads do. And we’re sure there’s no conflict of interest in wives of top operatives in the Republican party working hand-in-hand with Democrats.”
… This is the definition of snide and no where in that statement is there a fact about Mrs. DiGiorgio.
Get your FACTS straight. Ms. Ellingsen WAS elected by her constituents and she worked against the candidate that HER CONSTITUENTS chose in the Primary election. That is a violation of the bylaws of the organization she is a part of. If you believe Ms. Ellingsen is above the rules and should not be disciplined for violating them than you’re no better than the lobbyist and politicians you have no problem shaming on this blog.
“We are sure she is putting in the full 40-hours per week doing the brutal, thankless work that Commerce Department heads do. And we’re sure there’s no conflict of interest in wives of top operatives in the Republican party working hand-in-hand with Democrats.” . . . This is the definition of snide and no where in that statement is there a fact about Mrs. DiGiorgio.
No facts???? Are you saying that Mrs. DiGirogio is not putting in a full 40 hours???
When they picked the new date did they consult the accused?
And did you hear where she said that there are some people who think $105,000 is not much money?
Think about it . . .
Donna may be a great person as people have said, however I still haven’t heard an explanation of why Donna would work against her constituency? Here are the facts. Donna endorsed Raymond Ramberger in the Primary, her Elk voters chose the incumbent Estace Walters. In the fall she chose to endorse Joe Raffa, her Elk voters chose the incumbent Estace Walters. So what does that tell you about Donna? Don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining.
Carol
Correction, Jane ladley supported Raffa as a write in in Ent against the endorsement by the people. Trample on my constitutional rights will you . Wake up people.
“She noted that the state Republican Party leaders are more than willing to almost suicidally push through unpopular legislation to benefit the political class i.e. the Corbett Gas Tax but fanatically oppose popular reforms that would hurt it i.e. getting out of the liquor business.”
Another good reason for term limits. Let’s vote blisters our!
Most people believe that the constitution thru its ammendments give the people the right to vote. The voters voted for the canidates in the primary. It was there right.what gives Donna and Jane the right to trample on the peoples constitutional right and do there on thing. If we don’t follow the rules of the party then why have them.If we don’t follow our laws then why have them. Why take an oath of office to uphold the constitution if we don’t do it.
Just a thought.
Mr. Orner, this is pretty frightening. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee you the support of these two ladies, even if you win a primary election. For you to say someone is violating the Constitution in these circumstances is concerning.
Ok freedom lover , then what gives Donna and Jane the right to go against the peoples choice / vote? simple question.
Sir, you do not have a Constitutional right to have them support you. I have to turn the question on you, what in the Constitution gives you that right? And it is not as you claim that since there was a primary vote for you that they are somehow bound by that. They may or may not be bound by some Republican party rule but that does not rise to a Constitutional right or violation.
We can agree to disagree. The republican committee people are bound by the republican bylaws. Simple issue. If they choose not to follow the bylaws and the laws of the Commonwealth then get out and form your own party.just as a note the bylaws also address following our state laws. Which are also part of the complaint against Ladley..
Fascinating.
A political party is not a governmental organization but an affiliation of people seeking to achieve a common goal. Obviously there will be family fights but a smart organization will quickly seek to kiss and make up after the smoke clears, not try to remove dedicated and effective people.
That is assuming the Chester Republican Party wants Republicans elected at the state and federal level something which many of us are starting to doubt. Frankly that there have been earlier attempts to get rid of committeepeople is practically proof positive that something is seriously wrong with the party leadership.
And one further wonders if those screaming fidelity to bylaws would have the same literalist interpretation if it was found that the party leaders were in violation. Has that ever happened?
Sir, we can certainly agree to disagree but one last point, Assuming, without agreeing that these ladies violated Republican “bylaw,” that does not equate to violating the Constitution.
Ok, if you say so. How about answering the question.What gives Donna and Jane the right to go against the peoples choice/ vote. Again a simple question . no diversion.
Donna and Jane are the people’s choice. What gives you the right to disagree with them? Answer that — no diversion — and you’ll have the answer to your question.
Thank you Mr. Lawrence I have my answer.Donna and Jane are the peoples choice.
Mr. Orner, There is a lot of energy and time going into the concerns of a few local unpaid committee people. I wish the party would put half the energy and time into holding our paid elected representatives accountable instead of giving them endorsements term after term. Would you care to weigh in?