Review board reacts

Chris Potter looks at the mayor's attempt to remake the Citizen Police Review Board, and says City Council is largely to blame:

And let's face it. Council set itself up for this. After all, Pittinger did send a letter reminding them that their four picks had expired. Someone like Peduto could have moved to formally renominate them -- and he of all people should have seen this coming. He knows how vulnerable board members serving expired terms are: After running afoul of Ravenstahl, he was bounced from the Stadium Authority under just those circumstances. 

So basically, we've got a murky set of provisions, a mayor willing to take advantage of them, and a city council that let itself get taken advantage of. Is this reminding anyone of a certain mayoral veto?

Here's the simple solution to all this: A majority of council should vote not to accept the mayor's nominees, arguing that they were not properly submitted. They don't have to make it personal or anything -- just recognize that the language is murky, and the process flawed. The current review board members would continue in their expired, capacity -- and council can try again, THIS time using a nice, transparent resolution that everyone can see.

Tony Wettick's courtroom is another matter, writes Infinonymous:

Ravenstahl could appoint a dozen new CPRB members (or maybe he could not), or even disband the CPRB, and Stephen Zappala could ignore his duties for a decade, yet they still wouldn't slow (let alone stop) Vic Walczak and his co-counsel. This one seems destined to resemble the Sol Gross case, the Robert Swartzwelder case, and the Jordan Miles case, rolled into one fat payday for plaintiffs.