The Gate Counter Challenge

Well, it was great to meet my team at breakfast this morning. They have a wonderful sense of humor about this but appear very professional. They all look just like an attendees and one middle aged woman even brought her kids and her sister. They all fit right in with their tan shorts or blue jeans, summer shirts, canvas bags and sunglasses.

I especially encourage you to say "hello" to them and to try to throw them off their game. I put a bonus on the table for the ones stay the steady course and don't reveal their hands.

So if any of you can get any one of them to admit who they are, just respond here with a description of the person, along with a description of what they are wearing, and, if you are right, I will give YOU a "bonus" too.

But, for now, I am off to get more pumpkin and squash for tomorrow's breakfast--squash pancakes were a big hit!

Mark My Words: Obama's Mosque Statements

Ok, let's analyze the basics of this Obama Mosque comment:

1. Obama is a government representative. In fact, he is the "top" government executive in this country.

2. Obama's statement was simply to describe what powers or rights the government did NOT have. His words were not suggesting that there was any real right of the government to interfere with a religious institution's plan to build a facility.

3. As far as we the public know, this government executive was never formally asked to interfere with or to use government authority to influence a religious institution's plan to build a religious facility.

So why even make the statement? Why use government authority to say that you won't use government authority? On its face, it appears as an incredibly hollow and stupid thing to do, especially if you are the top executive government officer. He is saying "Look, I am interfering to say that I won't interfere." That act, in and of itself, disproves the statement. Doesn't anyone else see the irony here?

Let's not forget the possibility that the act itself is the message that he wants to give--suggesting in a passive-aggressive way that he indeed will use government authority to intervene if he feels it necessary. That explanation does not describe an incredibly stupid act. That would be a just stupid act. Why? Well, because its a manipulative and deceptive way for a public official to try to get want he wants.

And, even though the public may not be able to put words to that, they will certainly feel it and react accordingly. So, in either case, this is the kind of act that ends up producing an insidious erosion of relationships and authority for a politician. And, this will be interesting to watch over the next two years.

Mark My Words: Bell's Rizzo a Follower, Not a Leader

You know Bell, California's corrupt city manager couldn't have come up with his scheme all on his own. He surely must have gotten some tips on how to bilk the taxpayers out of 1.5 million a year from someone else.

This is one of those things where the backstory will be just as interesting and compelling as the front page articles. Why? Because my experience suggests that there is currently much co-opting of the democratic and representational principals of our government system, and that Bell's leaders are not the outlier, but the norm.

Gate Counters Ready to Go!

Aaaahhh, its amazing what things are available today for hire. Seems that you are only limited by your own mind. I found a temp agency out of Philly that is sending me a team of temps to discreetly count attendees at the upcoming Art Show! Admittedly, it isn't going to be cheap. But I am sure that it will be worth it.

India way ahead of US on plastic bag issue

But India has to be. Seems plastic's insidious nature has not been so "hidden" to those in India.
Seems like India already realizes what we ignore still. Read this recent report:

"India Moves Away from Plastic Bags - 2: Rajasthan

Source: www.businessgreen.com

INDIA, July 28, 2010: India’s largest state has become the latest to announce a complete state-wide ban on the use of plastic bags this week. From the beginning of August the manufacture, storage, import, sale and transport of plastic carry-bags will be illegal in Rajasthan. No shopkeeper, retailer, trader, hawker or vendor will be allowed to supply goods to consumers in bags.

In Mumbai in 2005 India experienced massive monsoon flooding partially as a result of drains blocked by plastic bags, resulting in over 1000 deaths. Similar flooding happened in 1988 and 1998 in Bangladesh, which led to the banning of plastic bags in 2002.

Cows - sacred in India - frequently asphyxiate after trying to eat the bags."


Last year, in response to my recognition of the host of enduring problems caused by our conflagrate plastic use, I decided to consider the plastic content of every purchase that I make from now on. Try this. Start by remembering that, if you are around my parents age, plastics was a new material had a limited presence in our daily tools. Today, however, just try to buy something without plastic in it or around it. Makes you ask yourself what would chain discount stores be stocking were it not for plastic. Just try buying something in Walmart without plastic in the transaction.

Gay this, Gay that

I ask you, what is "gay marriage?"
This is a funny phrase that has been thrust about for the last decade or so. Funny because I have never heard anyone, not even the most vile and bigoted groups, call my federal tax payments "gay taxes." Or my eating out at local restaurants "gay dining." Or when I have my monthly you-know-what, I have never heard it called the "gay menstruation." Or how about when I got a graduate degree along with about 200 other people: is my degree supposed to be referred to as a "gay degree" or my education process as "gay learning?"
And how far back does that grammatical rule apply? Was my 9 month ride in my mothers womb a "gay gestation?" Or my birth a "gay delivery?" I suspect that my mother would have something to say about this, but it would probably be along the lines of "Shit my father says".
I mean, really, how stupid do journalists and reporters think we are? Do they think really think that we don't hear how they play to the bigots when they call "marriage" "gay marriage?" Enough is enough. Its simply "marriage" people, and the issue is that, for whatever reason, many of you want permission to think differently about a certain assumed class of people. Maybe you feel threatened by the success of the gay couple's relationship who live down the road from you, or by the financial success of your gay cousin, or by your own recurring cameos is what you think are "gay" dreams. Or maybe you just don't want someone who has no relation to you make decisions that you don't agree with. Whatever the reason, someone else getting married is, obviously, someone else's decision. Its not yours. You don't want me to fall under a "lesser" category when it comes to paying my taxes, or to send my mother to a different delivery ward when giving birth, do you? So, why do you insist on this "gay marriage" phrase? Its because the issue is really your own bigotry. Its not about the issue of marriage at all.

"Christianity-man's most destructive invention"

That's a bumper sticker I once saw. I am reminded of it now that Anne Rice has recently made public her disatisfaction with Christianity, but not with Christ. She deserves kudos for engaging the public in a conversation which is an unspoken "no-no". You know, that which "polite society" doesn't talk about, like political corruption, racial discrimination by blacks, and social bigotry. So Ms. Rice's public denouncement of this usurped moral construct is a brave opening for a much needed public discussion of the ways in which Christianity is used to hurt. See her dialogue at

www.facebook.com/annericefanpage

History provides for us a rich and deep source of guidance on how to tend to your relationship with your creator--the formal organization known as the church is not a Necessary component for those who acknowledge an internal moral compass. This history includes Christianity in that even texts like the gnostic gospels show that Christ taught individuals how to recognize their inherent relationship with a higher power--and to recognize it without the church's intervention. So Kudo's to Rice for personalizing her relationship with her creator and rejecting the tainted "misguidance" of interveners known today as Christians. Seems as if Lebanon County can use a few more Anne Rice-type followers of Christ and a few less "Christians".

Of Interest

In case the video above doesn't automatically appear here, go to this link

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/bell-calif-revolts-against-its-city-council/6uuuqg6

to see this msn news video. Pay particular attention to what Ms. Garcia says just after 6minutes into the video.

Obviously, appointed and elected officials working in "cahoots" and in a predatory manner is not limited to Pennsylvania, or even to Lebanon County politics. Admittedly, these intentional patterns of defrauding the taxpayer in order to maximize the officials' personal gains may not express themselves so egregiuosly here as they have in Bell, it still highlights that every taxpayer must be aware of the FACT that this IS going on, and that if you choose to ignore it, you are making that decision for your neighbors as well--you are choosing to let these politicians take your neighbor's money too. How is that democratic, ethical, or fair? How is it ethical that Bill Care collects a PUBLIC salary of around $110,000 a year when a truly significant portion of that work is really done for private entities, and that when he retires--ALL of that salary--even the work NOT done for public entities, is on the State Municipal Retirement burden and will be used to calculate his retirement benefits?

Here is a different video on the story from the LA Times.

*Salary calculations based on reports from Borough, Authority, Chautauqua Secretary Linda Bell: approx $30 hourly rate, averaging 590 hours of overtime a year, biweekly payroll invoicing, and budget documents. Assumptions were time and a half for some overtime, and double time for the rest. Also, although it doesn't appear that his income derived from "consulting" as a "water works" "expert" to local entities is included in this public payroll, it still must be factored in given that he routinely and regularly uses public resources--staff, equipment, infrastructure, etc., to "deliver" his private consultant services.

More Obfuscation with Our Money

I recently finished that book on "revaluing" markets/economies. The author presented discussion of the historical "bureaurocratic" response to social movements that challenged the political status quo, a status quo that is always characterized by the concentration of power and resources into the hands of a very small number of the overall group. He also discussed how those power groups have responded to requests and movements for a more transparent and truly democratic community with hostility and manipulation. As examples, he pointed to the "recharacterization" and even criminalization of vocal women as "witches" in New England around the 1700's, of indigineous peoples as "savages" during periods of colonization, and of indigineous Africans as "possessed by spirits", as we see proselytizing Christians doing even today.

In short, no political cabal grows, changes, or goes down without engaging in acts of scapegoating, witchhunting, and demonizing those they perceive as the social group's weak link and most able "to-be-silenced".

Granted it is possible to think that the author's comments have no relevance to Mt. Gretna Borough or to the PA Chautauqua. Certainly, those with the concentration of power here have gone to great measure to make it seem as if all is well here, and that all their conduct is above any sort of reproach.

However, do not forget that we are indeed a democracy, and that any one of us has the right to know our public officials' actions and to criticize it. Indeed, in order for the democracy to work, we must ask, research, and know what our public officials are doing. Most importantly, for a democracy to work, each member of the group must participate--at a minimum, each member must express a responsibility to protect the right of the individual to participate in their government unit. For those in this community that have sat idly by on the sidelines while our own community's cabal have denigrated, defamed, and worked with County officials to attack and harass those who are asking for transparency and accountability from our public officials, know that the day will come for your voice to be heard too. Just pray that you do not speak too late to have anyone standing beside you.

Now, on to the next installment in the series, "All the Ways They Screw with Our Money." (And, for any Fat Mac's that may be following this blog, let this entry be an example to you of how real lawyering is done. You know, where you take a set of facts, research them, and then research the law to make an argument--based on a real concept of probable cause, that a law has been violated, rather than to manipulate the resources associated with your position in order to promote and protect you and your friends' political and personal ambitions, however corrupt those ambitions may be. )

If one were to research the Pennsylvania Chautauqua's financial documents, especially their tax and budget documents, you may find some very disconcerning issues. Today, in this post, we will only discuss one of those issues, and, unfortunately for those laymen in the audience, it will take on the tone of a legal document (without all the citations, of course).

Today's issue analysizes the legality, in terms of compliance with IRS Code, of PA Chautuaqua Treasurer, Michael Bell's representations on the Chaut.'s IRS Form 990's. In those filings, he consistently and repeatedly fails to report that the Chaut. transfers compensation to one of its own officers. Under IRS Code, apparently any amount of compensation to an officer must be reported--there is no triggering threshold of, say, $100,000.

Also, because this transaction also seems to fail several of the IRS tests regarding the determination of whether her compensation is reasonable, it is very likely that he must be reporting it on the Form 990 as an excess benefit transaction. Under these circumstances, both he and his wife must pay a 25% tax on the excess benefit, and, if they do not correct the "excess", the tax rate bumps to 200%. That presents a pretty significant motivation to intentionally misreport transactions. And, a pretty significant motivation to try to "disparage" the messenger--if successful, then no one will really look into the message.

Linda and Michael Bell apparently are Disqualified Persons Under the Code
On the Chaut’s Form 990’s filed annually, Mr. Bell repeatedly and consistently reports his wife as a Director-member of the governing board. As a Director, she is a voting member of the Chaut’s governing body. Michael Bell also consistently and repeatedly reports himself as the Chaut's Treasurer and as Linda Bell’s husband. Therefore, both Michael Bell and Linda Bell are likely considered “Disqualified Persons” according to the IRS in determination of excess benefit transactions.

All evidence discovered thus far strongly suggests that the economic benefit that Ms. Bell received for services rendered to the Chaut. greatly exceeds the value of the services actually rendered.
The Chaut. compensates Ms. Bell for “services rendered” throughout the year. Board meeting minutes show that it agrees to let Ms. Bell (along with her husband, Michael Bell, and a person unrelated to the Chaut., William Care) determine the amount that is transferred to her each year. In 2008, for example, that amount was 31% of her Borough salary, or approximately $22,400, according to Borough Invoices. In addition, the Chaut. apparently agrees to pay that percentage of her Borough employee benefits, including health insurance, PA Municipal Retirement/Pension, etc. This adds to her monetary gain significantly.

However, there is no evidence that the compensation is comparable or was properly decided. For example, compensation paid by other nearby and similarly sized HOA’s for such services suggests that Ms. Bell is overcompensated by well over $25,000 a year.

No evidence is apparently provided to demonstrate or confirm her actual work performed during any pay-period in which she bills the Chaut. for services rendered.
In fact, the “Labor Services Rates” chart that she provides to the public clearly demonstrates that the Chaut. is automatically billed set percentages of Borough’s full-time staff member’s salaries, regardless of whether the Chaut. needed services rendered for that pay period, and regardless of what services were actually rendered during that pay period. [And, she even "charges" the Chaut. during the weeks of set-up and break-down for the annual art show. This will be particularly relevant to those out there that know that the Borough is supposed to be providing these services for "free", according to the arrangement that was agreed upon a couple decades ago when the Borough approached the Chautauqua claiming that its budget shortfall could be rectified that year if it were allowed to share in the art show profits.Well, today, "free" is no longer the fact. Care and Bell charge the Chaut. for straight time during this period (which is another apparent farce perpetuated upon us, but we will save that for later, too), and the rest charge straight time and ample overtime to the Chaut during these periods. So, now, on top of this compensation for labor that was supposed to be free, the Borough takes its set portion of the gate receipts.]

Ms. Bell’s compensation likely does not meet the IRS’s test for determination of “reasonable compensation.”
First, as evidenced by Ms. Bell’s repeated responses to information requests that NO documentation describing the arrangement exists, the Chaut. has NOT clearly indicated, in writing, its intent to treat the benefit(s) as compensation. This expression of intent is required under IRS Code.

It is not enough to say that the Chaut's intent is clearly indicated by Ms. Bell’s possible inclusion of the compensation in her 1040. The basis of that reporting would solely and entirely originate from her Form W-2’s from the Borough, thus providing no indication as to the Chaut's compensation paid to her, much less as to its intent. This is especially unclear where there is no written documentation of the agreement.

Second, they have presented no evidence showing that the compensation enjoys a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness, as may be provided under IRS Code. There is apparently no evidence tending to show that persons without conflicts voted to approve the compensation; nor evidence tending to show that an “approving” body obtained and relied upon appropriate data as to comparability of the compensation; or evidence tending to show that an approving body adequately documented the basis for its determination concurrently with making the determination. Each of these is required under the Code for the Chaut to enjoy a rebuttable presumption of reasonable compensation. Therefore, the Chaut. has not, and likely cannot, show that Ms. Bell’s compensation is reasonable and not excessive.

In conclusion, given that no actual services need to be delivered for the Chaut. to be invoiced, and that no documentation of actual services is ever offered, and that Ms. Bell appears to be unreasonably and over-compensated--even if she is performing the services alleged, the arrangement appears to be an excess benefit transaction. If so, as per the Code, her husband, also an officer of the Chaut., would be deemed to have indirectly benefited from her receipt of the excess benefit.

If an excess benefit transaction would be determined to exist by the IRS, this also means that Ms. Bell, and her husband would be jointly and severally liable for the tax on these excess benefit transactions, and the tax rates are:
25% on the excess benefit,
200% on the excess benefit if it is not corrected with in the specified time frame.

An alleged non-profit's tax-exempt status is a very serious issue, and my experience has shown that the IRS simply does not allow this "loosy-goosy" sort of reporting, where they ask you four or five times to report an officer's compensation and you just "work around" the fact that an officer of the exempt organization is indeed receiving compensation--ergo, benefiting, from the organization, an organization that is alleging that its primary purpose is to provide a social benefit to the community at large.

For a taste of the Code on this issue, See “Tax on Disqualified Persons” in Section 4958 of the IRS Code.

Let me close out this post by reminding readers that these questions are being asked and these issues are being analyzed not because I have any sort of agenda. They are being presented here because our community leaders are putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. These community leaders demand our acquiesence and approval of their behavior before we even know the true details about their conduct.

For example, in discussing the Chaut's tax exempt status, or in discussing the Borough's work for private corporations, the issue is not whether I think the actions or status should or shouldn't be terminated. Its about us taxpayers and shareholders being able to make decisions and to participate in our community based on transparent, truthful, and accurate information.

Why is this truthfulness and accuracy important? Its important because many of these activities present legality issues, as well as ethics issues, that, quite frankly, someone-someone who doesn't deserve it, always gets the short end of the stick on.

Here's another way to explain why demanding truthfulness and accuracy from community leaders is so important: Its one thing when your pastor asks you for money to support the summer boys camp, buts its another when you learn that the its likely that the pastor is doing something unethical or illegal either with that money or with those boys...And, if presented with inquiries, would you expect an errant pastor to simply roll over and say, "Oh, well, you caught me. Let's just skip straight to the punishment." Or, would you expect him to say something like, "We have a great congregation here; you have all enjoyed the benefits of my diligent and worthy spiritual guidance and will continue to do so, regardless of what that troubled boy says about me or my actions. That boy has been troubled since he came here. Let's pray for him and call it a day. In fact, let's have a party to celebrate my service to this community. We'll just pay for it out of the "Parent Fund.""

On the other hand, if he truly had his community as his first priority, he would say, "Look, the success of this program and its participants is the priority here--not whether or not the books or the "organizers" activities should be kept secret. Pick a representative or two, let's meet, review all relevant documents, answer all your questions, work together to make a plan to move forward with, and then move forward. Let's learn and grow from this."

Unbelievable!!

Well, well, well, if the days don't surprise you! I still do not believe my ears.
Around 3 today I went over to get my mail, and there is ole' Chucknuts outside the Jiggershop putt-puttin'. I still have to pinch myself, because its what I am about to write next is the stuff that lawyers, prosecuters, and investigators dream of--its when a "perp" splays himself for you. And this is how a Chucknut splaying evolves:

He is alone in his putt-puttin' and spies an opportunity to speak with the person that he perceives as his fiercest enemy. He calls me over and then acknowledges everything that I have been revealing about his conduct.

He admits that, for decades now, he has been fervently pushing a modernly refined method of political corruption: he calls it "expense-generation".

In short, he relies on his two best buds, the solicitor and public works director, to come up with any-which-way they can to create, for the public, an impression that this teeny-tiny municipality needs the staff, labor costs, fleet of earth moving equipment and vehicles, etc. of a municipality 8 times our actual size.

In addition, they used the unique situation here, where the homeowners association perfectly overlaps the municipality, to mix and muddle the money trail so badly that no layman is ever able to detect that there is so much redundancy and double-dipping that it would make your head spin.

He then admits that this "governing" strategy has allowed is other friends to collect State Pension Funds when they really weren't eligible, to collect over $20,000 a year in overtime--again, when there really was no overtime necessary to provide the municipality with services, and to bloat their timesheets to the point where we taxpayers pay almost $200,000 a year more than we needed to to get good public services.

He then apologized for denigrating me and my family and trying to harass us out of town.

He further promised that from now on, he would be on his best behavior--not his best christian behavior, but his best neighborly behavior, that he would cull the Borough down to two full time staff--which is a 30% more staff that other municipalities our size average, and would get rid of his "expense-generator" conduct.

He then admitted that this winter has been hard on him and that he would like to let some one else be the politicial spotlight. He feels that he has done all he can to get his "stuck in this fuckin' town" son on his feet and ready for taking care of himself, and that that is the only reason why he let all his other friends walk all over us Borough taxpayers--to set up an "estate" for his only offspring to inherit. (And then, in a rather humble way, he confided in me that he was never so proud of his boy as when he finally cut off the rat-tail that he sported for so many years.)

We then agreed that abandoning his "expense-generating" ways would effectively cut our budget by at least half without ever impacting delivery of services to the public, and that there are several people here that have the integrity and capacity to step up to the plate and work to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of mount gretna borough proper.

Wow!

Cheatemore and Chucknut's modus operandi stolen by the State!

I have been reading news stories about PA's botched Tax Amnesty Program and have come across some similarities with Kilgore and Chucky's modus operandi. Apparently, these tax amnesty letters are just simply stating that "you owe a debt to us" and don't include any information whatsoever about this alleged debt--not even an amount or a time frame. And, just like Cheatemore and Chucknut's strategy, rather than using proof, they use threats of penalties, etc, to extort more money from the little taxpayer. Certain Mt. Gretnan's may feel wealthy enough to play their game with them, but its really unethical, corrupt, and belligerent behavior--not to mention very unpatriotic, and not all Mt. Gretnan's actually are wealthy enough to participate in a corrupt political community.

Here, with this Amnesty stuff, some people have developed some interesting ways to deal with these mysterious notices. Below is a copy of one response that I thought many of you would find interesting:


April 27, 2010

PA Dept Of Revenue
Office of Tax Amnesty
POBox 281101
Harrisburg, PA 1712801101

Dear Sir or Madam:
I recently received your letter of “Notice of PA Tax Amnesty Program” and have made several attempts to contact you via the information suggested in that letter. Through no fault of my own, I was not able to reach your office using either of these two methods. Thus this letter serves as the only accessible route to making contact and obtaining information necessary to resolve the issue created in your letter.

In order to determine the fairness and accuracy of the debt alleged in your letter, please timely send me information establishing the basis of the original "debt" amount; relevant dates; copies of all correspondence sent to me regarding this alleged debt. This letter serves as timely notice to you that I am indeed availing myself of this opportunity to participate, and that, however, the details of my participation will necessarily depend on the amount that you prove that I owe. Please also note that your office’s failure to timely provide access to my information should in no way prevent me from participating in the program, should your response fairly and accurately prove that I do indeed owe a tax debt to PA.

A copy of your letter to me is enclosed, as it provides all the necessary personal information with which to identify this issue.

I think that I would also send it return receipt requested--and add a little blurb about how incompetent and cheating PA public officials have grown that they can just "say" that you owe a debt and never prove that it really exists.

Other people have printed out all their "error notices" when trying to register, and have sent copies to their representatives. I guess this is to remind them that their incompetence is showing, again.

Still, I revel in the fact that I am not a lone voice crying out against all this insanity. I am sure that there are others asking why Kilgore never showed us the results of his little investigation of our tax returns? Uhmmm, I wonder, what did he do with all that access to our personal and financial information. Obviously, he didn't find anything to use to help us out of this whole EIT scam that he organized upon us. It is quite possible then that he really only used the EIT issue as a pretext to gain access to our tax filings so that he could have even more leverage to use against us to keep us in step and line with Cheatemore and Chucknut's organizational objectives to rip us off to the fullest extent possible.

A former EIT employee once told me that they found out that a very high-earning Mt. Gretnan had no EIT tax files on record, suggesting that Kilgore's investigation is going to be very tricky for him because he is not going to want to reveal that that particular Mt. Gretnan may not have paid their EIT. What's up with that, Keithy? Who are you protecting? Have you counseled the Borough to file a claim for that person's EIT owed us? Why not?

If getting a screwin' is good public sevice

Then Cheatin' Chucky, Stealmore Kilgore, and Know-more Care are experts and delivery of public service.

I know some long-time residents think that we pay three times as much for our public services than we should because that's what it takes to deliver them well. But, you are being duped. There is no other characterization for what these three have developed over the last four decades. And, well frankly, its time that especially our oler residents stepped out of denial about this. Why? Well, because its going to hurt you the most. It HAS already hurt you the most.

For those of you who are retired, you are on a fixed income that they have managed to figure out how to squeeze out of you a thousand ways to Sunday. I mean, come on, we absolutely do not need five full-time staff, much less six.

What we need is our neighbors to step up to the plate. We need John Feather to stop smiling that baby face and pretend that he is innocent in all this. For example, last year when the Chautauqua renegotiated a biased and exceptionally unfavorable--unfavorable to us Chautauqua shareholders-- Jiggershop lease with Chuck Allwein, borough council president and Jiggershop owner, Baby-face Johnny told us it was ok for the chautauqua lawyer (who is also the Borough lawyer) to forget about his duty of loyalty to US and to personally represent Cheatin' Chucky in those negotiations. WTF people--that is NOT good public service--its an ethical violation and a conflict of interest. And, Baby-face Johnny knows that.

And

What is the Chaut. Board thinking!?

Borough financial records indicate that the Chautauqua is routinely used for paying the following Borough bills. Don't forget that Chautauqua records suggest to US, the lowly shareholders, that it has its own separate bills for many of these "line items.":
1. AT&T
2. Code Enforcement
3. Comcast
4. State Pensions
5. Workman’s Compensation
6. Met Ed
7. Heating Oil
8. Life Insurance
9. Verizon
10. Verizon Wireless
11. Blue Cross
12. Executive Answering Service
13. Lebanon Mobile Phone
14. Propane
15. Public Risk Management Insurance
16. Business Insurance
17. Disability Insurance
18. Radio Maintenance
19. Electric Maintenance
20. Stauffers (of Kissel Hill)
21. Staples
22. Traffic Control (aka-- the maniacal chain-smoking parking lot attendants)
23. Sysco
24. JH Brubaker
25. Zeager Brothers
26. Bashore’s Restaurant Equipment
27. Sporting Valley Turf Farm
28. United Rentals
29. Stephenson Equipment

In addition to these charges, the Borough also sends Chautauqua shareholders twice-monthly bills for Labor Services, for Art Show labor, and the Chautauqua also outright “contributes” a substantial amount every year (usually around $18,000, which is more than the Chautuaqua tells the IRS that it spends on summer programs). Historically, the yearly total sucked from shareholders is over $200,000.

All this, in addition to taking our property taxes, earned income taxes, water and sewer fees, and pass-through funds like state and county taxes or fees (like the liquid fuels surcharges on the gas we buy and state income tax).

Oh don't get me wrong--the Council isn't to get all the blame in this. Its time to ask the Chautauqua Board what in the hell they were thinking--this is clearly not about efficient delivery of services to us. Its about squeezing us for all we are worth.

Its about figuring out all the redundant ways in which they can extract money from us to pay for the same set of services provided to the same set of people BY the same set of people.

Why don't all these numbers show up in the Borough's proposed budget that they let us see every year? and why won't the Chautauqua tell the IRS where all this money is really going? Heck, why don't they tell us where it is really going?

Why Entrenched Leaders Keep Saying the Word "Good" to Constituents

Currently, I am dancing between two books:
Raj Patel’s The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society, and Shelby Steele’s White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era.

I didn’t plan to read them at the same time. It just happened. Ironically, though, they are very similar. Both topics discuss generalized social behavior—one, capitalism/consumerism, and the other, civil rights and the responses to that movement. Where they overlap is that, in the lead up to each of their discussion points, they necessarily describe the power dynamics displayed socially. Both rely on the idea that, in social groups historically, the group in power imposes negative conditions on the less powerful group. Now, these conditions are usually couched in terms that really do NOT reflect the truth about that particular society or situation. But the less powerful group will see the trade off in accepting this “lie” from the power group, and will concede or comply with the falsities, largely because the lie fits in with the context that the power group has created and perpetuates. In the societal situations in both books, the power group’s falsities always rely on enough of a historically and morally truism to provide the less powerful group with enough of a basis to convince themselves that its ok to adopt the power group’s false construct.

Also, interestingly enough, Steele included a comment about when he first realized, on a drive through California, that there was this moral deficiency in the current social construct dealing with America’s history of racism. He was worried that his drive would end too soon. To quote: “It had been a luxury just to drive along in Chautauqua-like contemplation of a paradox.” That statement took me back to a statement published by a Chautauqua resident not so long ago. It seems that a couple of their programs triggered some “religious” blowback, and that Chautauquan took the time to remind his compatriots that that’s what Chautauqua’s did—their programming and speakers were intended to bring seemingly oppositional or incongruent positions or knowledges together, whether in one presentation or in a series of such, and to reveal any overlap, common ground, or compromise.

Although I had been seeing the applications of both men’s writings to the social construct that is Mt. Gretna, Steele’s reference made it imperative that the connection be made. So, here goes.

In discussing the good intentions of the architects behind the Great Society, Steele mentions how politicians and social leaders are a “touchy lot.” Both authors spend ample text showing us how these power figures, being human after all, express an innate drive to be seen, and for their policies and actions to be seen, as “good.” This drive extends throughout their lives, long after the end of the usefulness of their innovations, long after community needs are no longer fulfilled by their innovations, and, most relevant to us, long after their innovations have turned into something that is now harmful to the group.

Both authors also discuss how the power group, in its effort to keep control of its “good” image or moral character, will become blind to their own motivations, to their own humanity. They assume a pattern of making decisions and setting agendas that put their innovations in the best light possible. More importantly here, they also establish a pattern of ignoring any issue or fact that would only serve to challenge or threaten their reputation for “effectiveness” or of “good intentions.”

So, I now learn more abut why Chuck, Peggy, Bill, Linda, etc can’t, or won’t, acknowledge the truth or realities of the needs here or of the finances here—because it would necessarily lead to the possibility that something that they decided or did was not “correct” for this community and that, in turn would erode their sense of accomplishment and contribution to this community. Forget about the fact that the community now has a leadership structure that is not responding to the actual needs of the community, their blind reliance on the concept that something that they once did forty years ago makes even their current behavior “good” and, more importantly, not open to debate. Otherwise, to apply reality as a test of their current effectiveness would be to also erode the perception of their authority, legitimacy, and power in this community today.

Ergo, here in MG, where forty years ago we saw leaders pursuing innovations that truly spoke to the needs of the community, today this same community sees those same leaders continuing to try to rest on those historic laurels. Only, the innovations of yesterday are not enough for the community of today. It simply is not enough to say that Chuck or Bill or Linda provided a great service to the community in the 1980’s and to assume that that applies today. The community has changed in dramatic ways and their “innovations” of the past have taken on such a life of their own as to have become a beast to us.

I present to you today’s situation, and ask you to apply that “Chautauquan” approach to exploring our community situation today. Specifically, to explore how ethical and efficient is it to allow entrenched leadership to continue to avoid the proper scrutiny—Chautauquan scrutiny, if I may. For, if one really cares about this community, they will forego the perpetual mulligan that has been issued to protect anachronistic leadership policies and decisions. Coming soon, you will have the opportunity to ask our leadership:

1. Why this community has a million dollars flowing through it annually yet only reports to us taxpayers a combined expense budget of around $740,000?
2. Why Borough can report to us an annual total budget of around $150,000, yet report to the state an annual budget of $589,000?
3. Why we pay more for Authority services than other participants, who only pay their water/sewer fee and never have to pay for shared labor costs between their Authority and with their Borough or with their homeowners association?
4. Why we have the physically smallest sized municipality in the state and a water/sewer use pattern that never—ever, reaches its capacity, yet we have a staff of 5 full time employees, especially when other municipalities our size have only one full time staff. Do you all really believe that you are getting THAT much “good” service today, or is it that you ONCE got that level of service?
5. Why, with a staff that has four extra full-time staff, our public works director still can’t get the job done without billing us taxpayers for an average of 520 hours of overtime a year? Could it be that its not “Extra” service that he’s delivering, but extra pension and income that he is taking?
6. Why, when the original arrangement is that the Borough is supposed to provide set up and breakdown for the Art Show for free, employees bill overtime for those periods and that overtime is marked as “Chautauqua” or even as “Art Show”?
7. Why a public office and materials paid for by the taxpayer can be diverted for use by a public officer in his private business operations?
8. Why a public government can routinely and regularly bill a private corporation—the Chautauqua, for labor, yet the corporation can deny that it has any labor costs on its IRS tax filings and yet both entities can deny that any contract or documentation of terms exists? And, when that Chautauqua money is used to pay for labor services of someone who is also a Chautauqua officer, the Chautauqua also denies to the IRS that it transferred any payment to any of its officers? More importantly, why is every member of the Board approving the submission of IRS forms in which they know improper answers were given?
9. Why, or how, the Chautauqua Board, can justify, year after year, spending more money (around $150,000 a year) on a non-competitive labor “arrangement” for maintenance of such few grounds and buildings than on its summer programs (around $9000)—which is a required activity under its incorporation document? And why won’t either party provide us with a written explanation of the terms of this arrangement, like how overtime is determined, approved, allocated and paid for?
10. Given the current “arrangements”, how can the Chautauqua Board even justify its continued existence? Either through open or completely obscured and hidden transactions, the corporation as pawned off or ignored almost all of its real responsibilities, and, today, only tangentially serves as the programming coordinator it was intended to be. This Chautauqua’s mission fulfillment pales in comparison to other Chautauquas’, and there is no excuse for it.
11. Why, when LebCo’s transportation profile shows a truck traffic increase on 117 of 50% in the last eight years and a 67% increase to year 2030, and when at least 6 different people from 6 different households in the last 5 years have raised concerns about safety or asked for increased enforcement of traffic laws like speed laws, this leadership sees fit to ignore the reality around us or to denigrate or besmirch either the issue or the constituent. I will never forget Chuck’s curt re-characterization of Mt. Gretna when he told me years ago that newcomers would just have to get used to speeding because, well, choosing Mt. Gretna really was an act of “coming to the harm.” That’s exactly what he said. How is that good service, guys, when your leader pretty much sets up your community to guarantee a tragic traffic death in the near future?

So, yeah, the toilets may flush and the drinking water is drinkable. But that in no way means you are getting “good” service overall or that our leadership really cares about us. Just look at their willingness, Council and Board alike, to figure out even another way to reach into our pockets and take our money to pay for an issue that has never been proven to have any merit—the EIT overpayment allegation. Yeah, they care about us—but it seems only in terms of our wallet and whether we keep it open to their whims and to stuffing their pensions and whether we keep calling them “good public servants.”

As I learned from the above referenced books, just because the power group in this community feeds to us a little of the good thing that they are supposed to be delivering to us, it doesn’t mean that asking for an acknowledgement of our true, present-day reality, you know, for example, asking for an accounting of their present day financial on-goings, or asking for substantive traffic law enforcement when hundreds are violating such laws every day in our community, is “stirring up trouble.” Rather it’s a sign of responsible citizenry, of persons who care about someone other than themselves—their neighbors.

Been busy and here's the pix to show it

We recently had the pleasure of flying around the area with a friend or two. Our pilot is a very accomplished fixed and rotary wing pilot who has been flying since 13years old. It is always a great joy to get all of our schedules--and the weather, to overlap to provide us with an opportunity to spend some time flying around, which I love to do in a helicopter since flying exercises nap of the earth and doors wide open with my sister air ambulance unit years ago.

Governer Dick and tower:


Cornwall. The school is center, new municipal buildings lower right corner, and Lebanon off in the upper, left of center horizon. Download and zoom in to really notice the landmarks.


That rooftop down there to the upper right of center is our humble abode, and below us is the drained pond:


MG pond, and that end of Mt. Gretna that our leaders admit to forgetting belongs in the neighborhood.


State Game Land behind MG, with Pinch Road cutting left to right at center of photo:


Lady of Liberty on the SusQ



Banking a right turn. See Harrisburg just past the lower left side of the "dashboard"...

Leak in our water system, Part II

Remember not too long ago I wrote about our water guy's statement that there was a leak in our water supply system.

Well, do you guys also remember this same public official saying, at a Borough council meeting late last fall, that we had a section of road that was "giving way"? He provided ample detail as to what he felt needed to be done to "shore up" and repair the road. However, never in his detailed explanation did he make it known that a water main ran through that section of failing infrastructure.

This is quite an omission, given that the water system is all mapped out and it is also his responsibility to know where these pipes are, and, especially, because he was trying to impress upon this Public the idea that there was a leak somewhere.

Well, when you have a section of roadway where a water main is located in egregious and obvious failure and you do not respond until the pipe actually fails, as it did a couple of weeks ago, I have to ask the obvious question:

How is that delivery of a "responsive" or quality public service?

It's quite irrational to say that because this public official responded within hours or minutes to the failed and ruptured water main, he is providing "responsive" service when he absolutely should have addressed the leak when it became obvious to him back this fall--and BEFORE it failed completely and contaminated and disrupted our water service for an entire week. After all, that is what we pay him for. What, did he think it was a sinkhole on the side of a mountain?

Hershey, chocolate and un-incorporated municipalities

Or, more succintly: Pennsylvania Municipality, 101

This missive will demonstrate the basis of power for a Borough and its responsibilities, which are two concepts that seem to have been usurped and exploited by the public officials which have had control of our public offices for the last thirty years and longer. Why do I suggest that? Well, because I am noticing that more recent residents of Mt. Gretna Borough and the longer-time residents seem to express differing knowledge and opinions regarding exactly what a public official's duties and powers are.

For example, the longer that you have lived here, the more likely you are to not realize--or, at least, not admit, that public officials have a responsibility to deliver certain public services, and, well, that you can "fire" them if they do not meet your expectations for that service. More importantly, you are likely to skip over the fact that this municipality is one of the absolute smallest, wealthiest, and least "needy" municipalities in the entire Commonwealth, making it extremely efficient and easy to deliver exceptionally fine services.

So, where the average municipality of our size is delivering services to its residents for about $150,000 a year, and providing those services over hundreds more acres than we have, dozens more miles of paved roads, and with a less wealthy tax base, there really is NO EXCUSE FOR EXTRACTING AN EXTRA $450,000 OUT OF US A YEAR to deliver the same fine services to the public. Unless, of course, you don't mind making sure your friends have a nice retirement package and you see that as a "public service" that the rest of your neighbors should help pay for.... That would also explain your reluctance to pass the "con"--the controls, and your caustic resistance to any one even inquiring into this scenario.

So, the next few posts will explain how a Borough gets created--and how an Authority gets created, and, more importantly, will describe the basis of their powers and their responsibilities to the public. Eventually, we will get to the discussion about what can happen when a public official steps outside of their "boundaries"--like ethical inquiries, auditor general inquiries, impeachment for cause actions, surcharge litigation, and, yes, even criminal charges.

To pique your curiosity for the next post, I will end this one by pointing out that Hershey--a municipality that we all know and love, is in fact really not a municipality as we know municipalities to be. It is a "census-designated place"--it was never "incorporated" and, therefore, its leaders can't tax its residents, and the nearby Derry Township is the government entity that provides residents with services. So, of course Derry Township can claim this "un-incorporated municipality" in its bundle of responsibilities.

This situation is not unlike the situation where you have a development or homeowners association whose incorporation documents assign that private entity with the responsibility to provide services to its resident shareholders and that community does not lie within the responsibilities of an incorporated municipality. In other words, it is just like the 87 acre-, 200 or so residential buildings-, and a few common structures-private entity called the PA Chautauqua that originated within an already populated, but un-incorporated municipality known over the last hundred years or so as Mt. Gretna. So, as legal entities or concepts,

Hershey, PA is to Derry Township as
PA Chautauqua is to Mt. Gretna Borough

...a private entity with residents that need services
and a
public entity providing public services to residents living outside their incorporated municipal responsibilities.
But, in this analogy, right off the bat you can see a fatal anomaly. Mt. Gretna Borough is an incorporated municipality comprised of no neighborhoods with residents, no developments, no apt. buidlings, no business districts, no homeowners associations except for ONE: a homeowners association including only about 200 homes. Take away the Chautauqua, and what then is Mt. Gretna Borough and why would it exist? So, why does it even exist today? It obviously does not create an efficiency, but a redundancy. If any of you know of any other municipality that has only one real constituent, please, let me know.

However, if you stick with the program and keep following these posts, you will see that even those legal concepts of incorporated municipality and homeowners association-private corporation are challenged severely by the "arrangements"--especially the financial arrangements and the use of public resources arrangements, that have been allowed to develop between the private entity here called the Chautauqua and the public entity here called the Borough. The "challenges" arise from the chronic and "clandestine"--as in, NON-transparent, deviation from their public power and responsibilities that our public officials have pursued over the last few decades--a deviation that I have found that they hide by failing to quash the misconceptions that:

1. we will get poor public services if the "deviations" are questioned;
2. we will get poor public service if transparency is asked for;
3. we will get poor public service if we do not have two or more entities doing exactly the same jobs here; or
4. that they are the only ones capable of serving us to our satisfaction.

So, by referring to primary sources and government documents themselves, we are going to find out exactly what public bodies and officials can and can't do, what they should and shouldn't do, and what they must and must not do.

We are going to clear up, once and for all, this whole notion that we need to pay an EXTRA $450,000 a year to have our 3.2 miles of road plowed and maintained to our satisfaction, to have our water delivered to our 210 homes to our satisfaction, and to have our 210 homes' toilets carry sewage away to our satisfaction.1

Hershey, chocolate and unincorporated municipalities

Or, more succintly: Pennsylvania Municipality, 101

This missive will demonstrate the basis of power for a Borough and its responsibilities, which are two concepts that seem to have been usurped and exploited by the public officials which have had control of our public offices for the last thirty years and longer. Why do I suggest that? Well, because I am noticing that more recent residents of Mt. Gretna Borough and the longer-time residents seem to express differing knowledge and opinions regarding exactly what a public official's duties and powers are.

For example, the longer that you have lived here, the more likely you are to not realize--or, at least, not admit, that public officials have a responsibility to deliver certain public services, and, well, that you can "fire" them if they do not meet your expectations for that service. More importantly, you are likely to skip over the fact that this municipality is one of the absolute smallest, wealthiest, and least "needy" municipalities in the entire Commonwealth, making it extremely efficient and easy to deliver exceptionally fine services.

So, where the average municipality of our size is delivering services to its residents for about $150,000 a year, and providing those services over hundreds more acres than we have, dozens more miles of paved roads, and with a less wealthy tax base, there really is NO EXCUSE FOR EXTRACTING AN EXTRA $450,000 OUT OF US A YEAR to deliver the same fine services to the public. Unless, of course, you don't mind making sure your friends have a nice retirement package and you see that as a "public service" that the rest of your neighbors should help pay for.... That would also explain your reluctance to pass the "con"--the controls, and your caustic resistance to any one even inquiring into this scenario.

So, the next few posts will explain how a Borough gets created--and how an Authority gets created, and, more importantly, will describe the basis of their powers and their responsibilities to the public.

To pique your curiosity for the next post, I will end this one by pointing out that Hershey--a municipality that we all know and love, is in fact really not a municipality as we know municipalities to be. It is a "census-designated place"--it was never "incorporated" and, therefore, its leaders can't tax its residents, and the nearby Derry Township is the government entity that provides residents with services. So, of course Derry Township can claim this "un-incorporated municipality" in its bundle of responsibilities.

This situation is not unlike the situation where you have a development or homeowners association whose incorporation documents assign that private entity with the responsibility to provide services to its resident shareholders and that community does not lie within the responsibilities of an incorporated municipality. In other words, it is just like the 87 acre-, 200 or so residential buildings-, and a few common structures-private entity called the PA Chautauqua that originated within an already populated, but un-incorporated municipality known over the last hundred years or so as Mt. Gretna. So, as legal entities or concepts,

Hershey, PA is to Derry Township as
PA Chautauqua is to Mt. Gretna Borough

...a private entity with residents that need services
and a
public entity providing public services to residents living outside their incorporated municipal responsibilities.
But, in this analogy, right off the bat you can see a fatal anomaly. Mt. Gretna Borough is an incorporated municipality comprised of no neighborhoods with residents, no developments, no apt. buidlings, no business districts, no homeowners associations except for ONE: a homeowners association including only about 200 homes. Take away the Chautauqua, and what then is Mt. Gretna Borough and why would it exist? So, why does it even exist today? It obviously does not create an efficiency, but a redundancy. If any of you know of any other municipality that has only one real constituent, please, let me know.

However, if you stick with the program and keep following these posts, you will see that even those legal concepts of incorporated municipality and homeowners association-private corporation are challenged severely by the "arrangements"--especially the financial arrangements and the use of public resources arrangements, that have been allowed to develop between the private entity here called the Chautauqua and the public entity here called the Borough. The "challenges" arise from the chronic and "clandestine"--as in, NON-transparent, deviation from their public power and responsibilities that our public officials have pursued over the last few decades--a deviation that I have found that they hide by failing to quash the misconceptions that:

1. we will get poor public services if the "deviations" are questioned;
2. we will get poor public service if transparency is asked for;
3. we will get poor public service if we do not have two or more entities doing exactly the same jobs here; or
4. that they are the only ones capable of serving us to our satisfaction.

So, by referring to primary sources and government documents themselves, we are going to find out exactly what public bodies and officials can and can't do, what they should and shouldn't do, and what they must and must not do.

We are going to clear up, once and for all, this whole notion that we need to pay an EXTRA $450,000 a year to have our 3.2 miles of road plowed and maintained to our satisfaction, to have our water delivered to our 210 homes to our satisfaction, and to have our 210 homes' toilets carry sewage away to our satisfaction.1







1. As a footnote, I am not mentioning "policing done to our satisfaction," because after talking to over 70 of you personally and hearing well over half of you state that you have been commenting and complaining yourself to Borough officials about enforcing traffic laws like speeding and got no response--much less a satisfing response, many of you have revealed that this extra money is apparently NOT purchasing, for us anyway, completely satisfying, much less exceptional, service. In fact, just two weeks ago a long time resident and former council member again stated that speeding has been complained about for many, many years here, and that there indeed have been some tragic accidents. So, since this safety and quality of life issue appears to have remain unaddressed, police service should be considered in more detail in and of itself.

For those of you curious as to how police service "deliverables" are measured and who may want to do a little research before that analysis is done, let me refer you to the PA State Gov's manual on police services, which spends ample text explaining how to measure whether the police are really delivering to the community an effective and efficient service. Go to the www.newpa.gov site and look through their library of manuals to find it. My reference to that manual and its formula is not to say, however, that one needs a government derived formula to tell you what you already know to be a failure.

And, as a bit of humor on this topic, did you know that if you saw a cop driving dangerously through a pedestrian crosswalk and called him an asshole in hopes of getting his attention and getting him to slow down, he has no legal basis for arresting you. In other words, calling an errant cop exactly what he is acting as is First Amendment protected speech--not criminal misconduct. But that doesn't mean they won't abuse their power and try to arrest you anyway, which is a case a lady won right here in PA not too long ago when she caught a cop plowing through a grocery store pedestrian walkway and barely missing a mom with her young 'uns. He had no sirens, horns, flashers, and no "scene" to go to, so the witness informed the cop "its a crosswalk, asshole."

And, yes, Toto, there are errant and under-performing cops out there, just like there are corrupt public officials, and errant taxmen. There are even neighbors in tiny quaint villages--communities just like ours, that "swap spouses," organize "key clubs," or even commit "crimes of passion" like shooting their own beloved wife...If there was no deviant behavior out there--whether intentional or accidental, then why would we even need police in the first place? Assuming that they can't or don't make mistakes, whether accidental or intentional, is a completely inappropriate assumption to place on these public servants. It absolutely is appropriate for the public to question the delivery of police services to its community, and those who seek to take away or weaken the public's authority to demand efficient or even better police service are, well, just being wankers and maybe even bullies. So, we certainly will be analyzing the Cornwall PD numbers for the last few years and revealing their true effectiveness and service as compared to our repeatedly stated community needs and characteristics, and to their costs to us. Only, we will finish this venture first.

Testing your child actor trivia...

So I was in Philly earlier this week, wasting time until I could go visit a friend and her new baby. I plunked down at a cafe near old city and ordered us a whole bunch of food to go (nursing moms always accept gifts of food, I found). It was well before noon.

I was the only one there, so the bartender was flipping through my photos with me and we were chatting about artists we both liked, like Fionna Apple. Then these three guys walk in and the one all decked out in black and silver orders, in a very specific way:
"one shot of cuervo, then add one shot of baileys, and then one shot of kahlua, and, if there is any room left to add coffee, make sure its hot."

I will give 1 months free supply of grid lines to the first person that correctly identifies which bad boy, child actor ended up sitting beside me.

More details on the Borough's use of public resources

A reader posted a comment on a recent post here and asked several questions.
In providing the answers to the reader's questions, I thought that the information in the answers should be made available in a more general way. So, I am posting the answer as a new post, rather than as a comment embedded in an older post.

JB, I will try to answer each of your questions in the order that you asked them.

First, the "other places" are all private entities, and there are at least four (4) of them. Three of these private entities are located completely outside our Borough's municipal boundaries, and one private corporation is located within the Borough boundaries. Yes, Campmeeting is one of them. THe others are Conewago Hill, the Mount Gretna Heights (which is the Campmeeting "heights"--not the Chautauqua "heights"), the Pennsylvania Chautauqua.

Second, the "sharing" relationships may or may not be "under a contract." The Borough currently has four snow-plowing/removal contracts with outside entities--three are with private parties, one is with a public party. However, regardless of the existence of these contracts, state law (Borough Code, Section 1703) clearly prohibits the Borough taking or assuming "any interest" in a road that is an undedicated road--i.e. those private roads belonging to homeowners associations. So, even with the contract with the public entity--S. Londonderry, if the roads being plowed are not dedicated, this is still a problem for the MG Borough.

Cornwall Borough recently had to deal with this very same issue--a homeowners association or development asked them to plow the development's road(s), and their solicitor correctly advised them that the law prohibited the municipality from using public resources to do this work for this private entity. (See their Jan 2010 Meeting Minutes, available at their website)

Further, the salt and anti-skid materials used in these contracts are typically paid for with State funds (Liquid Fuels funds), so the Borough must use those materials on their own roads--the roads that triggered the State to share Liquid Fuels monies with the Borough. So, unless the Borough used its own, NON-Liquid Fuels funds to purchase the materials used for these contracts, here we would have another violation of state law.

Further, if you try to get details on that "sharing relationship" between the Chautauqua (a private corporation) and the Borough (a public entity), the Borough only provides a copy of 1988 Council meeting minutes where they voted to start billing the Pennsylvania Chautauqua "on a monthly basis for payroll." Note the word "payroll"--that is an important word, so I will comment more on that below. The PA Chautauqua, being on the other end of the "agreement", simply refuses to provide the information, wrongfully claiming that they are a private company and that, as such, the Open Records Act does not apply. I say "wrongfully" for two reasons: First, in their own tax filings to the IRS, they repeatedly report that such "working documents" are made available to the public upon request. And, second, the Open Records law clearly applies to private entities that are performing or delivering something to a public entity. At a minimum, when either entity is asked for details on that relationship, the Borough will be "deemed" to have access to the information even if it is being kept by the Chautauqua, and must "retrieve" and provide the information.

The other problem with the "sharing relationship" between the Chautauqua (a private corporation) and the MG Borough (a public entity)is that the transaction does not seem to be accurately--or maybe not honestly, reported. For example, The Borough reports that it "shares" Linda Bell with the Chautauqua, meaning that a large percentage of her work and pay is allocated to the Chautauqua. Linda Bell is also the Chautauqua's Financial Secretary. Further, in working their General Fund numbers--numbers not neccessarily reported to the IRS, the Chautauqua numbers detailing its "transfer" to the Borough are broken down into things like salaries, health insurance benefits, State Pension Fund monies, etc.

However, when reporting to the IRS, the Chautauqua indicates that:
1. It has no labor costs.
2. It does not pay any of its officers or it volunteers; and
3. Its transfer to the Borough (reported as intergovernmental transfer) is a fraction of the "labor-costs" that it actually pays to the Borough. For example, the Chautauqua's General Fund breakdown could indicate that it transfers 100k to the Borough in one year, but their IRS Tax Form 990 would report only a 30K transfer to the Borough.

Now, let me wrap this all up by reminding everyone that any type of sharing relationship is supposed to benefit the taxpayer in terms of provision of services that protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

And, just because the Chautauqua says that it serves as a "billings and collection conduit" to promote efficiencies and to reduce the cost to the taxpayer, that statement may not really be true. For example, in reality, we have a water/sewer authority that sends us water bills, and the same person that sends us those water bills is the same person that sends us our shareholder assessment bills (which contain our sewer bills). It is not reasonable to think that this parsing out of the sewer bill is an efficiency when there are only 200 or so bills to be sent and when it would take much less time and effort to simply include the sewer charges in with the water bill and send the payment back to the same Authority address in the same envelope.

So, is it really an "efficiency" then to involve a third party--a private entity, to collect sewer fees here, or is it just a way to avoid transparency and the sharing of information with the same public that you are collecting monies from?

Borough council not telling it like it is

Every November, Mt. Gretna Borough officials comply with state laws that require that independent public bodies publish the upcoming year's budget for the taxpaying public to review and comment on. Independent government bodies have to publish, each their own, a budget. Here, the Authority and the Borough are independent public bodies. Easy enough. They produce separate budgets for us to review in November.

Now, its fairly obvious that the intent behind that law is to provide the public with a mechanism to follow the fiscal operations of its public body.

So, when the Borough publishes a November budget for us that indicates a total budget of $150,000, you have to ask yourself who is trying to pull the wool over whose eyes when the Borough then reports a budget of around $589,000 to the state.

There is alot of fancy shifting and "relabeling" of monies here. And, don't be fooled. What was once promoted to the public thirty or twenty years ago as an "efficiency-based relationship" is certainly no longer an efficiency for us.

Times brought changes, yet the multiple ways in which this thirty year-old public administration has devised to reach into all our wallet's pockets have not matured and evolved with the times, nor with the community. Which is why this BOROUGH sees fit to reach freely into OUR water fees, sewer assessments, Chautauqua maintenance assessments, and Borough taxes to appropriate the hundreds of thousands of dollars each year that it takes to keep their long-time friends properly equipped and working fulltime--ALBEIT PROVIDING SERVICES TO PRIVATE ENTITIES OUTSIDE THE BOROUGH. And when it comes time for the borough staff to respond to one of our needs, we are also paying their overtime when they have spent the bulk of their time doing work that benefits someone else.

Now, if Care or Bell were worried about making a living while working part-time for a very small public entity, they absolutely could have taken a second job, or built their own business. Care could have gone and hung his own shingle testing water for other water supplies and plowing. But he would have to tell us that he is doing for others stuff similar to what he does for us, the public. AND, more importantly, he would have to buy, use, and maintain his own equipment. In no uncertain terms is he allowed to use borough, or authority, stuff (including people) to add to his income by doing some type of work for non-borough constituents. It doesn't matter if Kilgore, Chucky, Council or God expressed their approval of Care using public resources to bolster his income and state pension--it simply is not allowed under PA law. It also doesn't matter that its been allowed for decades--its simply not allowed under the law. So, TOTO, you can see why Chucky wants to shoot the messenger.

These "labor and cost sharing realtionships" that Chucky has lead us into are not what the state means when it encourages municipalities to create "efficiency-driven" relationships. Our borough, or Authority, for that matter, can only use its public staff and resources to provide services for us. And, when a neighboring municipality--not a private entity, a MUNICIPALITY, needs something that we can share with it, we can create these "cost-sharing" and "labor sharing" relationships, AS LONG AS WE DERIVE SOME BENEFIT FROM THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OTHER MUNICIPALITY. Simply put again, the borough can't enter into a relationship to provide services to a private entity. Period. And, the Borough can't enter into a relationship with a municipality if the taxpayers in the municipality that it serves receive no benefit from the relationship.

In other words, they can't pimp out our public staff and resources just to make sure that their friends have full-time work, plenty of overtime, and expensive equipment to use. But that's exactly what Chuck has created here.

Thirty years ago, you may have had to worry about the quality of work delivered by the public servants that provided your services. Today, however, you have to ask yourself how appropriate it is for our public leaders to suggest or threaten us with slow response times, with poorly plowed roads, or with icky-tasting drinking water if we don't pay their friends for 160, 200, or 240 hours of work per week for what really takes only one or two people to perform in a regular work week, or if we don't fork over the money for equipment and vehicles that a municipality with only 3.2 miles of paved roads has no business purchasing and maintaining.

We really have to ask ourselves if these actions are so appropriate, then why aren't they admitting the Borough's true expenses to us in November? and why aren't they calling out these "relationships" exactly for what they are when reporting to the IRS or to the State?

A taxpayer can profess his love for his friend, but it doesn't change his friend's errant or unethical behavior. Still, I thank Chucky for publically acknowledging that he is reading my posts and that they affect him so much. Maybe he will grow from the experience. maybe not. let's pray for growth.

Again, times have changed, my friend. The 70's are way long gone.

E-Town's Lynden Gallery

A year or so ago, I was waiting at the E-town Amtrak station for the train to Philly when I met Lisa Clemens, gallery director of Lynden Gallery. She had the dead-giving away trappings of a design professional about her, so when the train came and we got seated, I took a leap and asked her what kind of drawings she had in her pink carrying tube. My hunch was correct, as she told me she was a design student at Drexel and was on her way to a class.

As we talked, she told me about her involvement with Lancaster's Arts Hotel and with renovating a local fire hall right there on Mainn Street in E-Town. I had been to the Arts Hotel, so knew a little about what she was talking about. But, as for the old fire hall, that was a new story. Apparently, she and her side-kick renovated the hall into a residence (top floor) and gallery/frame shop on the first floor. Their website shows some pictures of the project: http://www.lyndengallery.com/history.htm

Well, even though I haven't managed to get some pictures there to be framed, I have dropped in on a couple gallery events, including last night's Jazz and Chocolate Opening Reception. And, even though my better half doesn't like chocolate, jazz, or going out in freezing temps, I convinced her to come. When I first met Lisa, I told her about our own renovation addictions, and she was very inviting about sharing her fire hall with my family architect, if the chance ever blossomed. So, I taunted Michelle with the "carrot" of a tour, and, when we arrived at the gallery last night, Lisa warmly obliged.

On renovation projects of historic buildings, its a blessing and a curse to have space. Space can greatly increase the cost of materials, then you have the whole issue of how to deal with old and inefficient systems, like heating and electrical. You want to bring the building into the present in a joyful way, but you can't do that by ripping out and "disrespecting" history. Lisa's place seems to have done a perfect job in achieving the balance between form and function. They have preserved the original architectural details and the building's original program with thoughtful and seamless details, like a rope pole to exit the Gallery's namesake's bedroom loft and a new loft area that wraps around the original sleeping quarters without cutting off the views or sunlight from the windows.

And, as for the Opening, the music was refreshing and, well, I think I detected some Wilbur Chocolates inthe selection. The artists' works were displayed with ample "cruising" space, with what I think the best piece of the opening tucked at the end of the gallery's hall-like space.

That piece was a sculpture by Holly Garcia, and it is titled "Iris Courtesan". Apparently, it was commissioned by an opera or dance company while the artist was in California. It is a perfect conceptual balance between elegance and strength, demonstrating the feeling of peace that comes about when that balance is achieved. Michelle and I both fell in love with it immediately, and will probably take one picture at a time there to be framed just to prolong our opportunity to see it again.

Another of Garcia's work is on the Lynden gallery website, at
http://www.lyndengallery.com/index.htm

Deciphering fake food from real food

Remember when food packagers realized that they could ride the "less calories" wave by simply putting the word "light" some where on their packaging...
Well, seems as if big chains have also realized how much that they may benefit from jumping on the "reduce your carbon footprint" campaign. They have started putting the word "local" in key spots in their imaging and slogans. Sometimes, like at Walmart, they just hang a banner with the word "LOCAL" above their produce, even though the strawberries may be from Mexico and the blueberries from Brazil.

So, if you really want to care about where your food came from, you really have to read the fine print.

The same is true for knowing what you are buying. If you want food--you know, that stuff that provides Nutrition for our bodies, you can't count on restaurants or grocery stores selling you food. You really have to read the fine print. For example, ever wonder why they can store cheese in unrefrigerated displays? That's because, if you look hard at the label, you'll find that the word "cheese" is really just a gratuitious descriptive for what they would like you to think the product is--some sort of dairy product. Well, it's really a "cheese product," and kinda like oil, you can leave it out on the shelf. Some of those items don't have anything close to what we know as dairy.

The same goes for carbonated beverages and ice cream. Soda can have absolutely no nutritional value---high fructose corn syrup is not something our body recognizes as nutrition. And, even the beloved ice cream can be so fake--and very "un-nutritional" that if you left a carton of it on your counter, it would barely change its structure. In other words, it doesn't melt.

Selling us "fake food" is why our body's set point may tell us to keep eating and why we are getting obese in outrageous numbers--fast junk food is certainly taking its toll on us. Yet, the purveyors of these fine goods want you to believe that their profits should be hand's off when it comes to making them take responsibility for passing this junk off as "food."

Some of these foods even have petroleum based components!

"Local", "Cheese", "Ice Cream", "Beverage"----seems like you can't take anybody at their word these days...

But, you have a better chance of getting some real nutrition when you go to the farm yourself. We have several opportunities to purchase nutritious and local food, and my own neighbors, John and Nancy, make it even easier for us to buy real food that is also local when they host the Saturday morning Mt. Gretna "Farmer's Market." Fresh and nutritious breads, grass-fed local proteins, and organically locally grown produce. I even found organic eggs on the way to E-Town.

If you want to make the trip yourself, two places to visit are Breakaway Farms (on the web at www.breakawayfarms.net) and Landisdale Farm, 838 Ono Road Jonestown (717-865-6220 and landisdalefarm@juno.com).

The frozen hatchling

The coin next to the hatchling is a penny.

The painted turtle of the upper midwest has an amazing technique designed to enable its hatchlings to survive the below freezing temperatures of their climate--they can completely stop their blood flow.

Now, this technique only works for the very young. Less than a year old, to be exact. Mom's bury their eggs deep into the soil, and when the baby hatches, it can start its journey away from the nest, or it can overwinter there and start it the next spring.

Many decide to wait it out, apparently, safe from predators--but not from freezing temperatures that invade the nest before spring arrives. When temps fall to 26 deg F., first an icy coat forms on their skin. This "freezing" then moves inwards, stopping their blood from circulating--eventually even stopping the blood flow between the heart and the brain.

Amazing, isn't it? That a biological organism can not only survive a complete lack of blood flow to the brain but emerges completely uninjured by this anoxic state. Is this adaptation a sign of sophistication or of simplicity? And, what does that say for humans, who can't survive a mere minutes without oxygen to the brain?

Is our vulnerablility to anoxia really a sign that our brain/circulatory system is more evolved than even that of painted turtles? Or is it nature's way of contributing to culling the population of the most destructive species from nature's repertoire?

And, does the hatchling's ability to revive itself and carry on with the day to day business of survival and reproduction, even after depriving its brain from circulating oxygen, point to the existence of imprinted instructions, permanently embedded in the genetic material of brain tissue itself, rather than in the dynamic biological and chemical processes occuring in the oxygenated state? Instructions that express themselves regardless of sustained exposure to hostile and freezing environments.

That idea only leads me to also ask how many human behaviors are also pre-ordained by "instructions" embedded in the human organism's genetic material and biological tissue. Instructions that express themselves regardless of nutritional intake, economic class, education, etc. It also makes me ask whether certain genetic maps within a species possess the genetic code for certain actions that the map for others in its own species lack. Which of our actions are expressed because of instructions embedded in our genetic material? Do certain of us humans, perhaps with a certain genetic tidbit that other humans lack, have instruction to generate certain enzymes and hormones that lead us to express violent acts, or compassionate acts, or take risks, for example?


An adult grows to 4 to 9 inches.

Thanks to J37ib (top photos of hatchling) and to D. Gordon E. Robertson (photo of adult Chrysemis picta marginata, after text).

Mt. Gretna's MOB (Morbidly Obese Budget(s)) Chap 1: Public resources, cost-sharing agreements, and intergovernment cooperation

In the last post, I brought to your attention only one or two of the many "techniques" relied upon by our public officials--elected and appointed, to obfuscate the redundancies in budget(s) and to prevent following the trail of money through our 87 acres. Specifically, I brought to your attention that the Borough, in complying with state law which requires "closing" the next year's budget before that year actually begins, reports to us a $150,000 Boro budget, yet reports to the state a $550,000 budget.

However, that the Borough finances and Authority finances are separate from each other is a representation that borough officials made to us lowly taxpayers several times in the last year alone. For example, at the Oct. Borough Council meeting, a resident asked how the budget shortfall was going to be closed, and the council prez stated that the borough had "eliminated one full-time employee by transferring that person over to the Authority." Another such representation was made when, at the Nov. Council meeting, a resident asked for an exact number for the number of staff that the Borough has. The response was that "the borough has 5 full-time staff. The sixth guy is a temp." Now, go back in your own memories, and recall all the representations made to you, by boro officials, about the independence of the authority finances.

Next, also recall memories of your own experiences where various public officials told you of the "cost-sharing" going on here in our 87 acre/.2 mi campus. To support that recollection, if you turn to Chautuaqua budget information and financial reports, you'll see that they also admit that they are engaged in this "cost-sharing" with our public entities here.

Now, let's get down to business on this. Let's assume that there is indeed a "cost-sharing" arrangement between two or more parties here--and, that that arrangement explains the reporting differences in budgets. So, let's see how the Commonwealth, and its laws, come into play. Our first resource to look to is the Commonwealth's "position" on intergovernmental cooperation--specifically in this post, who can participant in such agreements, what forms they may take, and what powers come with each form. They published a whole manual on this topic--you can download it yourself at
http://www.newpa.com/get-local-gov-support/publications/index.aspx.

Intergovernmental Cooperation

In Pa, government bodies are encouraged to cooperate where efficiencies result in the delivery of services provided to the citizens. The parties can be neighboring municipalities, authorities, institutions, etc. Regardless of the form of the cooperation agreement, each party must be a governmental body.

Cooperation Agreements usually take one of the four major forms:

Handshake:
This form is usually used for non-repetitive and simple activities, like the use of a paver for a few days in exchange for the use of a dump truck for a few days.This type of agreement is only a form of cooperation—it is not an actual agreement or a contract with legal rights or responsibilities. Therefore, a handshake agreement does NOT convey the power to do things like acquire property, sign contracts, assume debt obligations, etc.

Act 177 (of 1996) Agreement:
This agreement is a contract between government entities. It requires enactment via ordinance and that a list of issues specified in the Act be determined and described. One agreement can not serve multiple functions—a separate agreement is needed for each function, unless a clearly stated multiple purpose agreement is created. Act 177 agreements are structured for either a provider/purchaser relationship, or for a joint program engaged in by the municipal parties. Examples of joint programs include regional police units, recreational programs, etc. A typical process for creating an Act 177 Agreement starts with representatives—elected or appointed officials, municipal staff, or appointed citizens, from each government body meeting as a “working” group to produce the ordinance and terms that will eventually be accepted by all parties. The agreement and terms are then presented to each party for enactment into an ordinance, and, if successfully enacted, the ordinance is attested to and signed by each government party’s authorized official.

Council of Governments:
This form of cooperation between government bodies is used to address broader subjects, and, can, for example, address the pursuit of two or more "joint programs." Because the COG is under no legal requirement to organize itself according to any specific procedure or into any specific structure, it must determine these issues as well as determine the details of the programs of the COG. Thus, the COG is both a form of cooperation and a “joint program” itself—a joint program addressing cooperation between the parties, among other joint programs. The COG is usually comprised of elected officials. The COG is really a third, albeit special, type of Act 177 agreement.

Joint Authority:
The Authorities of two or more municipalities are authorized, under Act 22 of 2001, to enter into a cooperative relationship and form one Municipal Authority. The two main reasons motivating such a cooperative arrangement is to facilitate the financing of major capital investments and the receipt of funds (usually grants) from federal agencies, like the EPA. However, a draw back to this cooperative form lies in that the Municipal Authority is not run by representatives of the participating municipalities, but by members appointed to the authority’s governing board. The process of appointment is to ensure that the Authority’s decision making power is independent of the municipalities' elected officials, providing the sort of checks and balances mechanism so diligently sought after by the original founders of our government structure and constitution. A Municipal Authority is vested with many powers, including signing contracts, selling bonds, and acquiring property.

Other forms of intergovernmental cooperation address:
Tax collection (example, the collection of Act 511 taxes, such as
earned income tax and per capita tax)
Transportation Partnerships (Act 47 of 1985)
Environmental Improvements (Act 39 of 1972)
Environmental Advisory Councils (Act 148 or 1973)


As applied to our situation, none of these arrangements supports an agreement--"cost-sharing" or otherwise, between the Chautauqua and either the Borough or Authority. Nor do they support a contract for the Borough to perform services, with borough staff and resources, for a homeowners association or a corporation, whether that non-governmental agency is located within these 87 acres or outside these 87 acres.

Also, it would seem as if any arrangement between a water/sewer authority and a borough would need to be entered in to via Act 177--ergo, as a joint program agreement or a COG, with its terms made clearly available for the taxpayer to see the subject matter of the agreement, the money trail, and the other pertinent details of the "exchange".

Let's also go back to the original idea behind intergovernment cooperation, and ask ourselves how any such agreements have resulted in an actual efficiency for us. Rather than allowing us to reduce our labor costs, our equipment costs, or our overhead, these "agreements" have really resulted in a relativley convoluted mechanism by which an extremely limited number of taxpayers are made to pay for a bloated full-time staff and an entire fleet of public works vehicles and earth-moving equipment--i.e. a public works infrstructure that a municipality of a thousand doesn't even have or justify. For example, rather than try to offset the costs of this staff and equipment with money-losing contracts for snow removal in other homeowners associations, isn't it more efficient to rid ourselves of the full-time staff-driver, his benefits burdens--including pension, the equipment acquisition costs, its maintanence costs, and the cost of materials and fuel by entering into our own $74/hour snow removal contract with someone else?

Thus concludes Chap. 1 of "Mt. Gretna's MOB (Morbidly Obese Budget(s))".