Media, PA News: Everybody's Home Page

Media Borough coup d’état explanation: Roe is not a Democrat

Aug 26

Media Borough coup d’état explanation: Roe is not a Democrat

Part 3 of 7: Outlining the recent changes in Media Borough Council. (Part 1: Introduction, Part 2: Ms. Rehoric)

In my question I also asked Ms. Roe to explain why she voted to oust Mr. Williamson as President and vote in Mr. Alyanakian. Ms. Roe‘s reply was, in my opinion, quite disappointing as she refused to offer any sort of explanation, and instead blamed the Democrats for choosing her in the first place:

“To any democrat … who [was] displeased with a cross-party vote, I have to reiterate … and always have through the entire process and from the very outset said that I would approach this in a non-political non-party [sic] way. So if anyone does feel misled in that way, then I suggest you reach out the new leaders of the Media Democrats and get in touch with them and maybe get involved with their selection process when it comes time to choose new candidates.”

In short: The Media Democratic Party made a very poor choice in choosing Ms. Roe as a candidate last November.

But I suppose it was Ms. Roe’s name right next to that Democrat designation on the ticket, so I think the blame can be at least equally shared between Ms. Roe and the Democratic Party.

To her credit, she did publish a position paper last election stating her non-partisanship:

I am not political, I am not partisan, and I am not going to allow my vote to be swayed by any affiliation I have with the Democratic Committee. Despite that very open declaration, I have been welcomed with open arms and encouraged to approach this election in any way I feel comfortable.

It is dishonest, in my opinion, to run with the “Democrat” name next to yours on the ballot, and then “approach this in a non-political non-party [sic] way” especially given the secretive manner in which you ousted your “Democratic” colleague.

She continued:

“I know people think it’s evasive and I know people think it’s rude and anything else, but I all I do owe you as constituents is to tell you that I voted my conscience and I that I absolutely 100% believe it was the right thing for this group at this time. That’s it.”

“I have to remind everybody, you know, it’s impossible for anybody who is not at this table to form a real or a justified opinion about this change … and I don’t mean this in any other way but from where you all sit, it’s based on assumptions, innuendos, gossip, hearsay. I mean, you need to sit here … to understand behind closed doors what goes on in this group. It’s like any other corporate organization so I would just encourage everybody to kind of reexamine themselves that information and consider that before vilifying or martyring [sic] anybody.”

A few points here:

  • I agree: it’s both evasive and rude.
  • Requiring answers from an elected official in a public meeting is completely reasonable, I’m sorry. If the public doesn’t hold you accountable for your actions, who will?
  • Give the unwashed masses some credit: We can have opinions about this change. No, we’re not in the executive meetings, but pretend for a moment that we can understand your reasons if you actually try to explain them to us.

Honestly, the assumptions/gossip/hearsay/innuendos exist because the Borough Council “New Leadership” has not been forthcoming:

  • This was not carried out in a transparent and “bi-partisan” way… A secret meeting between council members, booting the majority party out of leadership, and no explanation proffered?
  • Specific reasons for the change were never given. (Editor’s note: I am attempting to get a public statement from Mr. Alyanakian)

Ms. Roe’s involvement in this matter appears to have no explanation, but her response highlights her misunderstanding about what it means to be in public office. While she states she was doing “what is right for this group at this time”, she certainly is disenfranchising the people who voted for her by offering no explanation.

At least Ms. Roe at least alludes to the idea that she is “non-party”, and so it can be inferred that she is not really a “Democrat”. The question is then:

  • Why did she run under the Democratic ticket last November, then?
  • And, more importantly, why did the Democratic party choose her to be on their slate?

I spoke with Deborah Krull, co-chair of the Media Democratic Party about whether she considered Ms. Roe still a member of the Media Democratic Party:

“I am planning on including her in the Media Democrats meeting next month, although, based on her public comments, it appears that she doesn’t want to be involved.”

When I asked Ms. Krull about how she was selected as a candidate:
“I wasn’t actually involved in the selection last year. However, I will say that [Ms. Roe] was well respected, she was well thought of, and everyone thought she would do a great job as a borough councilperson. However, the way that this vote occurred does make me lose a little trust and respect for those that were involved.”

Next: Alyanakian


  1. It a shame that some people are more concerned what party you are instead of what is BEST FOR MEDIA!!!

  2. Ok, I’ll bite: How is this best for Media?

    Mr. Alyanakian has not outlined any specific issue which he plans on handling differently.

    Ms. Roe would not comment at all.

    If Mr. Alyanakian had some great ideas as Media Borough Council President, I would be completely behind him. But he refuses to even discuss the issues!

    And this is good for Media?

    (Final note: The article is about how it’s dishonest to run as a Democrat, then say you’re not one. If she gave an explanation, I’d be fine with it. But she hasn’t.)

  3. Shady, behind closed doors politics is “best for Media”? Exactly how is this true? Please enlighten us, Doreen. You seem to know more than the rest of us.

  4. David J. Palmer /

    If Ms. Roe had an ounce of integrity or a sense of shame she should have gone to Mr. Williamson and expressed her “problems” with her assignments and or the pace of how things were being conducted.
    I am sure mr. Williamson would have been MORE then happy to educate her as to how things must be done due to legal restrictions and requirements.
    If her “problems” were not addressed she should have reigned.
    Instead she entered into an at BEST unethical, sleazy, SECRET cabal with the republican members and her co-back staber Ms. Rehoric and spit in the face of the voters who elected her as a Democrat.
    She should be ashamed of herself and her actions. But somehow I doubt if she is.