Democrats sweep past Republicans in Oakmont Council races
The balance of power on Oakmont Council appeared to have tipped to the other side of the political see-saw on Tuesday.
According to unofficial results from Allegheny County's Elections Bureau, Democrats captured all four open council seats in the election.
It means that the Democrats will hold a 5-2 edge on council in what has historically been a Republican-dominated town.
“In a single election, I think that is extraordinary in Oakmont,” said Tom Briney, the lone incumbent Democratic councilman. He said usually the hope is to win a one or two seats, not stage a sweep.
Patricia Friday lead the Democratic ticket with 763 votes, one more than Sophia Facaros, who was followed by Briney at 693 and Tom Whelan with 638.
Losing Republican candidates were incumbent Laurie Saxon, 606 votes; fellow incumbent and current council president Timothy Milberger, 593 votes; and newcomers Jerome Kenna, 453, and Melissa Botta Havran, 406.
“There was a letter sent to all the citizens in Oakmont last week that implied that council was incompetent and didn't care about Oakmont,” Saxon said Tuesday. “I'm more disappointed about the letter than I am losing my seat on council.”
Saxon said the letter smacked of dirty politics, but the Democrats disagreed.
“It was factual, it was a lot of facts,” Facaros said of the newsletter mailed last week. “The Democratic committee worked hard. We were informative, we were focused.”
Briney said he does not see a big shift in policy, if the unofficial results from the county hold firm.
He said the new council members would likely want to look at the budget to see if its priorities match theirs.
Meanwhile, Saxon said she might consider asking for a recount if Whelan's margin of victory remains close.
Tom Yerace is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-226-4675 or email@example.com.
More Valley News Dispatch
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.