Da dee da deee da--here we go again

"stinkin' more than anybody has a right to"

Well, I just can't believe the fodder local political reps provide for the intelligent and inquisitive. Again, Kilgore--OUR solicitor, failed to present any evidence-or logic, justifying Mt. Gretna's participation in this extortion scheme the EIT Bureau and city solicitors are calling the "over/under-payment issue"--strike that, "problem", as Kilgore clarified last night. I now suspect that there is much more "foul play" and intentional covering-up going on. And, here's why.

Again, last night Kilgore tried to shoot the messenger, rather than heed the message. While being asked more questions about the EIT--specifically, what evidence that he has that shows that there is a foundation for any sort of "settlement" agreement on this over/under allegation, he again tried to suggest, in a public forum, that I didn't know the proper facts about the EIT. Don't forget that at the Oct. meeting, he also suggested that I needed to learn about the laws authorizing the EIT by telling me to "go read the EIT laws." As he, and his best buds should certainly know by now--I do my homework. So, with great pleasure, I reminded him that I had just finished my fourth reading of them in the hour before the meeting. And, with great pleasure, I will provide here the documentary evidence that he was, once again, wrong about what's been going on with the EIT here.

But, him being wrong, even multiple times, is not really a problem. Its his willingness to be wrong in public and the triggers that bring out this behavior in him that we should all be worrying about: when challenged substantively on the legal foundation for the allegations, the law, and the "process", he tries to destroy the inquirer's credibility and will even get the law and the facts wrong to do so. In witnessing this pattern of his--his willingness to publicly show his lack of knowledge about the issue and his lack of interest in getting the facts correct, I am beginning to suspect that he is motivated to take these risks because he knows something else is at stake--something other than a settlement. In other words, he is falling on his sword. So, I think that the question that we all should have now is " who is he falling on his sword for?" More about that by the time we get to the bottom of this post.

And, because my time is as valuable as his, and because I am providing the Boro with much needed information that Kilgore is failing to provide, I will send the boro the bill.

First, as to the EIT law, it is called the Local Tax Enabling Act. CapTax provides an easily accessible version of it on their website, but I have linked to it in the Community Info list at the bottom of this blog. Kilgore told me to read it when I asked him what evidence there was indicating that the historic distribution of the EIT in Leb. Co. was incorrect--or, "arbitrary", as the Bureau and the solicitors put it. His response was, to paraphrase, ""Fixed percentages" is just not how it was done. You get 50% of what you paid in. You would know that if you read the EIT laws." Well, Mr. Smarty-Pants. I knew you would say that. So, that's why I re-read them before asking you the question in a public forum--because there is no mandate for receiving 50% of what you paid in. NONE. But, I thought I would check with you. Thanks for that confirmation.

And, that tidbit is what JQ PUblic needs to know about the solicitors' and the Bureau's assertions: there is NO mandate in the laws to distribute EIT revenue the way Kilgore asserts. Further, there is no prohibition, in those laws, against distributing the revenue according to a percentage-allocation pattern fixed within the system--which is the distribution pattern the Bureau admits existed. So, just because we didn't get back 50% of what we paid in, doesn't mean that we didn't get what we were supposed to get. And, they can't prove we didn't get what we were supposed to get.

Second, all the real evidence presented here supports the idea that its the EIT Bureau's fault if anything went missing or misdirected. The EIT laws that Kilgore is refering to also require an annual EIT audit, and require each political subdivision to annually reconcile the EIT numbers and make the necessary adjustments. Here's the text of those laws:

Section 11
…the governing body of each political subdivision which levies and collects or provides for the levying of a tax upon earned income, shall provide for not less than one examination each year of the books, accounts and records of the income tax collector..

and

13.III.B.V.h
…The political subdivisions shall not be required to request the officer to distribute the funds collected but shall at least annually reconcile their receipts with the records of the officer and return to or credit the officer with any overpayment….

Ok, so, now we at the logical point where we need to know if Kilgore or the Bureau has any evidence that Mt. Gretna did NOT do the annual reconciliation and make the necessary credits or returns. Why is it important to know this? Its important because if all evidence shows that an annual reconciliation was done, then the most we could ever "owe" is the current year's possible overpayment.

So, last night I told Kilgore that I found evidence that Mt. Gretna had indeed did some type of reconciliation one year (1969)and requested--and received, a corrective payment. I then asked him if he knew of any OTHER evidence that suggests that the legally mandated annual reconciliations were not done. Again, he told me that the system was run in such a disorganized fashion, that laws like that don't mean anything--essentially, that I shouldn't and can't rely on the LAW to figure out what, if anything, we owe. But, then he just had to end his response by saying "That [corrective payment] could not have happened. Mt. Gretna wasn't even in the EIT until the 70's."

Well, folks, also in the links list below, you will find Cornwall-Lebanon School District meeting minutes from November 3, 1969, where the school board discusses Mt.Gretna's EIT-correction request and decides to issue them a check. Further, the C-L School District EIT was adopted in 1967, and Mt. Gretna was one of the first, if not the first, municipality to return their "acceptance" to participate in the intended EIT system. I also posted a link to those meeting minutes below. Now who, again, doesn't know what they are talking about---and getting paid for their ignorance....But, I suspect that there is a reason why he is not motivated to know his "legal" stuff about this issue.

So, in short, my research, which has been confirmed by EIT Bureau statements and by solicitor statements, suggests very clearly that:
1. there is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of arbitrary distribution.
2. There is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of mis-distribution.
3. There IS evidence of missing money--a lot of it, that can't be attributed to Foltz's activities. And,
4. our solicitors are acting more like the Bureau's front man than our legal representatives.

The story line here could go something like this: "

EIT Bureau and Solicitors, not wanting to shine spotlight on clients and long-time friends involved with the collection of EIT in Lebanon County, intentionally pursued--via threats of "crushing" financial and legal entanglements, settlement of allegations for which they knew there was grossly insufficient evidence to pursue properly."

I mean, really, we need to start asking loudly, "Could it be that both of these parties have a good suspicion where to look for the missing money, or that the "missing" part happened at levels lower than Foltz--like at the municipal EIT collector level?" That would explain a lot about their curious behavior and their lack of inquisitiveness, now wouldn't it?