Pennsylvania TownHall -- Where the Voice of Pennsylvania is Heard!

Freindly Fire

Jim Matthews Fires Back:

Claims Montgomery County is 'running extremely well'

by Chris Freind

Montgomery County Commissioner Jim Matthews has been a fixture in Republican politics for three decades. From his days as a local committeeman to his Lieutenant Governor campaign as Lynn Swann's running mate, Matthews has always been a hard-charging and effective leader. But the biggest political challenge of Matthews' career may be upon him. Shortly after he and running mate Bruce Castor emerged victorious from a campaign in which many political experts predicted GOP defeat, Matthews allied himself with Democratic Commissioner Joe Hoeffel, becoming Chairman but effectively giving substantial control to the minority party. While there was intense fury from some Republican circles, Matthews has weathered the criticism in stride and maintains that the County government is functioning more smoothly than ever, with an unprecedented feeling of openness, transparency and bipartisanship.

Freindly Fire sat down with Commissioner Matthews in an exclusive one-on-one interview to discuss the ramifications of the alliance and the future of the Montgomery County Republican Party.

Freindly Fire: In early 2007, the Republicans thought they were going to lose the county. Since Bruce Castor was considered a popular Republican, the Party asked him to run for Commissioner. While you and Mr. Castor didn't always see eye-to-eye, as running mates you seemed to wage an effective campaign. After winning Republican control, however, you allied yourself with minority Democratic Commissioner Joe Hoeffel, giving control to the Democrats. What made you made you do this?

Jim Matthews: First of all, not all Republicans thought we were going to lose this election. I was very confident that we would win; I thought we would win with (former Commissioner Tom Ellis) and myself. I thought that any combination with me on the ticket---and we would win, based on our record.
Whereas there is a lot of anxiety out there on Iraq, on Bush, the public temperament---it's not a good time for the Republican label--- when people in Montgomery County vote for District Attorney and Commissioner, they vote on performance. The County has been running almost seamlessly for years. Our taxes are the lowest of any of the suburban counties (versus capitalization), we have low debt, efficient government, no ghost employees. It is really run like a business. I think that's why some newspapers came out and endorsed (former Democratic Commissioner Ruth Damsker) and me, because we were the only incumbents running. If it were Tom Ellis running, I am sure they would have reiterated the previous endorsement of Ellis and me. And the time before that, I was endorsed along with Mike Marino.

I felt that because of my track record and my coalition support, I had total confidence that I would be elected. I was concerned about Tom, but I thought that, based on the way voters are here, they would probably elect Tom. With Bruce running, it was a no-brainer that he would get elected. (However), I thought he would have received greater (voter) numbers. I thought that with he being so well-known, and with surveys indicating that he was "known well" to 65% of the people, and "known somewhat" to 80%---my numbers were 26% and 35%--- that he would have done substantially better. My numbers reflected that in the election. Bruce's numbers were a surprise. I didn't have anxiety about not winning, but I did have concern that it would take a little more effort this time because of the bad "Republican" national label.

FF: And the Hoeffel deal?

JM: I don't like that terminology because the resultant vote came directly from a meeting called by Bruce in early December. We (Bruce and I) had talked for over five hours and didn't get anywhere. We had a compact that was signed back in the spring that dictated that I would start off as Chairman. There are four copies in existence, and I have a copy, and Bruce has a copy. Something changed Bruce's mind between the November election and our discussions in December. He clearly wanted to be Chairman, and he went back to conversations in the spring that the person with the most votes should be Chairman. I said that's ridiculous. I remember the time when the party was entertaining the idea of going after Dr. J (Seventy Sixers star Julius Erving) to run for commissioner. Now, if Dr. J had received more votes than the other commissioner (who had been in office for several terms), who would be chairman? No offense to Dr. J., it would be the guy who knows what the job entails. So that's what (Bruce and I) settled on in the spring. So the frustration of trying to cement those terms led Bruce to say that I was asking too much, and he called for a meeting two days later with Commissioner Hoeffel to tell him that we were at a logjam as to who would be chairman.

FF: What was Mr. Hoeffel's response?

JM: Joe threw out a few choice words to both of us and said he should make fools out of both of us because we couldn't come to terms, and that it's too bad the voters didn't know this prior to November. He then met with Bruce and myself individually. He met with me twice because at first we couldn't get anywhere. He wanted everything and the kitchen sink, but I wasn't prepared to do that because I am a Republican, and I wanted a Republican holding every aspect of government. Which is what I got.

But at the same time we wanted to make it a true coalition, which is how we ended up with a Deputy Chief of Staff and Deputy Solicitor---both Democrats. The key word being "Deputy". But the bottom line is that, when Joe was put in that position by Bruce and myself, he chose me. He chose me. So to think it would be unreasonable that he would get Vice Chairman after being in that position is silly. But you also have to look at human nature. Look at the election results--- the row offices were split 6 to 6, which is unprecedented, since it was always 11 to 1--- plus a 2 to 2 split on the salary board. So even though that screamed for some type of coalition, human nature (is such that) when put in this position, and being chosen by Joe, that did not make me uncomfortable. Not anywhere near the degree of the discomfort I felt in December (2006).

After a career in the military and business, after serving as commissioner for eight years, after working doggedly while running for Lt. Governor for a year...to find out that the DA decided he wants to clear the table and be the only name in town, and get rid of the sitting commissioner (Tom Ellis), who had done a god job, because he just felt like it. He wanted his own acolyte in there, Melissa Murphy-Weber. You have to understand human nature at that point. I was challenged, and had to front a very formidable campaign for the county convention, which was basically a draw between Bruce and I, but clearly a victory for me. Then, at that point, being told that the Republican National Committeeman, Bob Asher, and his friends wouldn't be welcome into our joint campaign....I could have sworn I had just won the convention, and now I'm being dictated to by the same person who just led this assault against my incumbency. And now I could not employ the use Bob and our friends, who helped me get this far? That was troubling. But there's more...to win the election and be told that I could not have the solicitor of my choosing...that the agreement for me to be Chairman was to be jettisoned? And then be told that Peter Lees, the very capable Human Resources director, a Republican State Committee member and a lifelong friend would also have to leave?

So when you look at human nature, and the compelling argument that the voters put up rendering the 6-6 split of the row offices...the idea that this is a revolutionary rejection of my Republican principles and a jettisoning of my Republican leadership over the last thirty years, just for a comfort level in here over the next four years, is an affront to me.

FF: How effective is the county government now?

JM: I am very proud to say that as a result of this so-called "deal", we have a government is that is working extremely well together, headed in every major department by a Republican. Others can call it a deal if they want to, but it was a matter of flat-out negotiation where the two Republicans could not agree. I have no problem working with anybody, but when an agreement is rejected, you have to move forward. Which is what we're doing now.

FF: Many have called your action a "stab in the back", both to Bruce Castor and the Republican Party. How do you address that charge?

JM: When you have a rejection of an agreement, you still have to move forward. To call the rejection of Bruce as chairman, someone who knew nothing about government other than prosecutorial management---which was a logical, circumspect decision on my part---I think to call that a "stab in the back" is not just literary license, it's just wrong.

You're talking about a person sitting here who knocks on doors in inclement weather, and who works the polls for 13 hours---I've been doing this since my early twenties. You have another fellow (Castor) who has never knocked on a door; I have never known Bruce to work as a committee person, as a volunteer, and to work the polls. In fact, the day we were elected, he played golf. When I think of the 700 plus committee people who were working the polls for thirteen hours, and their door-to-door effort before that to get our material out....and you're out playing golf...I'm sorry, I don't understand, but are you in the wrong business?

I think it's hideous to stay I stabbed someone in the back. I recognize that with my business and government experience, I should be chairman. To reject human nature and make that person vice chairman (Castor) when he would not enable the formation of the administration is just silly.
I have zero regrets.

I firmly believe in President Reagan's Eleventh Commandment: You shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican. But I think that acknowledging that Bruce has never knocked on doors, has only worked hard for himself, has not been a committeeman or municipal leader, and has been privileged to have the District Attorney label to give him some wind at his back...I don't think that's speaking ill of another Republican. I am content in that I know that we've made the public happy. Take away a few wingnuts, and the balance is a very happy populace. We've gotten tremendous feedback from folks.

When I responded to the situation in a two page letter to about 800 committee people, I received two anonymous negative letters. Two. Yet I received about thirty five emails and letters. Not one acknowledged negative letter when I explained my position! I think it's because of my standing in the party and my three decades of commitment.

Part Two of Friendly Fire's interview will cover the Commissioners campaign, the role of Party leader Bob Asher, the outlook for the Montgomery County GOP, and Commissioner Matthews' plans for the future.