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.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
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?
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?
Friday, February 19, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, February 12, 2010
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
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).
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).
Sunday, February 7, 2010
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).
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
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))".
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))".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
