Submit your nominations for

I have been getting more and more (mostly private) inquiries asking who people can cast a write-in vote for in the upcoming Boro Council elections on Nov. 3rd. I have to admit that I do not know the best way to respond to those inquiries-you see, I do have names (6, to be exact). But those names (except for one) have been suggested to me, and well, I haven't quite figured out how to approach those persons, because, well, its a tricky situtation. You see, if I make the approach, given my current public statements, it may give the appearance that I--just little 'ole me, am really the primary push behind changing our boro council leadership, and that would be an incorrect perception.

I hope that my neighbors recognize that I am telling the truth when I report that MANY OF YOU have expressed dissatisfaction with our current leadership, and for a variety of very legitimate reasons. That said, many of you have expressed appreciation for the leadership's dedication and contributions to Mt. Gretna. And, as I indicated in a previous post, that latter group shares some pretty stark demographic characteristics. Even so, that latter group has been a vocal minority in the issue of the upcoming election.

The problem is that that vocal minority may end up being our voting majority. So, what I find to be the most interesting question right now is "Will the vocal majority coalesce and make their desired change happen?"

Also, if someone does want to run, wouldn't it be best for that person to personally solicit his or her neighbor's for votes and to NOT make a public statement? If the incumbents do not know who may be running as write-ins, they will have to run on the issues, so to speak, and can't make it a personality debate, even if the debates occur around the neighbor's coffee table. I guess I am asking just what is the best way, in such a small community, to run as a write-in without allowing the general "campaign" to turn "personal"?

I haven't found the answer to that question yet, but I am certainly willing to share what I know about the write-in process, to publish write-in candidate's information and announcements, and to even help organize or conduct meetings. Whatever it takes to help the community's momentum change from what I am hearing it is today into something more reflective of a community made of many diverse individuals, concerns, needs, and skills.

I am also willing to serve as the "clearing house" for collecting your nominations and announcements for write-in candidates--publishing the list as it gets closer to Nov. 3rd.

Leb.Cty. solicitors and their conflicting representations

Below is the url to view the copy of my notes researching which lawyers represent which municipalities. Note that many lawyers represent several municipalities, and, like MGB, their lawyer may represent an "opposing" party in this EIT issue.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiODZlYmI4M2MtMTU0ZS00YTE0LTk0MDItNTg4Y2M5YzdhNjcx&hl=en

Evidence of a distinct EIT distribution plan that was adhered to.

Here is the link to my calculations showing a distinct EIT distribution plan, and that the plan was adhered to through the years 2004 through 2006.
The chart's 2007 data is incomplete, so can't really be relied on in these calculations. But I crunched them anyway for Mt. Gretna and for the School Districts.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiNmE1ZTExZDQtZGQ4Ny00M2E3LTk1ZGEtNTU4YWU4NzkzYjYw&hl=en

The EIT report

Below, in the Links list, I will provide the links to documents and sources for the information I discuss on this blog.
The first on is the EIT report issued in January of this year.
It is at

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiNDI4Nzg1NGEtZmJjMy00NjM2LWI2YzctM2IyZTAwZmEyNmFi&hl=en

That's all one url, with no spaces.

I will direct you to several points of interest, but still, I encourage you to read it throughly and ask questions.

Note 1: In its explanation of its data sources used for this report (pages 6 through 9), M-A states that it only referred to EIT accounts to match up things like SSN's and municipalities of residence with a person's state tax records. They don't indicate that they are really matching up collection and distribution data from their multiple sources.

The problems here are that your state tax file for the year present different numbers than your EIT filing for that year. Second problem is that your reporting of your EIT tax burden is completely self-motivated. In other words, the state isn't looking at your state filing and cross-checking the EIT database to make sure you filed EIT. The state Dept Of Revenue (DOR) just doesn't "do" EIT. The locals do. Third, there is no explanation for how M-A acounted for workers working out of state but living in PA, and all those anomalies.

Note 2: In its resulting tables, M-A calculated what it thinks should have been collected and distributed according to DOR data--not according to EIT filings. For reasons stated in Note 1, this approach may yield serious inaccuracies when compared to reality. In short, although PA companies have to report EIT witheld from PA residents, M-A doesn't explain how companies' reporting data was used,or if it even was used, and how it adjusted for EIT information the DOR just doesn't have. Further, EIT collectors also give reports t0 the Dept of Revenue. How did M-A incorporate those reports...or did it even go to the DOE? Still, M-A goes ahead with this limited and likely inaccurate data and rewrites history for us anyway, and recalculates what it thinks was EIT revenue collected and disbursed. (See tables 1 through 3)

Note 3: See table 4, where only actual numbers were used. If you crunch the numbers, you will find that there is an actual pattern of disbursement that is consistent from year to year.
However, M-A ignores that fact in its analysis. Instead, it continues to apply its recreated scenario.

Note 4: See last table, where M-A states that actual disbursements for the years were more than the estimated EIT collected. This would be a very difficult thing for the EIT executive director to do--to give away money that he hadn't even received yet. Further, this demonstrates that the M-A calculations are defective. If we paid back what they are saying was overpaid for the year 2006, for example, our effective tax rate, BY THEIR OWN CALCULATIONS would be 1.1%. That's a big deal, since by law, they are only allowed to collect 1%. Taxes are very strict that way.

Kilgore, Allwein, and conflicts of interest

Of the 30 or so BOro Council meeting minutes that I have read--NOT ONE VOTE BY ANY COUNCIL MEMBER HAS BEEN CAST THAT OPPOSES ALLWEIN or Kilgore. NOT ONE. So, why do we even have 5 council seats?

Allwein and two of these lackies are up for "reelection" this Nov 3. All I can say is that if my neighbors don't get some b@lls and vote in three write-in candidates instead of these guys, at least I will still have a full-time job exercising my 1A right to investigate and publish criticism of every little hypocrisy and failure of these public figures' moves. Come Nov 4, if Allwein is still on the Council, his representation of us, as an elected official whose ONLY purpose is to protect OUR health, safety, and welfare, is going to get a lot harder...and A LOT MORE PUBLIC.

As it is now, I have uncovered some serious conflict of interest issues (see last post). The post describes that Kilgore, our solicitor, is also representing "oppposing" municipalities in addition to us on this EIT issue. To give more flesh to the impunity with which Allwein and Kilgore conduct themselves, Kilgore also is Allwein's personal representative in Allwein's real estate transactions involving land in MOUNT GRETNA! How good of a deal do you think Allwein got in the transaction when the other party is looking at his Boro Council President AND the Boro City Solicitor in this private land deal?

Really, there aren't any other lawyers for Allwein to use? Why even go there unless you just don't give a crap about your constituents and the appearance of impropriety? And, how was Kilgore paid--did Allwein and Kilgore give any reassurances to their constituents that Kilgore was paid with Allwein's own money?

Oh, right, Allwein's money basically all comes from the business that he owns and operates in the MG Boro for which the MG Boro taxpayers fund the infrastructure, parking, and sewer and water for anyway. We MGB taxpayers recently funded thousands of dollars to resod our parks' grassy areas because the BORO COUNCIL allows visitors (mostly visitors to Allwein's business) to park on the grass instead of on the paved areas and this season was really too wet to allow that sort of thing.

Not only did WE incur that expense, but our budget also includes paying for the parking temps that are hired each summer to help pack more "outsiders" and their cars in to OUR parks (note that I did not say into our parking lot) so that they can spend more money at Allwein's eatery while the theater is having a show. The irony of that is that when I counted the total number of hours that either the theater or the Jiggershop pack the parking lot all summer long, I found that its the Jiggershop that puts the greatest demand on our parking spaces--BY FAR. I also found that, although the Boro charges the theater huge amounts of money to somewhat offset the cost of the parking freaks, the Jiggershop--our BORO Council president's business, is NOT PAYING ANYTHING NEAR THE AMOUNTS CHARGED TO THE THEATER--OUR COUNCIL PRESIDENT IS NOT PAYING HIS FAIR SHARE.

Mount Gretna Borough is not a commercial zone, its not a business center, and its not an industrial park. Its a homeowners' association. Let me say that again. Mt. Gretna Borough is a homeowner's association. The Borough itself was created by the homeowner's association, and was delegated the administrative and management oversight of the associations' public ways. The association still retains the ultimate responsibility for these areas. This fact was reiterated by Kilgore himself at the last Boro meeting and memorialized in a recent story published in the LDN. (See story at http://www.ldnews.com/ci_13425943?source=most_viewed) Therefore, this homeowner's association should have never let a business owner in this association take over and devastatingly change the character and purpose of this association.

Its time for us to have elected officials that view us as a collection of homeowner's again.

Its time for us to have elected officials that will protect OUR quality of life in this community.

Our solicitor represents us AND the opposing team!!!

Keith Kilgore, our Mount Gretna Borough AND Chautauqua solicitor has been representing MGB in the pursuit of a resolution that would require us to "repay" an alleged $224000 "overpayment."

The trouble is that while he is supposed to be our advocate in this issue, he also is the municipal solicitor for South Lebanon AND North Londonderry--both municipalities that are claiming to be underpaid EIT revenues and seeking Mt. Gretnans' tax dollars to "repay them."

To make matters worse, Kilgore's partner, John Enck also represents both Millcreek and Bethel as their municipal solicitor.

In a recent Boro meeting, our council president acknowledged that kilgore "represents several other municipalities in this issue." But that seemed ok to him--he never mentioned how they dealt with this dual representation or the conflicts it creates. Perhaps they took care of that in a separate meeting and Allwein simply has not availed himself of another opportunity to paternalize us...

Let me show you PA's professional code of conduct that Kilgore, and Enck, are required to follow as licensed PA attorneys:
(you can find it yourself at http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/s1.7.html)*

Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

Now, that rule suggests that in Para. b, there is a way to represent both an allegedly underpaid and an overpaid in this situation. But let me present to you paragraph B and draw your attention specifically to (B)(3), which basically states one lawyer can represent two clients where a conflict may exist---BUT NOT WHERE THOSE CLIENTS OPPOSE EACH OTHER in a proceeding. In other words, they can't be direct adversaries.

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: [...]

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal;
and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent.

Now, doesn't this appear to present a pretty clear motivation for Kilgore to jump straight to the position "hey give these guys your money, and let's not litigate this--because then I would be representing two adversaries on the opposite sides of a claim that is in litigation."

And, even if you want to say, "well, we really aren't adversaries in a proceeding yet, so its ok for him to do this", then I encourage you to look at this rule's Note 8. This is the question that has to be answered in order for Kilgore, Enck, or any attorney to represent more than one party in this issue. And, let me remind you that adherence to professional conduct rules is NOT an OPTION nor is it an afterthought!

Note 8

(8) Even where there is no direct adverseness, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests.

So here, let me say my thoughts outloud:
The only reason that we are NOT in litigation or before a tribunal on this over/under allegation is because it is in the SOLICITORS' best interests--not because it may be in our best interests. I especially think this because to get us out of this issue, it really looks relatively simple--just stop participating in the meetings. Publish a nice, concise letter to whomever is organizing these "repayment" meetings, telling them that,

"while we support the proper distribution and receipt of all tax revenues, we simply can not advise our municipal client to enter into any sort of agreement at this time. However, if more or substantial evidence supporting the allegations of your claim come into your possession, we would be pleased to consider reopening discussions." End of story. No more bills from solicitors' for attending these discussions...

Based on Kilgore's results for us in this issue, I think he has made it abundantly clear that he is materially limited in his ability to consider an appropriate course of action for us--he has laid us Mt. Gretna taxpayers out like a lamb to slaughter, not even formally questioning the veracity and sufficiency of the "overpayment" claim. There is an obvious lack of evidence here, and the only document be presented as "evidence" is a report by a firm selected, instructed, and paid by the "claimant". And, that report itself has some pretty obvious deficiencies that even a first year law student would be able to spot and use to argue for a better position for his clients.

Instead, Kilgore is preserving, without flinching, apparently, his other clients' unproven claims that they have a right to reach into our pockets for more money. How convenient for him, to not challenge the claim, to not have to absolve himself from representing any entity on this EIT issue, and to be able to keep billing all these clients for both his time spent on this EIT issue AND his regular "solicitor" hours. And he will certainly be billing us for his advocacy of our Borough!

Again, our municipal leadership has set us up to foot someone else's bill, assuming they get us into a repayment agreement or raise or taxes or tack on a special assessment through the Chautauqua.

By the way, Kilgore also serves as zone hearing board solicitor for Swatara, Union, Heidelberg, AND West Cornwall Township. Enck serves as zoning hearing board solicitor for Myerstown.
You can confirm this information at http://www.lebcounty.org/lebanon/lib/lebanon/Public_Officials_Directory_2009-REV.pdf

If you would like to find out for yourself whether his representation of both sides suffers "material limitations", you can ask for someone for an answer. You can be discreet, or a straight up P'O'd taxpayer. You can ask these guys for an answer at: http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/forms/consumer.php

or you can ask more taxpayer rights' types of questions at
http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Department/Info/Investigations/

*To see more rules of professional conduct for attorneys, check out PA Title 204, Chap 81-- a peek of which is at
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/chap81toc.html

MGB to turn to Chautauqua for help addressing EIT issue--let me count the ways that this is wrong

At the last Borough Council meeting, the prez tried to comfort us by stating that the Boro will be pulling in the Chautauqua to try to resolve this EIT/budget issue. This may be an egregiously wrong thing to do and here's why:

(I have a video of the meeting and those comments if any one wants a copy.)

First:
In all my research and reading of primary source documents, I can find NO LEGAL BASIS for Mt. Gretna Boro (or Chautauqua) residents paying anyone an alleged EIT overpayment. Some people think this is the complicated part, but its not--its the mysterious part. Mysterious because even the EIT Bureau, the entity responsible for administering this tax, conveniently "doesn't have" any supportive documentation for this claim. So, because no one is presenting any legal evidence that proves any distribution was done incorrectly, no one can prove that any entity was "overpaid."

Further, even the EIT Bureau's own report on the issue demonstrates that the school districts and municipalities each received a consistent percentage of the overall EIT pot, year after year. This pattern contradicts their assertions that they can't determine what their own distribution plan was and that Foltz was not being consistent with the distribution plan. So, the only evidence presented so far demonstrates a plan and that the distributions were consistent year after year. Translated, that means that there is no proof that anyone got over or under paid according to the distribution plan. And, that means that there is no basis for any adjustments.

So, to municipal leaders and solicitors: STOP ENGAGING IN THESE OVER/UNDER REPAYMENT DISCUSSIONS. There is no foundation for them, and you lawyers are charging us for this activity. That's wrong. In fact, in Mt. Gretna's case, its really wrong since our solicitor is also representing several other municipalities in these discussions. This brings up a whole slew of questions like, does he also represent a "complainer" wanting money from us, does he divide his charges up equally between his municipal clients, or does he charge us all as if we were his only client while he attended that meeting...

Second:
The current distribution of EIT revenue is apparently determined soley by what your residents paid in. In other words, Keystone's distribution plan is a deviation from the original distribution plan and is a deviation of the plan evidenced by the EIT Bureau's own report. This plan, according to my research, is an adminstrative policy or procedure created contemporaneously with the law creating the LCEIT. Therefore, it can't be changed just by the Bureau hiring a new 3-third party collection agency and giving them distribution instructions that deviate from a contemporaneously created administrative procedure.

So, our municipal leaders and solicitors need to start demanding that we get our appropriate distribution, and not this new thing that Keystone has been told to do.

Third:
These tax structures include an administrative process for pursuing complaints. The allegedly under-paid entities can file a complaint and avail themselves of the administrative process for determining this issue. Pressuring another entity's taxpayers to give you their cash using another route is inappropriate, at best, and has no legal basis.

So, to those entities claiming that they were "underpaid", suck it up, gather up your evidence, ask for a hearing, attend it and make your best case. Stop trying to extort money out of your taxpaying neighbors when you aren't even willing to show us your evidence and that you really have something to complain about.

Now, if you made it this far, then this is probably a legit and serious concern of yours. If so, then I think it is important that each of you concerned persons WRITE a letter to the Boro and attend the next meeting. Because who knows what they will commit us to when we are not looking.
P.O. Box 61 Mt. Gretna, PA 17064 ; Meeting time: Second Monday, 7 p.m., board room behind post office. Residents desiring to attend can stop by my place a little after 6 for a quick happy hour before the anticipated dreary hour.

By the way, the EIT Bureau report suggests that Mt. Gretna Borough is to receive, annually, 0.35% of the total EIT collected by Lebanon County for the year. The area designated by our school district and its municipalities is to receive 26% of the annual collection. I say this to suggest that you municipal officers can check to see if Keystone is sending you your proper amount. I will post the distribution pattern I discovered from the report as soon as I have crunched all the entities' numbers.

Another way of looking at this EIT issue

Entities that were OVERpaid EIT revenues*
Name Percent overpaid
Cleona Borough 10
North Annville Township 39
South Annville Township 31
Cornwall Borough 59
Mt. Gretna Borough 180
West Cornwall Township 17
Heidelberg Township 54
East Hanover Township 22

Entities that were UNDERpaid EIT revenues
Name Percent UNDERPAID
North Cornwall Township -10
North Lebanon Township -20
South Lebanon Township -14
Lebanon City (with Annex) -11
West Lebanon Township -28
Jonestown Borough -35
Swatara Township -11
Union Township -16
North Londonderry Township -16
South Londonderry Township -18

Entities paid a relatively appropriate amount (deviation of 6% or less)
Annville Township
Jackson Township
Millcreek Township
Myerstown Township
Richland Borough
Palmyra Borough

*Averages over 2004, 2005, and 2006. Calculations do not adjust for fees and such that are usually taken from such revenues and are not foolproof. Thus, they may be off by a few percentage points. If so, I would say that the appropriate adjustment would be to shave at least 3 percentage points off all calculations. Still, even after considering these factors, the pattern—or the outlier, is glaringly apparent.

EIT MEETING TONIGHT!, parking fees, and protecting your constituency

As I speak with more and more of my neighbors about general politics in Mt. Gretna, I am beginning to see a stark division in attitudes, and the dividing line is very clearly defined. It is not based on political party, on gender, nor on familial status. Rather, it is based on age and length of time residing year-round in Mt. Gretna.

Now, let me begin by saying that I have the deepest respect for people older than myself. I dearly love my grandfather, whose own mother died in her nineties, at home, surrounded by her family. He now is in his eighties, living a vibrant live alone in Maine in a house that he laid the foundation to during his mother's impending death. I remember lugging cinder blocks to him and his recruits in those lazy summer afternoons that week, where the adults rested on the grass under the old maples and us kids would taunt them until plucked from our exurberance and tickled to the point of incapacitation. I also remember that each morning and each afternoon, different categories of family were rounded up and paraded into Great-Gram's line of vision. It was during these sessions that I learned my place in this family "tree"--who came before me, who came after me, who was responsible for me...and I learned about my grandfather's place in this tree.

In the two years that my grandmother lived after having a massive heart attack, he doted and cared for her in ways rarely seen today. Because of his care, courage, and love, my grandmother spent the last years of her life surrounded by the love of her family, in a home built by her and her husband's own hands and filled with decades of momentos and pictures, and died peacefully in her sleep, in her own bed. He helped the coroner carry her body from her bed. Those are lessons in dedication and love that can only be demonstrated by his generation, and the lessons are not lost on me.

So, coming back to the topic of my post today, I have found that here in Mt. Gretna, our oldest generations that have been here two, three decades or more seem to be still living--politically, at least, in an era when there was no testing of our drinking water, no Clean Air or Clean Water Acts, when it was not common for a woman to engage in politics in any way other than to cast a vote, and when combustible engines and amplified music were tools of necessity or of a trade and not found commonly around the house (and certainly these items were not used commonly around the house). And, it is this generation that is clinging dearly to the idea that our current elected officials are motivated and capable of continuing to protect us, as a constituency--to protect our health, safety, and welfare, as elected officials are elected to do.

However, with the utmost respect, I would ask that those persons rethink this notion and to consider my suggestions below. The facts simply do not support the idea that current leaders are capable or motivated to think of us as a constituency in the process of getting us out of our current financial issues. No one, not even current Borough Council and Chautauqua Board members can deny that these financial issues developed on their watch. Evidence of mismanagement or incompetence is suggested by the facts that:

1) Mt. Gretna Borough was overpaid for MANY years--possibly for twenty years and certainly for ten, and knew or should have known what our appropriate share should have been. [The entities receiving less than what they were owed during this time period had a good idea of what the amount was that was due to them and when they were not receiving that proper amount.];

2)the Borough treasurer and the Council president had oversight responsibility for Borough finances, and should have notified the appropriate authorities about any misallocation or management of funds--like the other receivers of EIT funds knew and made notifications regarding UNDERpayments;

3) no Borough Council member or Chautauqua Board member has indicated any remote interest in conducting an accounting for these misallocated or mismanaged funds and/or an inquiry into how our elected officials allegedly had so little substantive knowledge of and control over our municipality's LARGEST revenue source.

As a constituency, we are concerned about these things more so to ensure that this doesn't happen again (in whatever form financial mismanagement takes) than to find blame and to point fingers, and we are concerned about the serious drag this is going to have on our Borough budget. Again, EIT revenue is our Borough's largest source of revenue, and it has now been cut in half (by an average of $50,000/year).

However, because our Council and Board are not recognizing our expressed concerns, are not involving us in the process, and are showing more respect for the business activities that occur here (rather than for the actual residents), their consituency has no reason to believe that they are handling either of these concerns with protection of our health, safety, and welfare in mind. Thus, it seems as if we homeowner association shareholders are really Jiggershop shareholders and all Borough and Chautauqua decisions are made primarily to support the business activities occuring here rather than to protect the quality of life and property of the residents here.

This last conclusion is based on the following responses that were recently issued by the Council and the Chautauqua:

1) Borough Council president has stated that budget discussions are "privileged" and that we can't have access to them;

2) Council also tells us that the Borough is going to turn to the Chautauqua for assistance in getting the Borough out of this financial mess (creation of a "special assessment" passed on to shareholders is the undenied rumor) [This still won't prevent Borough's mismanagment of funds in the future and still doesn't deal with the impending budget crisis.];

3) The Chautauqua Board tells us that shareholders really have no substantive method to be heard or have access to Chautauqua meetings;

4) We are also told by the Borough Council to take our issue and concerns to the Chauatuaqua Board, and then the Board tells us we have no recourse (See number 3, above).

Well, there are more alternatives to this leadership style, and there are alternative resolutions to the current financial situation. But let's just explore the possible paths to resolving our financial issues.

First, we can replace the three Council members whose positions are up for election this Nov. 3. This would seem to take care of a bunch of the above issues for us, including fashioning efficient, fair, and responsive resolutions to our financial issues. And, it would do so in a timely fashion. I already have the names of at least 5 persons that many others have said that they would vote for as write in candidates. To make the change fair and impersonal, it may be best to just write in and vote for three persons, so that all three incumbents are replaced. No paperwork needs to be filed other than a list of expenses if the candidate spends more than $250. You can also notify the elections board of the names a write-in candidate will accept votes under.

Second, as shareholders, we can present and call for a vote on our own resolution. Although the Chautauqua delegated responsibility for the municipal works and grounds to the Borough, it still maintains ultimate authority over these areas, as is so stated in the Chautauqua rules. Further, in terms of what the substance of the resolution is, I understand that we are limited by our own imaginations. Thus, this is another avenue by which we can assert influence and address the financial issues via this route.

Third, we can recognize that most of our Borough monies are spent maintaining grounds that are really benefiting visitors, renters, and local businesses--not us residents, and more fairly allocate the burden for that expense. We really need to be brainstorming ideas--not huddling in secrecy, to increase our revenue and to curb our budget.

For example, at the last Council meeting, it was stated that we have to resod and do other infrastructure work to the grassy areas that turned to mud this season. Now, the borough manager tried to blame the rutted lawn on "poor soil" used last year by PennDOT, but then he also stated that we had over 24" of rain this season (very moist, indeed!), and we all know that the Borough continued to let the grassy areas be used as a parking lot even after many areas started showing signs of distress. We (meaning us taxpaying residents of Mt. Gretna) also pay for parking attendants all summer long. Is that to park us and our guests? Not hardly.

The fixing of these distressed areas is going to cost US thousands, but how is it exactly that we residents benefit from that glorified parking lot? It is painfully obvious that our current Council president, and his son, benefit greatly from the maintainence of that parking lot, while the rest of us residents really are burdened by the excessive traffic and the maintainence costs. A more fair distribution of that burden would be to charge for parking, wouldn't it? Something like this would allow the Borough to generate revenue (to repay the EIT overpayment and to pay for maintainence expenses), and to place the burden where it lies. This method also still supports the attendance, by residents, of the summer Chautauqua programs.

Fourth, impose and collect a sales tax on the business activity occuring in our homeowners' association...

Fifth, partner with various entities and purchase a mobile speed radar/ticketing van that can be loaned out to other small municipalities...There is ample grant money available for this purchase, and there are numerous success stories in towns just like ours. This would also increase pedestrian safety for those 165 THOUSAND visitors to our 204-home village each year. [Don't you find patronizing and self-serving our Council president's argument that traffic and traffic speed are NOT an important enough issues for him to respond to our concerns about such, yet are important enough for him to constantly place warning cones on a state road in front of his Chautauqua business?]

I am not going to list as "alternatives" the usual suspects, but I will mention them:

1) Borough determined and imposed increase in one or more of our taxes-- either the property tax or the earned income tax;

2) Borough and Chautauqua determined and imposed increase in any combination of our taxes, fees, and special assessment;

3) Borough created debt obligation;

4) Borough created "agreement" with the Leb. EIT entity to repay. (This is a vague route, given that it would really be the municipality assuming a debt obligation, and, therefore really is just Number 3 in disguise.)

Now, for those of you who find this post to rile your feathers, I would like to remind you that none of my alternatives suggested making the treasurer and Council president explain how this EIT snafu happened on their watch and to possibly draw from their bond(s) to repay some of this overpayment. Given that no one right now knows the exact extent of the mismanagment of the EIT funds, and that not all of the mismanaged funds have been found, the path to resolution of the issue for us Mt. Gretnan's could be a lot more perilous and contentious.

I will update this post later today with the relevant clips from the Borough meeting.

Winterites starting '09 season

Mark your calandars for the first Tuesdays of every month, 1 pm, Fire Hall. This Oct 6th it will be lunch by B.B. Ten bucks-for the season, I think. Announcements are posted on the kiosk, too.

Recordings of Council Meetings available to public

This week is full of community meetings, beginning with tonight's Borough Council meeting. See the schedule... I will be posting the recording of the meeting as soon as I have time, so stay tuned.

Also, I added more pix of the microburst damage. They really show the size of the trees that were blown down and snapped. Just scroll back to August 9th's post. Seems like the clean up is progressing, although the damage is still very evident, especially in the Campmeeting and the Heights.

Closing Camp Question

I have always been curious about what summer residents do with all those plants when they close up their cottages for the winter. Do the plants get thrown in the trash, taken back home, passed on to friends...

Court rules in favor of N. Cornwall residents concerned about erosion of town character and elected officials conflict of interest

This weekend’s LDNs front-paged a story about a recent court decision involving North Cornwall that I think adds insight to the “elected-official apathy” that we see in our own community. Apparently, North Cornwall officials changed their zoning regs and deviated from their comprehensive plan in a way so as to allow for the development of a WalMart Supercenter. In doing so, it seems that North Cornwall elected officials ignored the local property owners’ concerns regarding how these ordinance changes and how proposed land development projects may erode the character of their community—and their property values. Local residents and property owners took their leaders to task, asking for everything from ordinance amendments and compliance with the town’s “comprehensive plan”[aka, the character of their community] to, eventually, court intervention.

Although the lower court interpreted its own authority to allow elected officials to ignore requests for ordinance changes, a reviewing court recently disagreed. The latter Commonwealth Court decision states that citizens have a right to appeal to elected officials to change ordinances. This decision gives strength to the idea that property owners have a right to define and protect the "character" of their community. Thus, I find this an especially interesting ruling given that it hits so close to home in so many ways.

To add even more insight to our own potential political situation, there is a “backstory” to this North Cornwall issue that the court also considered and issued a ruling on. North Cornwall's supervisor ran—and was elected, based on his anti-commercial development position. However, that supervisor was also hired by the commercial development project, and therefore, personally benefited from promoting commercial development activities in his town.

Further, his work for the developer conflicted with the town’s character, with the town’s comprehensive plan, and with his position as an elected official. It must have been a no-brainer for the court to rule that a conflict of interest exists and that this elected official must not participate in ANY decision-making matters related to this development project. This particular court decision further reinforces the FACT that, in our country anyway, an elected official's sole purpose and authority is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their constituents. This means that they do not have the authority to put themselves, their livelihood, or their personal interests ahead of the health, safety, and welfare of their constituents--that is the sacrifice you make when you volunteer to take on the burden of a public office.

Doesn’t this reasoning also apply to our own situation here, at least in terms of the conflicts inherent in conducting business activities and personal gain in the same place that you, as an elected official, participate in decision-making activities directly and indirectly affecting your business?

Tree Tender classes for Mt. Gretnans!

Look, arborists make the bulk of their living cutting your trees down. So why not learn for yourself more about what is a healthy tree and how to help it achieve vitality. We particpated in this program in Philly, and it is a wonderful, low-key way to get out, get some fresh air and mingle with friends and neighbors. I promise, after this class, you will never look at our trees the same way again. And, with a Tree Tender group in our area, we can get grants from the Horticultural Society for maintenance equipment, like pruners, loppers, shovels, rakes, and even electric leaf blowers--everything but the tree.

The following is an excerpt from Julianne's email advertisement for this class:

"Tree Tenders is a training program that empowers concerned residents to make dramatic strides towards caring for their local tree canopy. It is a part of the "growing" TreeVitalize initiative, an effort led byPennsylvania's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) to increase the many benefits that trees offer us. This course was developed for citizens and experts alike. Since 1993, over 3000 community volunteers from 200 Pennsylvania neighborhoods have become trained Tree Tenders--you can too!

Join us for eight hours of hands-on training that covers treebiology, identification, planting, proper care, and working with your community. Lebanon County's Tree Tender training is Saturday, September 26, 2009; 8 am-4 pm at the Lebanon County Agricultural Center, 2120 Cornwall Rd, Lebanon, PA 17042."

See http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/calendar/view_event.asp?CalendarID=9486 for this announcement.

Registration is required so contact: Julianne SchiefferPhone: 610-489-4315; jxs51@psu.edu

The Aztecs, Tomatillos, and Toby

For the last two growing seasons, we have participated in a local food share. And, while there is comfort thinking that our food is at least a little more healthy for us than if we purchased it from a chain supermarket, there have been some challenges. The first of which is what to do with new produce. Although we may have eaten them in someone elses dish prepared for us, we have never ourselves cooked things like tomatillos, fennel, and jerusalem artichokes before. But, today is a good day to be home and figuring things like this out, since we have a 17yr. old pooch that is in his last moments with us. A soft glow and cooking smells from the kitchen comfort all beings, so I guess that I am trying to let him know that he can let go on his own. Its always so difficult knowing when is the right time.

So what am I doing with those fruity, husky little tomatillos? Well, I first had to do some research on them. I discovered that they were domesticated hundreds--strike that, thousands of years ago by the Aztecs. The Aztecs word for the tomatillo was "miltomatl" and for the tomato was "xitomatl"--with "tomatl" meaning "round and plump. Invading Europeans preferred the tomato over the tomatillo, and created ongoing confusion by referring to both by using only the word "tomatl" to refer to both the tomato and the tomatillo. However, most historical references to the "tomatl" are believed to be referring to the tomatillo, and not the tomato.

I also learned that little husk tomato fruit serves well in salsas, stews, etc., having a more tangy flavor than its sister fruit, the tomato. So, I am going to stew them in some of the sweet and savory juice from my stuffed stuffed spag. squash that I cooked last night --brown sugar, butter, and a splash of worcester sauce. I have some corn meal to make some fresh tortillas with and we will see what else the frig offers up--I have faint memories of getting lima beans and corn with a food share delivery recently.

As I ponder the origins of the tomatillo and the ongoing confusion surrounding its recorded history, I am particularly appreciative of my relationship with my pets and how they don't seem to have the capacity to confuse relationships like we do. Unlike human behavior, which can be self-centered, misguided, or difficult to interpret, there is never any confusion as to an animal's feelings or intentions. They are pretty transparent, and never have any bad intentions. Oh, the results of an animal's actions may seem "bad" to us, but the intentions are never based on malice. Their actions are only direct responses to their environments. These days, that predictability and absence of malice makes for a good friend.

New Hope cops able to enforce laws against offending motorcyclists-go figure!

I recently came across this story in the Inky about how New Hope officials cite some motorcycle operators for violating noise laws AND for violating vehicle equipment laws.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20090821_Some_in_New_Hope_look_to_throttle_bikers__noise.html?posted=n#comments

As I have been saying to our officials for some time now, there are any number of laws that many motorcyclists here are violating and can be charged for--if those officials would only enforce the laws. There are air pollution laws, noise laws, vehicle equipment laws, traffic laws (like speeding), etc.

The problem in Mt. Gretna is that the law enforcement entity that is responsible for enforcing these laws has declined to perform this function and our elected officials decline to motivate them to enforce the laws. Oh, they state that they do issue such tickets, but as I said in a previous post, I can find no evidence that any such tickets have ever been issued. So, even if they have issued a ticket in the years of their contract with Mt. Gretna, it is on such a rare occassion as to have no effect for us in producing law enforcement.

Bill Care, the Borough manager, recently told a resident that he would have Cornwall PD here patrolling the roads for the upcoming motorcycle breakfast. But what does his promise really mean? Does it mean that they are just going to put that speed monitor trailer at one end of the road (as this technique is the one suggested was acceptable "enforcement" by Cornwall's Chief Harris)? Or does this mean that Cornwall PD has figured out how to acquire and use a sound meter (which, I found out, cost less than $200 dollars to purchase and is extremely simple to operate while applying the state's noise laws to motorcycles )? Or are they just going to give tickets for speeding? Or is this their excuse for parking a patrol car or an off-duty police officer in front of my home for an hour or two without ever actually enforcing any traffic laws against anyone--to menace me rather than actually enforce the laws?

So, let's see what happens on that Sunday--will Bill Care's words turn out to be another dupe on the citizens of Mt. Gretna--citizens who are seriously concerned about the noise and traffic issues in our community? Or will there be some real traffic enforcement?

I encourage as many of you as possible to let Care and the council members know that you will appreciate their enforcement efforts that day and will be watching with supportive eyes, as that applauding group in New Hope did. The Borough phone number is 717-964-3270. And, you can reach them by email-the best way to send a municipality a communication! You can email Bill at bcare@comcast.net. If you want to write them a quick note, the address is 101 Chautauqua Drive - Mount Gretna, PA 17064 .

Municipal leaders, why aren't you working on our concerns rather than working with bully Middletown cops to try to scare us silent?

Well, I can't really tell you all the details, but I want to say enough to let you know that even if our leaders resort to conspiring with off-duty Middletown cops--with a reputation for being a bully, to harass and threaten vocal Mt. Gretna residents on their own property, this blogger has no intention of stopping her research and publication of my findings. Indeed, I continue to encourage my neighbors to consider the facts that I uncover and what those facts mean to us.

So, I want to update you on the EIT issue. Although I have gotten no response from the Gretna Borough on their current discussions about how to finance any return of an overpayment of EIT, I have been told by several neighbors that two ideas are in the works. First, one idea is to birth a "special assessment" and attach it to our taxes. Second, the Chautauqua Board is considering organizing an ad hoc financial committee to address this EIT issue.

The first issue, the special assessment, presents many of the same issues we have been discussing on this blogsite. First, how does that assessment get determined and enacted? Second, how do we prevent our expense budget from "blossoming" in response to the anticipation of increased revenues due to this assessment? Third, how do we ensure that the assessment absolutely dies when the "debt" is repaid? Fourth, why is it again that we haven't drawn from our receiver's/treasurer's/accountant's bond and that we are justifying collecting repayment from persons having nothing to do with alleged criminal activity associated with this under/over-payment problem?

The second issue is even more problematic, as the EIT issue is a Borough issue and NOT a Chautauqua issue. Or at least they would like to have us think that the two bodies are separate entities (which is probably why, in his financial ethics disclosure recently filed, Chuck Allwein fails to disclose his indirect real estate interest in property belonging to the municipality for which he is running for re-election this November)...but that is another post. So, why is the Chautauqua considering forming this committee--is the Chautauqua assuming responsibility for the EIT issue? or is the Chautauqua just trying to prepare for decreased revenues from the Borough? What's going on here?

I think the real frustration surfacing in all of this is that neither of these entities is acting with much transparency. Oh, sure, they say that you can go to the meetings, or that all the relevant documents are available for you to get copies of at the Borough office. But just try to go to a meeting or try to ask for a chance to see a set of documents. It's hit or miss whether you will be allowed to stay for all the meeting or whether you will be told that the document is not at the Borough office. And, how many of us have gone to a meeting and made a request only to never have it responded to...

I know that a neighbor has requested agenda time so that she be heard on some EIT related questions mentioned above. So this is a good time to attend the meeting and to demand transparency and accountability, at least from the Borough Council and in relation to this EIT issue. Our next Borough Council meeting is Monday, Sept. 14th, 7p.m. and I encourage everyone to attend.

Also, write to the Chautauqua Board and request that the meeting minutes be posted online. This was brought up at the last meeting, so now is the time to be heard on it. The address is:

The Pennsylvania Chautauqua, PO Box 637, Mt. Gretna, PA 17064
Attn: Peggy O'Neil, Pres.
I recommend sending it certified, as then you will have a receipt showing that you did actually mail them something.

Additionally, if anyone else has spoken out about something here and felt that they were then targeted or retaliated against, please let me know. viragogretna@gmail.com It will remain a confidential communication. And, just in case they manage to harass me right into jail on these trumped up charges, are there any volunteers to keep the blog going in my absence?

Let all your neighbors know about this blog, please!

I am having a wonderful time going door to door to meet you all, but the summer is over and many of you will be going back home. And, because I am having many long and honest conversations with you, I have not been able to meet everyone. So please pass on the url for this blog.

http://mountgretna@blogspot.com

Does hypocrisy of the Chautauqua Board damage the unique character of our woodland retreat?

Our Chautauqua picnic is coming right up, and, because I hope to be able to attend this year, I look forward to seeing my neighbors gathered together.
So, even though my poll has not ended yet, I want to take this opportunity to present some "food for thought"--think of this post as my "uncovered dish" for the picnic.

In thinking about the many conversations I have had with neighbors, visitors, and Chautauqua Board/Mt. Gretna Borough elected representatives (I will collectively refer to them as "local reps"), I have discovered that, while we all seem to agree that Mt. Gretna/the Chautauqua has a unique character that is very important to us, we wildly differ on how that unique character is surviving and on how to maintain and protect it.

The Chautauqua Resident's Handbook succinctly describes our neighborhood as a "wooded retreat", and I think that is a apt description that each of us residents and shareholders can agree upon. However, it has become overwhelming clear to me that the ordinances, laws, borough codes and general ongoings of those we elected to govern us may be only selectively enforced, and that this selective enforcement may be largely designed to benefit those same "local reps", or even motorcycle-loving cops. It does not seem that our local reps, collectively, act with the intention of enforcing codes, ordinances, etc, with the intention to protect the health, safety, and welfare of us lowly residents, and certainly not to protect our peaceful use and enjoyment of our little slice of this woodland RETREAT. They have demonstrated the ability, however, to enforce them when it comes to benefitting themselves or one of their own family members, and for cops with motorcycle fetishes. Let me explain the facts upon which I have reached this conclusion.

A little clarifying background is needed before I continue. The Chautauqua is basically a homeowners' association that was incorporated over a hundred years ago. Our Borough-Chautauqua solicitor, Kilgore, essentially alleges that the incorporation documents include a paragraph--a covenant, designed to protect the "retreat" character of the Chautauqua, and that we shareholders are all bound by that covenant via a paragraph in our deeds that refer to and incorporate that covenant.

Further, the Chautauqua Resident's Handbook states that it has assigned the Borough the responsibility of enforcing ordinances and traffic laws. However, it also states that the Borough, as with the Mt. Gretna Water Authority, are "CHAUTAUQUA-based entities" for which it is the shareholders' collectively responsibility to support (via payment of shareholder fees, etc). It also highlights several ordinances, which include a noise ordinance and an "abandoned vehicle" on Chautauqua property ordinance.

Now, here are the reasons for my conclusion that our local reps, as a collective body, are failing to act in our community's best interests and to protect the unique character that we expected when we purchased property and commited to Mt. Gretna and the Chautauqua. We expected these existing entities to enforce codes, ordinances, and laws. We expected them to help maintain our property values and to create a quality of life associated with a "woodland retreat", of which there are only two in the entire country.

Residents and property owners have been complaining about the safety and quality of life issues for many years now--even years before I arrived here! I have discoverd documents that show that residents have been presenting these concerns to our local reps (and, yes, those reps have not changed much since then) for many years. I have been to three annual meetings and heard several other people make similar complaints. I have been to Borough meetings myself where the complaints have been made. My better-half has been to Board meetings where she made the complaint, and I myself have written to both the Board, to the Borough, and to the police, expressing deep concern over the potential tragedy presented by the lack of addressing our traffice and noise concerns, and especially by the lack of enforcement of speeding laws here. I also wrote and asked for an explanation of when the existing noise ordinance would be enforced.

1. I can not find any evidence suggesting that any of these complaints generated a substantive responsive from either entity. Thus, to my knowledge, neither the Chautauqua nor the Borough have ever responded to any "citizen" complaint, including my written ones, about these safety, quality of life, and peaceful use and enjoyment of our property issues. Instead, I do know that we are told to present the issue at a meeting (a meeting that we are shunned at and dismissed if we do go). We are told to write a letter (a letter that never gets responded to even when sent via certified mail and asking for a written response). The Chautauqua says it the Borough's responsibility, and the Borough says its not anything that they will take responsibility for...In fact, the Borough Council president himself responded by accusing us of "coming to the harm".

And just like that, our unique character, our woodland retreat, vanishes into the reality that we really just bought into a common suburb, with unfettered unmufflered combustible engine activity (whether from motorcycles, chainsaws, pressure washers, or leafblowers), neighboring industrial activity, gunshots at any hour of the day (whether from gunpowder, air, or springloaded guns), and neighbors we sue for stuff that we don't sue anyone else for. You can have that suburb, have it right here if you like-but I was duped into thinking that this was a "woodland RETREAT", and I am near the point where I begin asking for my money back if some enforcement actions don't start happening for me too.

Ironically, when a local rep made a complaint about noise this spring, the response was truly surprising and out of character. That resident got police response, as well as Borough and police-issued public statements that the police will enforce the codes and ordinances of our community. It was even discussed in the Borough's presentation at the Chautauqua annual meeting. After hearing that the police said that they will enforce ordinances, I sent a letter asking about enforcment of the codes and traffic laws and was told, in short, that it wouldn't happen.

Further, when the noise issue was brought up at a monthly shareholder meeting, it was revealed that the use of a non-mufflered combustible-engine leafblower was preferred by certain Board members, thus explaining to me why other citizens complaints will never generate a substantive collective response from our local reps. These engines, by the way, operate at decibel levels that cause permanent hearing loss for the operator and for anyone within a short distance from the engine, as well as pollute the air with fine particulates and toxins that don't settle out for days. At a minimum, an electric leaf-blower could be considered by the Board member, but why set the precedent of moving your personal priorities and preferences to a position below that of the citizens you represent?

Also, when a motorcycle-loving off-duty Middletown cop sees what he thinks is a dangerous condition on a Mt. Gretna roadway, he makes one call and gets the response of two police districts. In the meantime, he threatens to arrest two Mt. Gretna residents/property owners for a light lawn sprinkler that has been knocked over.

Quite the aggresive response, wouldn't you say? I dare say us lowly citizens would appreciate half that response to our "dangerous conditions" complaints! But, no. Again, we have to endure the obvious arrangment of importance, of status in this community and be forced to recognise that a motorcycle fanatic who is NOT a tax-paying, fees-paying resident of the community will be given a legitimacy that us citizens will not be given-even if that motorcycle fanatic is breaking our air pollution laws, our traffic laws, our vehicle safety equipment laws, and/or our community ordinances and are themselves creating dangerous situations.

2. Knowing that it has failed to respond to numerous and ongoing complaints that directly reflect the preservation of our community's unique character, the Chautauqua nevertheless is suing a Mt. Gretna resident essentially for his actions that allegedly do not conform with the character of the Chautauqua as a woodland retreat.

Funny how this litigation was not mentioned at the annual sharehholders' meeting even though it had to have been on the table at that time, given that it was filed close to the date of the meeting.

I think that the allegations made in this filing present a classic example of hypocrisy in government, and, more importantly for us as a community, may backfire in a huge way.

First, the action alleges conduct that neither the Chautauqua nor the Board has been willing to address (except for this one individual) in any community way--i.e. uniform, fair, or equitable that I can determine. In fact, both the Borough Council president and the Board president have told citizens presenting noise complaints that they can't regulate what persons do on their "private property." This position is egregiously erroneous for reasons I will cover in another post. But, for now, let's just ask ourselves how the Chautauqua can simultaneously maintain these two opposing postions and attempt to regulate this one guy for what he is doing on his "private" property while foregoing to regulate others' conduct.

A sample allegation in the complaint is the charge regarding the installation of signs marketing the resident's business, which apparently is a violation of the covenant that I mentioned earlier. However, this resident doesn't have any signs any different than any other "for rent" or "for sale" sign posted throughout our community, and the signs on his vehicles are smaller and less offensive than signs on other residents' vehicles.

Second, the action alleges that the resident is operating his business from a Chautauqua home, and that the covenant prohibits such a thing. Now, the covenant quoted does specifically prohibit lodging type businesses, inter alia, so this brings me to the question of how the rental and for sale signs are allowed. Is there a modification or exception to the covenant?

Further, this resident actually does NOT do his work in his home, but elsewhere, and brings his instrumentalities of work home with him--as MANY of us year-round residents do. What's even worse is the fact that many year round residents have a home-office--some of these offices belong to local reps themselves or even to their spouse. In fact, I know of other residents who use Chautauqua's common parking areas to park their work vehicles, sometimes for weeks at a time, and nothing is ever said to them. And why should it--if those common parking areas aren't for us to use, then they are only there to benefit the businesses within the Mt. Gretna yet being funded and maintained by us residents...

But here is why this action may backfire on them and cause us some real damage as property owners who rank the unique character of Mt. Gretna as "very important." Because all of this is common-knowledge and easily provable as a defense, this resident now has a great opportunity to get a legal judgment finding that the covenant has not been enforced and this non-enforcement has created a community with a character like that of any other suburb--that there is nothing unique about it anymore. And, that legal precedent will be very difficult to challenge, overturn, or erode, even if it is only a partial finding for this resident's defense.

How and why was this route chosen, and how and why was this one person targeted for enforcement of covenants, codes, etc when it seems as if no one else has been made to comply? Is this hypocrisy and pettiness the best use of our community resources? Given the Chautauqua's and the Borough's chronic reluctance to respond to our complaints and to conduct the enforcement of codes and laws that we are asking them to, I find this particular action of theirs to further erode the community character of the Chautauqua/Mt. Gretna.