As the workweek winds down, here's an update to our recent piece on the leadership debate at the Gertrude Stein Political Club of Greater Pittsburgh. After a July 12 meeting, our very own Lauren Daley tells us, the club has a new leader -- at least for now.

Long-time member Audrey Glickman was elected to chair the group until its November elections for leadership. That move resolves some tensions stemming from the fact that Jim Sheppard, a special assistant to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, had thrown his own hat in the ring to lead the group.

While the club has long struggled to retain leaders, some Stein members feared their club's independence might be weakened by Sheppard's political ties -- and his affiliation with the Steel City Stonewall Democrats, which like the Stein club is a pro-LGBT group.

In an e-mail, Glickman says that at the meeting, Sheppard stated "he understood the hesitance ... of the members, that he is glad to be a member and will be an actively participating one, and that he was withdrawing his name from consideration" as a leader.

That left Glickman's name on the ballot, and she was unanimously elected by about 12 Stein club members at the meeting. Glickman says she's ready to hit the ground running.

"The active participation of the [Stein Club] in coordination with our sister organizations across the region is very important to the coming election," Glickman says.

At the same meeting, the club also endorsed Sharon Brown who is running for the vacant Senate seat formerly occupied by Sen. Jane Orie.

"We look forward to communication with all the candidates running in the general election, especially the candidates yet to join the race in August, and will continue to serve as an active conduit for information and advocacy," Glickman says.

And here's a follow-up for naturalists looking for phenomena to study: In an eerie display of the mysteries of nature, different media organizations sometimes cover the same story simultaneously. We're not talking about the lemming-like behavior of, say, national media outlets chasing the daily political buzz of a presidential campaign here: These are stories that are off the beaten track, minding their own business and getting little attention, until suddenly two media outlets pounce on them at once.

Such was the case with our featured news story this week on synchronous fireflies -- luminous bugs who coordinate their summertime light display. It turns out that, at almost the very moment Bill O'Driscoll was tramping around the Allegheny National Forest chasing these little critters, a reporter from the Allegheny Front was doing much the same thing. The local environmental-affairs radio program offers its own take on the fireflies tomorrow at 7:30 AM on 90.5 FM. But if you're not the kind of organism that wakes up that early on a Saturday, you can find it online here.

Here's the part that blows my mind, though: Two media outlets simultaneously shed light on a story about fireflies who shed light simultaneously. Eerie. I'd almost suspect the hand of some sort of Intelligent Designer, if I didn't know that City Paper's editor, at least, is barely capable of coordinating his own socks. And as if to verify Darwin's emphasis on variation in nature, the stories each have a different focus. O'Driscoll's raises concerns about stewardship of the Allegheny National Forest itself, while the Front's piece addresses more purely biological concerns. One expert tells reporter Ann Murray that "The fireflies are a paradigm of this larger theme of nature organizing itself, which has been very difficult for scientists to understand. It's really the subject for the whole 21st century."

Perhaps more study of journalists in their natural habitat would yield new insights on the topic?

The next time environmentalists tell you that the natural gas industry doesn't contribute to Pennsylvania, you can tell them they are wrong: According to a report newly out from a watchdog group, the industry actually has been very generous to at least one set of Pennsylvanians -- our elected officials.

MarcellusMoney.org, a venture backed by Common Cause and Conservation Voters PA that tracks the gas industry's political influence, has fresh research out on how much weight industry execs have thrown around. The new data itemizes campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures by industry execs through the first three months of this year -- a period when state officials passed a gas fee structure that critics contend was highly favorable to the industry.

Not surprisingly, lobbying expenditures in the first quarter of 2012 were the highest in the past five years (Excel spreadsheet). More than two dozen energy corporations and their front group, the Marcellus Shale Coalition, spent over $1.8 million in that three-month period. That's an increase of nearly 36 percent compared to the last three months of 2011, and it is almost entirely attributable to activity by the Coalition itself.

In a statement, MarcellusMoney.org noted that since 2000, the industry has spent $23.7 million on campaign contributions and lobbying. Noting that contributions have tailed off somewhat while lobbying has increased, Common Cause's James Browning said that early on, drillers "spent millions to put their friends in the state legislature and the Governor's mansion" but had shifted to "protecting these investments and maintaining access to key elected officials."

And what did the gas industry get for its money? In February, the state passed Act 13, whose fee structure may be the most generous in the nation.

How generous? It's tough to be precise, since revenue from the fees depend on a number of variables, including the number of wells in operation, and the going price of the gas itself. But in January, Reuters calculated that if Harrisburg had adopted a royalty structure similar to that used in West Virginia, Pennsylvania could have earned as much as $24 billion in additional revenues. That's "billion." With a "b."

So while $23 million seems like a lot of money to spend on palling around with politicians, it's just pocket change. If we accept Reuters' $24 billion figure, you could argue that for every dollar the gas industry spent on garnering political influence, it got back nearly $1,050 in lowered tax bills. That's a return on investment of ... let's see ... more than 104,000 percent.

So actually, I guess the environmentalists were right all along. Even our politicians didn't end up cashing in as much as they could have. Which is sort of tragicomic in its own right: We're all used to the idea of politicians selling out our state, of course ... but by trading away potential revenues for such a pittance in their campaign coffers, legislators ended up shortchanging themselves.

With the world abuzz over today's release of the Freeh Report on sexual abuse at Penn State, it might be worth checking in on one effort to make the university's leadership more accountable. And while the school is pledging "to strengthen Penn State's role as a leading academic institution" in light of the Sandusky scandal, a legislative effort to make it as transparent as other large state schools has been idling.

Late last year, state Rep. Eugene DePasquale (D-York) and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, introduced HB 2051, a measure that would require Penn State and the University of Pittsburgh to abide by the state's open records law. State agencies, including state-run schools like Indiana University of Pennsylvania, are governed by a "Right to Know" law that allows public access to a variety of written records. But while Pitt and Penn State receive nine-digit sums of taxpayer money from the state each year, state law specifically exempts from such records requests. (Also exempt are Temple University and Lincoln University.)

HB 2051 was put forward after watchdog groups -- including Sunshine Review and Pittsburgh's own PublicSource -- documented how unusual the exemption was. But while the Sandusky scandal has understandably drawn the most concern, other aspects of school operations may be of crucial interest to residents as well. For example, PublicSource reported, the exemption means residents are largely in the dark about how much money Pitt and Penn State receive from corporations and other private interests.

DePasquale, who is running for state auditor general and who was in town yesterday, told City Paper that "if you get a vote [on HB 2051], it would pass overwhelmingly. You hear from people on all kinds of issues, but nobody has told me that we have to keep Penn State's exemption intact."

The challenge has been getting the vote. HB 2051 has been bottled up in the state House's State Government Committee since its introduction. The chair of that committee is none other than Cranberry's own Daryl Metcalfe.

Metcalfe has told the right-leaning Pennsylvania Independent "that he did not recall DePasquale ever consulting him about pushing HB 2051 through committee." But DePasquale told City Paper that he sent a letter to Metcalfe urging him to move the bill forward: Metcalfe "never responded to the letter," he says. State Rep. Babette Josephs, a Philly-area legislator who is the ranking Democrat on the committee -- and who often spars with Metcalfe -- issued her own call for Metcalfe to move on the legislation in December.

Metcalfe "has a lot of things on his mind," Josephs told CP, somewhat tartly: Metcalfe's causes include anti-abortion legislation, voter ID and immigration.

While noting that the state's new budget allocates millions to state-supported schools without requiring any additional disclosure, The Independent asserts that "transparency measures may be lurking on the horizon" -- with movement possible during the fall session. But it seems likely that if legislation does move forward, schools like Pitt and Penn State will be held to a lesser standard of disclosure than other state agencies. DePasquale confirmed for City Paper that corporate contracts, for example, may still be kept under wraps, meaning that the next time Penn State releases a report on Marcellus Shale drilling, you may have to guess about how much money the school receives from the natural-gas industry itself.

DePasquale said concerns about donor privacy would likely have to be addressed for the bill to pass.

"I'm a pragmatist," he said.

The Gertrude Stein Political Club of Pittsburgh prides itself on its independence in endorsing political candidates. But some members worry that legacy could be in jeopardy as it seeks new leadership ... and weighs an application from an employee in the Ravenstahl Administration.

The long-standing club has, in recent years, struggled to find and maintain leadership, threatening to fold if members don't step up. Currently, the club has no permanent chair.

On July 12, the club will vote to fill the vacancy at the top until November, when the club will have its formal elections. Nominated to co-chair that vacancy are Jim Sheppard, currently president of the Stonewall Steel City Democrats, and Audrey Glickman, a long-time GSPC member. But some are worried that Sheppard's involvement would be clouded by his role as special assistant to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl.

Sheppard has also worked for former City Councilor Jim Motznik, and he has been rumored as a potential future candidate for that seat, which is currently held by Natalia Rudiak.

If Sheppard were elected, "it gives the impression there is only one gay-rights leader in this town," says Mary Robison, the club treasurer and corresponding secretary who intermittently chairs the organization. Other members, like Joy Sabl, said at the club's June 21 meeting that she was worried about potential overlap between Sheppard's responsibilities at the mayor's office and Stonewall, and the Stein Club. "It'd be fine if it was 'Gee, he's just ours,' but he's not," she said.

"It puts you in an awkward position and puts us in a position," she told Sheppard at the meeting. "While we'd love to have you involved, I still have difficulty with that basic overlap."

Still, Sabl nominated him to co-chair with Glickman, who had reservations of her own. "It's because we don't know your politics yet," Glickman said, stressing the club is pro-women's rights and supports pro-choice candidates.

Sheppard, who became a dues-paying member at the June 21 meeting, said he understood the club's concerns. And while he said the mayor is a personal friend, "it's not my intention to influence an organization one way or another."

When club members asked Sheppard why he was interested in the club, he said it was because he'd heard the organization was in need of leadership. "I know the important role the organization has played in the past and it's been completely cause-oriented. I offered my name to help keep it going."

We reached out to Sheppard via email, and will post his response if we hear back.

The club will accept additional nominations and vote on the vacancy at its next meeting, 7 p.m., July 12, at UCP at Centre and Neville avenues in Oakland.

Seven of nine defendants ranging in age from 24 to 45 who were arrested May 4 after police interrupted a late-night party beneath the Bloomfield Bridge had most of the criminal charges against them dropped Thursday afternoon during a preliminary hearing.

Dropped charges included felony offenses for rioting and misdemeanor offenses for failing to disperse. They were instead each found guilty of a summary offense of disorderly conduct for being at the park after 11 p.m. and given a $300 fine that cannot be repaid through community service.

Among the seven who received the light sentences was Lauren Jurysta, 24, of Pittsburgh, who faced a felony charge of second-degree aggravated assault. Police said she flicked a cigarette at Pittsburgh Police Sgt. Charles Henderson after calling him an "asshole" and "fascist pig."

Her arrest, police said, was the first after officers responded to a 911 complaint about a large, disorderly party under the bridge. A live band was set up and about police estimated that 100 people were at the park without a permit. Members of the party became upset and demanded to know why Jurysta was being arrested. The resulting confrontations led to the other eight arrests, according to the testimony by police officers and their supervisors Thursday.

Two of the nine defendants plead not guilty, and will go to trial.

Jason Oddo, 26, of Irwin, plead not guilty to a felony charge of third-degree aggravated assault (downgraded by the judge from a second-degree aggravated assault charge) and four misdemeanor charges: disorderly conduct, obstructing administration of law or other government, resisting arrest and possessing instruments of crime. A third-degree felony charge of rioting was dismissed.

Police said Oddo used pepper spray against a police officer who was pursuing him after Oddo ran from him to avoid arrest.

Kathleen Tierney, 29, of Braddock, also plead not guilty and will go to trial on misdemeanor charges of criminal mischief and disorderly conduct. Police said she punctured a tire on a police vehicle as she left the party.

Elise Delong, the attorney representing Jurysta, said the results of the hearing "were probably fair all around."

"They were in violation of the law," she said. "Automatically, all of them were wrong because they were in a park after 11 p.m."

The party and the arrests came a day after police reported vandalism to the nearby Sciullo Field, which serves as a memorial to Pittsburgh Police Officer Paul Sciullo, who was killed along with two other police officers in 2009, after a standoff in Stanton Heights.

Graffiti was found and vandals attempted to remove a memorial badge from the park's sign, according to news reports at the time.

Employees who survived layoffs the past several months at for-profit educator Education Management Corporation got some mixed news this week: The Pittsburgh-based company hopes to avoid further layoffs ... but is freezing wages in order to do so.

Word of the wage freeze came down Tuesday, in an email sent on behalf of EDMC management. The email, sent to City Paper from multiple sources, says the management committee "made the decision to suspend merit pay increases for fiscal year 2013" which starts July 1 of this year and ends June 30, 2013. (Employees will still have annual employee evaluations.)

The wage freeze, the email says, is happening "only after carefully reviewing and implementing a number of other measures to ensure that we are operating as efficiently as possible." The email says the company "understands the news is disappointing to us all," but hopes "most will understand that it is necessary in order to preserve the long-term strength and health of our company."

EDMC's health has been beset by numerous problems. Enrollment has lagged, and the company is fighting a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit over the company's student recruiting practices. If EDMC loses the case, it might have to repay billions of dollars in federal financial aid given to its students. EDMC is also contending with legislation being pushing by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, to limit the amount that for-profit educators can earn from veterans via the G.I. Bill.

Such problems seem to be taking a toll. Despite a stock buyback and hundreds of layoffs in January and after, EDMC's stock has fallen from $30 at the beginning of the year, to around $6.50 as of this morning.

"An important part of maintaining this commitment in the current economic environment is ensuring that the cost of education for our students remains manageable," the email reads. "In order to accomplish that goal, we're working to keep tuition as close to current levels as possible.

"In the past year we have also taken a number of steps to eliminate as much expense as possible across the company ... to minimize actions that further reduce our employee base. We will continue those efforts in the coming fiscal year."

While it appears the wage freeze will be system-wide, the e-mail did not indicate whether top executives and board members -- many of whom are tied to Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs -- will be sharing the pain. (Last year CEO Todd Nelson, for example, received a base salary of $630,000 and stock-option bonuses worth $11.5 million.) The company will report details of its executive compensation in its annual report, due at the end of August.

Tears streamed down Alejandra Cruz's face as she stared at a letter from PNC Bank. Standing outside of the bank's Downtown headquarters, she shook her head.

The bank, she said, would not renegotiate the mortgage on her family's Minneapolis home which was foreclosed.

"This is hard," she said.

Cruz, 26, and her brother David, 20, traveled to Pittsburgh today to meet with the bank and ask them to help the family get back into their home. The Cruzes say an online banking glitch on PNC's end caused them to miss an automatic monthly mortgage payment. After the payment was missed, they say, the bank assessed nearly an additional month's mortgage in fees, which the family could not pay. During the foreclosure process, a third-party nonprofit in Minneapolis got involved to help, but did not deliver the proper paperwork to the bank nor communicate with the family. The Cruzes subsequently lost their home to Freddie Mac, who now owns the property.

Since then, the Cruzes have been supported by Occupy Homes Minnesota, and a fierce battle has been underway for the home at 404 Cedar Ave. Signs of that struggle traveled to Pittsburgh today, including the broken door of the home that sheriff's deputies kicked in during a raid at 4 a.m. May 25.

"My family has never asked for anything for free," Alejandra said, noting her family has lived in the home for seven years. "We can pay the mortgage."

In addition to the action in Pittsburgh, actions were planned in Minneapolis and New York in conjunction with the Occupy movement. About 30 people gathered in Market Square this afternoon for the rally, many with Occupy Pittsburgh, before the group marched to PNC's headquarters on Fifth Avenue, chanting phrases like "Whose house? Cruz house!"

Photo by Lauren Daley

"In seven years, they have not missed a payment. That's what's so outrageous about this," says Marina Antic, with Occupy Pittsburgh, who led today's march. "PNC prides itself on being a community bank in Pittsburgh. It's time for them to live up to that promise."

We've contacted PNC and will post their response when we hear back. In the meantime, the Cruzes were headed back to Minneapolis this afternoon to determine their next move, said Anthony Newby, with Occupy Homes Minnesota and Neighborhoods Organizing for Change, and who accompanied the Cruzes in the PNC meeting.

Newby said the family's plans were unclear, but that they were in temporary housing and were optimistic they could get back into their home.

"We're not giving up. This is more than the just the Cruz family," said Newby. "This is a fight for the future of housing in our country."

Newby said the Cruz's situation was just a symptom of greater ills, particularlyg banks doing business with third-party nonprofits who often do more damage than good.

"PNC never got the documents [from the nonprofit] but PNC says this is not unusual," Cruz said. "We asked, 'Why are you doing business with people who will lead families onto a path of losing their home?' ... We didn't get an answer."

Holding signs that said "285," "Our kids need teachers," and "Our city needs these jobs," several dozen educators, parents and children gathered in front of the Pittsburgh Board of Education Wednesday afternoon to protest education cuts and attract media attention for the 285 teachers furloughed by the Pittsburgh School District in May.

Jessie Ramey, the founder of the blog Yinzercation, which details the reasons to be against Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett's cuts in state education spending, led the group in chants for "adequate, equitable and sustainable public funding of education."

"We're here today because our children need their best teachers in the classroom, not the unemployment line," she said.

Amanda Godley, a parent of an 8-year-old soon-to-be fourth-grader who attends Colfax in Squirrel Hill, said she was worried that class sizes will increase.

"We're really concerned that the Governor is decimating education," she said.

Photo by AmyJo Brown

Michelle Boyle, a parent of two daughters, a 6-year-old and a 9-year-old who attend Fulton in Highland Park, said she felt the teachers have been doing what the state has asked of them, improving test scores and making significant improvements.

"The state government is not holding up its end of the deal," she said. "What the governor is doing is criminal."

The protest, which started at about 6 p.m., was brief. By quarter to 7 p..m., the signs were collected and stashed.

City police arrested nearly a dozen people today during a protest of pending Port Authority service cuts and Gov. Tom Corbett.

Photo by Lauren Daley

Pro-transit demonstrators shortly before being arrested Downtown this afternoon.

After marching through Downtown to rally in front of UPMC and Corbett's Pittsburgh office, a group of protestors sat in the intersection of Fifth and Wood chanting After giving demonstrators three verbal warnings, officers placed plastic ties around their wrists as the demonstrators shouted, "Public transit needs a fix! We know how: Tax the rich!"

Sgt. Eugene Hlavac said city police arrested 11 who will be taken to Allegheny County Jail and charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing highways. Moments before the action, Mel Packer -- who led the rally and was arrested -- said, "We'll show them what congestion will really be like if they cut transit service."

Packer was among nearly 200 who marched in opposition of a pending 35 percent Port Authority service cut that includes nearly 500 layoffs, a fare increase and massive cuts to the paratransit program ACCESS. The cuts are due to the authority's $64 million operating budget deficit, a result of a statewide transportation funding crisis.

Labor groups, Pittsburghers for Public Transit and the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 were among those rallying. The group stopped at UPMC's headquarters in the U.S. Steel Building, contending that if the nonprofit paid taxes, there would be more funds for transportation. They then marched to Corbett's offices on Fifth Avenue.

A statement handed to reporters said that among those practicing civil disobedience were members of Occupy Pittsburgh and Pittsburghers for Public Transit. They were doing so, the statement said, "to protest the Corbett administration's decision to cut funding for public transit, an assault on our community."

The statement continued:

"In blocking traffic today, we call attention to the far more seriously blocked traffic we'll all face every day due to cuts in public transit. Current bus riders with cars will have to drive, adding to the cost of commuting, creating more traffic jams and filling our lungs with even more dangerous levels of pollutants ... We must disobey a government which knowingly damages its citizens. We disobey the law and accept the consequences today to highlight the corruption of our political system. We uphold a greater ethical imperative to stand with the 99% and true democracy."

Though the demonstration was peppered with criticisms of businesses like UPMC, ire was directed toward Corbett for not addressing transportation funding across the state, despite recommendations from his own advisory committee. Outgoing Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 president Pat McMahon called Corbett "the only obstacle" to achieving a funding solution for roads, bridges and mass transit.

"You can blame corporate America and they should pay their fair share, but today only one person -- Gov. Corbett -- needs to nod his head," McMahon shouted into a bullhorn in front of the governor's office. "Until he gives the nod, it won't happen."

In its ongoing campaign for same-sex marriage rights, the Mayors for Freedom to Marry Campaign has received the support from Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl.

Earlier today, Ravenstahl signed a statement asserting that he "proudly stand[s] in support of the freedom of same-sex couples to marry ... I look forward to working to build an America where all people can share in the love and commitment of marriage with the person with whom they share their life."

He discussed that pledge in an interview with City Paper this afternoon.

How did you come about this decision? Earlier in the year, a Post-Gazette article quoted your office as saying you did not support it.

This is actually a position I've had for some time. This isn't obviously an issue that crosses my desk on a daily basis. It is something that I believe. It is something I'm proud to now sign the Mayors for Marriage Equality, and join fellow mayors in the state and across the country in the effort. Hearts change, minds change. I had numerous discussions with members of my staff who are gay, friends who are gay, and as I said, hearts change and mind change, and mine has changed.

What have you heard from constituents on this? Have you been contacted about this previously?

Again, this is something I've felt for some time. I think the heightened awareness with the President's recent endorsement of same sex marriage is something I think perhaps brought it across my desk more so then before. We're focused on running the city, creating economic development opportunities. This isn't something normally that mayors deal with. I'd say the increased awareness and increased dialogue around the president's decision is when I was asked to formally sign on.

Who asked you to sign on?

There were constituents, some people would send emails. I know my LGBT task force has you know, communicated to me their interest in me signing onto the pledge. When I go the meetings, this is one of the issues that we've talked about … [T]his is a position that I've taken and I thought it was important to communicate that to the residents of the city.

In PA, same-sex marriage is illegal already. Is there anything advocacy-wise you're planning on doing or supporting legislatively?

Not necessarily from a legislative standpoint -- you know, signing on was a personal decision that I made. Obviously when I'm asked, I'll voice my support, but in the short term we don't have any plans for any local legislative action. Throughout the course of time … we'll see if anything is appropriate but at this time there are no plans for anything other than signing the pledge.

It's a divisive issue in the political realm; what backlash do you expect from this?

It's a personal decision, not a political one. Some folks will agree, others will disagree. I felt it was appropriate to state my personal opinion. I didn't consider the political ramifications. It's something I felt I had to do.