Monday, December 19, 2011
Same criminal behavior, different town
Recently reported in the LATimes, a judge questions the criminality of a police chief's nontransparent and superinflated salary, sounding striking familiar to comments posted here about our own loyal public servants.
Read below:
"Judge questions why Bell's former police chief isn't facing corruption charges"
By Jeff Gottlieb, Los Angeles Times
4:38 PM PST, December 19, 2011
"From the day authorities handcuffed and led away eight Bell administrators and politicians in a massive public corruption case, people in this small working-class town have wondered why it wasn't the Bell 9 instead.
Missing in the line-up of defendants — from city administrator Robert Rizzo to the pastor who said his lavish paycheck for serving on the City Council was a gift from God — was the town's police chief.
For running the city's 46-person Police Department, Randy Adams made more than the Los Angeles police chief or the Los Angeles County sheriff. His contract, prosecutors said, was drawn up so that citizens would be unable to learn the real size of his paycheck.
Now, the judge who is hearing the case against the Bell 8 is also questioning why Adams is not facing criminal charges along with Rizzo, his chief assistant and six former City Council members accused of draining the city's budget with oversized salaries and benefit packages."
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bell-adams-20111220,0,4709254.story
latimes.com
Emphasis in text added.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Today, Opaque Equals Scandal
Excerpt from recent Economist article:
...the real push for transparency has come from the scandals that often breed in opaque government. The most notorious example, uncovered last year, is Bell, a tiny blue-collar city near Los Angeles, whose leaders paid themselves exorbitant amounts and, in effect, used the city coffers as personal banks."
The article goes on to admit that today's technology has made putting government data online easier. I would go further to say that today's technology makes putting data online so easy that a government really has to put more effort into NOT putting the data online. That entity really has to contort themselves, their reasoning, and their decision to NOT publish, into some really convoluted and shallow positions. Further, given that a government entity has a responsibility to be transparent, its decisions to NOT publish data online strongly suggests ethics lapses and even criminal activity.
And given that American citizens have a duty to hold their representative and democratic government accountable, there should be no tolerance for Board or council members who do not know the true or factual details of their governing body's finances. Virginia Minnich, do you know what the Borough's liability will be for Bill Care's retirement annuity? Did you know that he will receive more than a career, top-level and distinguished, Central Intelligence Administration officer? Charles Allwein, do you know that the Borough's "real" budget is around $600,000 each year?
Municipalities all over this nation are using their websites to provide as much data as possible, and the world has not ended for any of them. For example, residents of Alberquerque, NM, are even able to follow their mayor's expense charges and their government staffs' earnings. Vendor contracts, expense reports, salaries and benefits--its all there for the taxpayer and constituent to follow--as it should be in a country, commonwealth, and community that is founded on transparency and accountability, and that has nothing to hide.
*excerpt from The Economist, Nov. 19th, 2011, page 36.
...the real push for transparency has come from the scandals that often breed in opaque government. The most notorious example, uncovered last year, is Bell, a tiny blue-collar city near Los Angeles, whose leaders paid themselves exorbitant amounts and, in effect, used the city coffers as personal banks."
The article goes on to admit that today's technology has made putting government data online easier. I would go further to say that today's technology makes putting data online so easy that a government really has to put more effort into NOT putting the data online. That entity really has to contort themselves, their reasoning, and their decision to NOT publish, into some really convoluted and shallow positions. Further, given that a government entity has a responsibility to be transparent, its decisions to NOT publish data online strongly suggests ethics lapses and even criminal activity.
And given that American citizens have a duty to hold their representative and democratic government accountable, there should be no tolerance for Board or council members who do not know the true or factual details of their governing body's finances. Virginia Minnich, do you know what the Borough's liability will be for Bill Care's retirement annuity? Did you know that he will receive more than a career, top-level and distinguished, Central Intelligence Administration officer? Charles Allwein, do you know that the Borough's "real" budget is around $600,000 each year?
Municipalities all over this nation are using their websites to provide as much data as possible, and the world has not ended for any of them. For example, residents of Alberquerque, NM, are even able to follow their mayor's expense charges and their government staffs' earnings. Vendor contracts, expense reports, salaries and benefits--its all there for the taxpayer and constituent to follow--as it should be in a country, commonwealth, and community that is founded on transparency and accountability, and that has nothing to hide.
*excerpt from The Economist, Nov. 19th, 2011, page 36.
Friday, October 28, 2011
The Economics of Historic Preservation
The National Trust for Historic Preservation provides several books and white papers discussing current research on the economic elements of recognizing a community as an historic district. Ample text is dedicated to showing that there are many economic benefits to historic preservation. Examples include that it is less costly to preserve rather than to demolish and rebuild (which has a secondary economic benefit of providing a lower cost way of maintaining residential and commercial real property stock in a community). Other studies show that Historic Preservation facilitates Heritage Tourism--a recreational activity that yields more revenue per tourist than other forms of tourism and that is occuring in larger numbers than other forms of recreational activities.
The secondary effect of this latter example is that the money spent by Heritage Tourists also generates increased revenues for local municipalities--more revenue than is generated by other forms of tourism or recreational activities.
Here, in the Chautauqua (aka, Mount Gretna Borough), however, the statistical reality that historic preservation activities provide the community with economic benefits could not be farther from reality.
In this community, there is much talk of the buildings and area being historic. In fact, the Chautauqua reports to the IRS every year that one of its "charitable" activities is the maintainence of historic buildings. BOth the Borough Council and the Chautauqua Board give overtures every so often that they are pursuing historic designation. The Chautauqua also tells the IRS that the purpose of its activities is to minimize the shareholder fee. However, if either local entity is indeed pursuing historic designation, it certainly can't be to generate revenue for the Chautauqua or for the Borough and its taxpayers.
How do we know we will never benefit from any economic benefit normally generated by Historic Preservation activities? Because we know that any revenue generated by Heritage Tourism, or any other form of recreational activity pursued here, only produces revenue for private entities--all private corporations, who, in recent decades, have never used their revenue to offset the cost of maintaining the infrastructure of this area (whether designated historic or not). In fact, pursuit of maintaining these local buildings and environs as historic as only served to "justify" outrageously inflated expenses and fiscal "leaks" that are never made transparent and for which the shareholder or the taxpayer can not follow the money spent.
Over $330,000 a year is spent on these endeavors--maintaining the area's historic buildings and environs, and neither the Borough nor the Chautauqua see fit to publish that fact to its taxpayers or shareholders. They hide it from you, lie to you, and misrepresent the truth to you.
In fact, the entity within the Borough that generates the largest revenue (from tourism) is the Borough Council President's and Gretna Water/Sewer Authority Boardmember's (Charles "Chuck" Allwein and son, Andrew "Drew" Allwein) Jiggershop. Not only does this private corporation NOT ever share its profits to help offset the infrastructure costs of providing the "bucolic" historic setting that it relies on for its marketing and branding, it actually results in being an economic burden on the community.
First, these municipal leaders-entrepenuers demanded a significantly below-market rate lease with the entity that is fiscally responsible for maintaining these allegedly historic buildings and environs--the Chautauqua. We shareholders could be leasing that site out for ten times what these municipal leader-entrepeneurs are paying and using that revenue to offset our annual shareholders fees. But that is not practiced here.
Second, the lease could also contain a profit-sharing clause--a lease term that is common practice every where but here in the Chautauqua (aka Mount Gretna Borough).
Third, in order to maintain the "historic" environs relied on in the Jiggershop owners' marketing and operations, the municipality and the landowner (the Chautauqua) must hire excessive "public works" staff, commit to municipal retirement benefits for this staff (in addition to paying for every other type of employee benefit you can imagine), hire and supervise parking staff,etc, etc. etc. This cost alone pulls over $350,000 out of OUR pockets, as it is covered by revenue generated from tax revenue and shareholder fees--without any attendant licensing fee, permitting fee, business operations fee, or profit-sharing arrangment imposed on these private business. Private businesses owned by municipal leaders that are enjoying significant profit from our continued passivity when it comes to demanding to be told exactly what money is going to whom and how often.
Thus, Historic Preservation--whether followed under a formal designation or followed in practice, as we see here, has actually turned out to be an economic sinkhole for us taxpayers and shareholders. So, the powers that be were right to scrap, file in the round file cabinet, or toss their pursuit of historic designation for any building or area in the Chautauqua or Mt. Gretna Borough. It simply would be a lot of effort that would only result in a formal legal obligation to use shareholder and taxpayer money to continue to fatten the profits of certain municipal leader-entrepeneurs.
The secondary effect of this latter example is that the money spent by Heritage Tourists also generates increased revenues for local municipalities--more revenue than is generated by other forms of tourism or recreational activities.
Here, in the Chautauqua (aka, Mount Gretna Borough), however, the statistical reality that historic preservation activities provide the community with economic benefits could not be farther from reality.
In this community, there is much talk of the buildings and area being historic. In fact, the Chautauqua reports to the IRS every year that one of its "charitable" activities is the maintainence of historic buildings. BOth the Borough Council and the Chautauqua Board give overtures every so often that they are pursuing historic designation. The Chautauqua also tells the IRS that the purpose of its activities is to minimize the shareholder fee. However, if either local entity is indeed pursuing historic designation, it certainly can't be to generate revenue for the Chautauqua or for the Borough and its taxpayers.
How do we know we will never benefit from any economic benefit normally generated by Historic Preservation activities? Because we know that any revenue generated by Heritage Tourism, or any other form of recreational activity pursued here, only produces revenue for private entities--all private corporations, who, in recent decades, have never used their revenue to offset the cost of maintaining the infrastructure of this area (whether designated historic or not). In fact, pursuit of maintaining these local buildings and environs as historic as only served to "justify" outrageously inflated expenses and fiscal "leaks" that are never made transparent and for which the shareholder or the taxpayer can not follow the money spent.
Over $330,000 a year is spent on these endeavors--maintaining the area's historic buildings and environs, and neither the Borough nor the Chautauqua see fit to publish that fact to its taxpayers or shareholders. They hide it from you, lie to you, and misrepresent the truth to you.
In fact, the entity within the Borough that generates the largest revenue (from tourism) is the Borough Council President's and Gretna Water/Sewer Authority Boardmember's (Charles "Chuck" Allwein and son, Andrew "Drew" Allwein) Jiggershop. Not only does this private corporation NOT ever share its profits to help offset the infrastructure costs of providing the "bucolic" historic setting that it relies on for its marketing and branding, it actually results in being an economic burden on the community.
First, these municipal leaders-entrepenuers demanded a significantly below-market rate lease with the entity that is fiscally responsible for maintaining these allegedly historic buildings and environs--the Chautauqua. We shareholders could be leasing that site out for ten times what these municipal leader-entrepeneurs are paying and using that revenue to offset our annual shareholders fees. But that is not practiced here.
Second, the lease could also contain a profit-sharing clause--a lease term that is common practice every where but here in the Chautauqua (aka Mount Gretna Borough).
Third, in order to maintain the "historic" environs relied on in the Jiggershop owners' marketing and operations, the municipality and the landowner (the Chautauqua) must hire excessive "public works" staff, commit to municipal retirement benefits for this staff (in addition to paying for every other type of employee benefit you can imagine), hire and supervise parking staff,etc, etc. etc. This cost alone pulls over $350,000 out of OUR pockets, as it is covered by revenue generated from tax revenue and shareholder fees--without any attendant licensing fee, permitting fee, business operations fee, or profit-sharing arrangment imposed on these private business. Private businesses owned by municipal leaders that are enjoying significant profit from our continued passivity when it comes to demanding to be told exactly what money is going to whom and how often.
Thus, Historic Preservation--whether followed under a formal designation or followed in practice, as we see here, has actually turned out to be an economic sinkhole for us taxpayers and shareholders. So, the powers that be were right to scrap, file in the round file cabinet, or toss their pursuit of historic designation for any building or area in the Chautauqua or Mt. Gretna Borough. It simply would be a lot of effort that would only result in a formal legal obligation to use shareholder and taxpayer money to continue to fatten the profits of certain municipal leader-entrepeneurs.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Nicest place to live--real integrity, folks
Looky here, a police department that publishes its daily logs: http://www.northamptonpd.com/daily-logs.html
And to think that here in Mount Gretna, the Borough can't even provide monthly meeting minutes with any sense of real transparency to the average citizen. Don't blink, 'cause the last meetings notes will be gone in a flash.
And, where over half of the Borough budget involves the Chautauqua, don't even bother asking for those numbers--you don't have any right to see that portion of this municipality's budget, you nasty little thing, you.
On top of that, Northampton is one of the most peaceful, serene, and civil places to live--a true village with a community spirit that truly lives the talk.
And to think that here in Mount Gretna, the Borough can't even provide monthly meeting minutes with any sense of real transparency to the average citizen. Don't blink, 'cause the last meetings notes will be gone in a flash.
And, where over half of the Borough budget involves the Chautauqua, don't even bother asking for those numbers--you don't have any right to see that portion of this municipality's budget, you nasty little thing, you.
On top of that, Northampton is one of the most peaceful, serene, and civil places to live--a true village with a community spirit that truly lives the talk.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
The Jiggershop operates for free
If you ask a local commercial real estate guru what the going rate is for a land lease for a seasonal restaurant located in a town with a lot of visitors, they will tell you its about $20 per square foot. Compare that to the rate that the Jiggershop owners, Chuck Allwein and Andrew Allwein, pay for leasing the land that their Jiggershop restaurant is on in Mount Gretna: about $2 a square foot. No, that's not a typo.
It is probably more like a reward for letting the land owner, the Pennsylvania Chautauqua, use the Allweins' public official authority to approve the use of public resources to provide this private company with a boatload of taxpayer subsidized property maintenance services.
Yep, that's right. In return for letting their dear family friend and Mount Gretna Borough Public Works Director, William Care, use Borough staff, vehicles, and equipment to mow the private company's lawns, to repair and paint the private company's buildings, and build, pave, and otherwise maintain the private company's parking lots (which keep the environs of the Allweins' Jiggershop loaded with paying customers), Borough Council President Charles Allwein and Gretna Sewer and Water Authority Boardmember Andrew Allwein realisticially get the land for their Jiggershop restaurant for free.
On top of that, this author has been provided no substantiation that the Jiggershop owners, Chuck Allwein and Drew Allwein are actually paying for the Jiggershop's Sewer and Water Authority fees.
And, dear friend Bill Care now gets to not only request a full-time paycheck from a public employer for what is really only a part-time job (remember, the Borough actually owns no land or buildings within its boundaries), but Bill Care also gets an average of nearly 700 hours of overtime a year and health, dental, vision, disability, etc benefits. His state retirement contribution is also completely paid for by the Borough. Which is to say that the only entity on the hook for Bill Care's $120,000+ compensation package is the Borough of Mount Gretna.
No matter what the Allweins, the Borough and the Authority and the Chautauqua Financial Secretary Linda Bell, or the Chautuaqua, the Borough, the Authority, and the Gretna Playhouse Public Works Director Bill Care SAYS to you about there being some other entity paying the costs here, they can not substantiate it with hard evidence. The fact remains that Care "bills" the Borough, and the Borough alone, for his $120,000 compensation package.
So it seems that these public officials-family friends have managed to enjoy quite the lucrative arrangement of profiteering from their public offices.
It is probably more like a reward for letting the land owner, the Pennsylvania Chautauqua, use the Allweins' public official authority to approve the use of public resources to provide this private company with a boatload of taxpayer subsidized property maintenance services.
Yep, that's right. In return for letting their dear family friend and Mount Gretna Borough Public Works Director, William Care, use Borough staff, vehicles, and equipment to mow the private company's lawns, to repair and paint the private company's buildings, and build, pave, and otherwise maintain the private company's parking lots (which keep the environs of the Allweins' Jiggershop loaded with paying customers), Borough Council President Charles Allwein and Gretna Sewer and Water Authority Boardmember Andrew Allwein realisticially get the land for their Jiggershop restaurant for free.
On top of that, this author has been provided no substantiation that the Jiggershop owners, Chuck Allwein and Drew Allwein are actually paying for the Jiggershop's Sewer and Water Authority fees.
And, dear friend Bill Care now gets to not only request a full-time paycheck from a public employer for what is really only a part-time job (remember, the Borough actually owns no land or buildings within its boundaries), but Bill Care also gets an average of nearly 700 hours of overtime a year and health, dental, vision, disability, etc benefits. His state retirement contribution is also completely paid for by the Borough. Which is to say that the only entity on the hook for Bill Care's $120,000+ compensation package is the Borough of Mount Gretna.
No matter what the Allweins, the Borough and the Authority and the Chautauqua Financial Secretary Linda Bell, or the Chautuaqua, the Borough, the Authority, and the Gretna Playhouse Public Works Director Bill Care SAYS to you about there being some other entity paying the costs here, they can not substantiate it with hard evidence. The fact remains that Care "bills" the Borough, and the Borough alone, for his $120,000 compensation package.
So it seems that these public officials-family friends have managed to enjoy quite the lucrative arrangement of profiteering from their public offices.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Who should be accountable for injuries sustained in accidents on Mount Gretna's SR117?
Very recently, there was a serious accident on Mount Gretna's SR117--a road that residents have been complaining about as being unsafe since at least the late 1990's. Sadly, this accident is not reported in the local newspaper. Given that fictitious "dangers" on that road are plastered all over the LDNews and "about town" by Gretna officials, we really have to ask why the secrecy regarding real accidents.
In exploring this issue, know that more recent safety complaints were not only ignored, but local officials actually reacted to the formal nature of the complaints as threatening and subsequesntly engaged in a malicious plan of silencing the complaining resident. Kathleen K. Snavely, of Lightkeeper Consulting, Mount Gretna, Lebanon County, and Lebanon County Republican Committee Co-chair, is one of the local officials that engaged in this retaliatory activity by ensuring that her friends at the Lebanon Daily News, and that other local leaders re-published as often as possible a story about the whistleblower that she knew, all along, was not true. So, we should also ask Kathy Snavely more specifically why she hasn't she given her friends at the Lebanon Daily News her instructions to plaster this very real incident (see dispatch log below) all over that rag?
Umm, let's see, a non-existent victimless "incident", made up to allow malicious prosecution of a citizen who had written several letters complaining of the dangerous conditions being allowed by Mount Gretna Borough officials on the Lakeview Dr. and Mt. Gretna Rd area (and who discovered and reported Mount Gretna Borough and PA Chautauqua officials' financial improprieties)...this story repeated ad nauseum to local organizations and leaders by PA Chautauqua HOA Boardmember Kathy Snavely and plastered all over her mouthpiece local rag known as the LDN ...v. a real accident involving real victim(s) and, apparently, Mount Gretna Borough officials, on the very same road area previously reported as unsafe.
Way to go Snave! So here is another situation where I again ask myself "how do you sleep at night," given all your petty self-serving manipulations and incompetence?There absolutely is a safety issue regarding Mount Gretna's SR 117, and there is a legal and ethical issue regarding improper use of public resources to operate a private company of which you, Kathleen K. Snavely, are a boardmember.
And you, of all of the gang participating in this apparent scheme, seem to be the most egregiously flawed character of them all--because instead of using your resources and responsibilities to address these two very serious issues, it should be the apparent conclusion or opinion of ALL PA Chautauqua shareholders and Mount Gretna Borough taxpayers that instead of addressing this safety issue, you actively and knowingly participated in devising and pursuing a plan to "shoot the messenger." Or, is it, "cut the snake off at the head," as Mount Gretna Borough Public Works Director Bill Care said of the plan to silence the whistleblower? (And, why wouldn't he feel threatened, he is the Public Works Director of a municipality that has essentially has no public works and who, nevertheless, enjoys an annual compensation package of $120,000---that we can trace so far. There is likely more.)
So, for example, instead of urging that our police contract actually provide services that our community is demanding, like issuing more than 6 traffic tickets a year, you get another opportunity, Kathy, to profess that you are only accountable for your actions to your god. Well, if you truly believe that, Kathy Snavely, then you have no business assuming community positions in which the positions require that you are accountable to shareholders, constituents, clients, etc.
In this respect, you and your conspirators are complete failures, and I have no hesitancy in saying that, to all of you who have engaged in a pattern of ignoring the repeated and enduring and varied sources of complaints about the safety of SR117, with every true accident occurring on our road, you should be loosing sleep at night. You should be wildly ashamed of yourselves.
EXCERPT of Lebanon County Dispatch Log from September 13, 2011:
13:25:23 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries
13:25:21 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Box 3-03
13:25:19 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Amb 180 Lawn
13:25:17 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Box 3-03 FG-4 E2
13:25:15 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Sta 02 Siren
13:25:10 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Sta 03 Siren
13:25:08 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries AmbCo180 ı Station 03
13:25:07 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries
13:25:05 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Box 3-03 FG-4 E2 W3 AT3 PT3 R2 R38 AmbCo180 ı Station 03
13:25:03 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries AmbCo180 ı Station 02
13:25:01 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Box 3-03 FG-4 E2 W3 AT3 PT3 R2 R38 AmbCo180 ı Sta 02 Siren
In exploring this issue, know that more recent safety complaints were not only ignored, but local officials actually reacted to the formal nature of the complaints as threatening and subsequesntly engaged in a malicious plan of silencing the complaining resident. Kathleen K. Snavely, of Lightkeeper Consulting, Mount Gretna, Lebanon County, and Lebanon County Republican Committee Co-chair, is one of the local officials that engaged in this retaliatory activity by ensuring that her friends at the Lebanon Daily News, and that other local leaders re-published as often as possible a story about the whistleblower that she knew, all along, was not true. So, we should also ask Kathy Snavely more specifically why she hasn't she given her friends at the Lebanon Daily News her instructions to plaster this very real incident (see dispatch log below) all over that rag?
Umm, let's see, a non-existent victimless "incident", made up to allow malicious prosecution of a citizen who had written several letters complaining of the dangerous conditions being allowed by Mount Gretna Borough officials on the Lakeview Dr. and Mt. Gretna Rd area (and who discovered and reported Mount Gretna Borough and PA Chautauqua officials' financial improprieties)...this story repeated ad nauseum to local organizations and leaders by PA Chautauqua HOA Boardmember Kathy Snavely and plastered all over her mouthpiece local rag known as the LDN ...v. a real accident involving real victim(s) and, apparently, Mount Gretna Borough officials, on the very same road area previously reported as unsafe.
Way to go Snave! So here is another situation where I again ask myself "how do you sleep at night," given all your petty self-serving manipulations and incompetence?There absolutely is a safety issue regarding Mount Gretna's SR 117, and there is a legal and ethical issue regarding improper use of public resources to operate a private company of which you, Kathleen K. Snavely, are a boardmember.
And you, of all of the gang participating in this apparent scheme, seem to be the most egregiously flawed character of them all--because instead of using your resources and responsibilities to address these two very serious issues, it should be the apparent conclusion or opinion of ALL PA Chautauqua shareholders and Mount Gretna Borough taxpayers that instead of addressing this safety issue, you actively and knowingly participated in devising and pursuing a plan to "shoot the messenger." Or, is it, "cut the snake off at the head," as Mount Gretna Borough Public Works Director Bill Care said of the plan to silence the whistleblower? (And, why wouldn't he feel threatened, he is the Public Works Director of a municipality that has essentially has no public works and who, nevertheless, enjoys an annual compensation package of $120,000---that we can trace so far. There is likely more.)
So, for example, instead of urging that our police contract actually provide services that our community is demanding, like issuing more than 6 traffic tickets a year, you get another opportunity, Kathy, to profess that you are only accountable for your actions to your god. Well, if you truly believe that, Kathy Snavely, then you have no business assuming community positions in which the positions require that you are accountable to shareholders, constituents, clients, etc.
In this respect, you and your conspirators are complete failures, and I have no hesitancy in saying that, to all of you who have engaged in a pattern of ignoring the repeated and enduring and varied sources of complaints about the safety of SR117, with every true accident occurring on our road, you should be loosing sleep at night. You should be wildly ashamed of yourselves.
EXCERPT of Lebanon County Dispatch Log from September 13, 2011:
13:25:23 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries
13:25:21 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Box 3-03
13:25:19 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Amb 180 Lawn
13:25:17 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Box 3-03 FG-4 E2
13:25:15 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Sta 02 Siren
13:25:10 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Sta 03 Siren
13:25:08 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries AmbCo180 ı Station 03
13:25:07 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries
13:25:05 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Box 3-03 FG-4 E2 W3 AT3 PT3 R2 R38 AmbCo180 ı Station 03
13:25:03 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries AmbCo180 ı Station 02
13:25:01 13-09-11 POCSAG-1 South Londonderry Township LAKEVIEW DR MOUNT GRETNA RD AREA MG MAINTENANCE FACILITY MV - Accident w/Injuries Box 3-03 FG-4 E2 W3 AT3 PT3 R2 R38 AmbCo180 ı Sta 02 Siren
Monday, September 12, 2011
Jiggershop operates for free?
If you ask a local commercial real estate guru what the going rate is for a land lease for a seasonal restaurant located in a town with a lot of visitors, they will tell you its about $20 per square foot. Compare that to the rate that the Jiggershop owners, Chuck Allwein and Andrew Allwein, pay for leasing the land that their Jiggershop restaurant is on in Mount Gretna: about $2 a square foot. No, that's not a typo.
It is probably more like a reward for letting the land owner, the Pennsylvania Chautauqua, use the Allweins' public official authority to approve the use of public resources to provide this private company with a boatload of taxpayer subsidized property maintenance services.
Yep, that's right. In return for letting their dear family friend and Mount Gretna Borough Public Works Director, William Care, use Borough staff, vehicles, and equipment to mow the private company's lawns, to repair and paint the private company's buildings, and build, pave, and otherwise maintain the private company's parking lots (which keep the environs of the Allweins' Jiggershop loaded with paying customers), Borough Council President Charles Allwein and Gretna Sewer and Water Authority Boardmember Andrew Allwein realisticially get the land for their Jiggershop restaurant for free.
On top of that, this author has been provided no substantiation that the Jiggershop owners, Chuck Allwein and Drew Allwein are actually paying for the Jiggershop's Sewer and Water Authority fees.
And, dear friend Bill Care now gets to not only request a full-time paycheck from a public employer for what is really only a part-time job (remember, the Borough actually owns no land or buildings within its boundaries), but Bill Care also gets an average of nearly 700 hours of overtime a year and health, dental, vision, disability, etc benefits. His state retirement contribution is also completely paid for by the Borough. Which is to say that the only entity on the hook for Bill Care's $120,000+ compensation package is the Borough of Mount Gretna.
No matter what the Allweins, the Borough and the Authority and the Chautauqua Financial Secretary Linda Bell, or the Chautuaqua, the Borough, the Authority, and the Gretna Playhouse Public Works Director Bill Care SAYS to you about there being some other entity paying the costs here, they can not substantiate it with hard evidence. The fact remains that Care "bills" the Borough, and the Borough alone, for his $120,000 compensation package.
So it seems that these public officials-family friends have managed to enjoy quite the lucrative arrangement of profiteering from their public offices.
It is probably more like a reward for letting the land owner, the Pennsylvania Chautauqua, use the Allweins' public official authority to approve the use of public resources to provide this private company with a boatload of taxpayer subsidized property maintenance services.
Yep, that's right. In return for letting their dear family friend and Mount Gretna Borough Public Works Director, William Care, use Borough staff, vehicles, and equipment to mow the private company's lawns, to repair and paint the private company's buildings, and build, pave, and otherwise maintain the private company's parking lots (which keep the environs of the Allweins' Jiggershop loaded with paying customers), Borough Council President Charles Allwein and Gretna Sewer and Water Authority Boardmember Andrew Allwein realisticially get the land for their Jiggershop restaurant for free.
On top of that, this author has been provided no substantiation that the Jiggershop owners, Chuck Allwein and Drew Allwein are actually paying for the Jiggershop's Sewer and Water Authority fees.
And, dear friend Bill Care now gets to not only request a full-time paycheck from a public employer for what is really only a part-time job (remember, the Borough actually owns no land or buildings within its boundaries), but Bill Care also gets an average of nearly 700 hours of overtime a year and health, dental, vision, disability, etc benefits. His state retirement contribution is also completely paid for by the Borough. Which is to say that the only entity on the hook for Bill Care's $120,000+ compensation package is the Borough of Mount Gretna.
No matter what the Allweins, the Borough and the Authority and the Chautauqua Financial Secretary Linda Bell, or the Chautuaqua, the Borough, the Authority, and the Gretna Playhouse Public Works Director Bill Care SAYS to you about there being some other entity paying the costs here, they can not substantiate it with hard evidence. The fact remains that Care "bills" the Borough, and the Borough alone, for his $120,000 compensation package.
So it seems that these public officials-family friends have managed to enjoy quite the lucrative arrangement of profiteering from their public offices.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Foreshadowing
This video is intended for a limited audience, and they know who they are. That said, feel free to watch it. It is an empassioned depiction of the pain caused by a corrupt government and legal process.
Minute 3:00 to 4:00 is my favorite: it is pure, straight-up, unadulterated, spontaneous emotion. The closest someone ever really gets to the truth maybe.
Minute 3:00 to 4:00 is my favorite: it is pure, straight-up, unadulterated, spontaneous emotion. The closest someone ever really gets to the truth maybe.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Chautauqua MUST tell its numbers
To the Anonymous commenter who recently asked if more information was available about the financial dealings going on between the homeowners association and the borough, let me throw this out there.
There is a PA law (in their Planned Communities" Chapter) that REQUIRES the seller of a Chautauqua home to provide a certificate that is supposed to contain a BOATLOAD of this financial information. Seller is also supposed to give you a full copy of the bylaws, etc.
The Seller is supposed to request that the Chauauqua provide this certificate--and the Chautauqua is REQUIRED to provide it, and then Seller is supposed to give it to you, with the bylaws and the other stuff, within ten days of your offer.
If you do not receive this certificate--in its entirety as spelled out in the law, then your contract is void(able).
However, in practice, you will find that the Chautuaqua has NEVER provided such certificate. And, essentially because no one knows their rights, they also never ask to see the information and never get a chance to protect their interests (like the money that they invested in a community that is really a fraudulent scheme designed to allow a small nucleus of persons egregiously inflate their salary and benefits at the homeowners and taxpayers expense.)
And, read the law and chapter for yourself before you let them tell you that the Chautauqua is "grandfathered" or exempted from this requirement. While some sections of the chapter apply to newer HOA's, lots of the laws (like this one) apply to ALL HOA's.
And, by the way, just back in February, Roger Groce ran a story where these same local real estate agents indicated a 12% price drop here and nearly a 50% drop in sales. Guess things changed fast since then....
There is a PA law (in their Planned Communities" Chapter) that REQUIRES the seller of a Chautauqua home to provide a certificate that is supposed to contain a BOATLOAD of this financial information. Seller is also supposed to give you a full copy of the bylaws, etc.
The Seller is supposed to request that the Chauauqua provide this certificate--and the Chautauqua is REQUIRED to provide it, and then Seller is supposed to give it to you, with the bylaws and the other stuff, within ten days of your offer.
If you do not receive this certificate--in its entirety as spelled out in the law, then your contract is void(able).
However, in practice, you will find that the Chautuaqua has NEVER provided such certificate. And, essentially because no one knows their rights, they also never ask to see the information and never get a chance to protect their interests (like the money that they invested in a community that is really a fraudulent scheme designed to allow a small nucleus of persons egregiously inflate their salary and benefits at the homeowners and taxpayers expense.)
And, read the law and chapter for yourself before you let them tell you that the Chautauqua is "grandfathered" or exempted from this requirement. While some sections of the chapter apply to newer HOA's, lots of the laws (like this one) apply to ALL HOA's.
And, by the way, just back in February, Roger Groce ran a story where these same local real estate agents indicated a 12% price drop here and nearly a 50% drop in sales. Guess things changed fast since then....
Friday, August 19, 2011
Remember last November's Boro Proposed Budget
Well, the "final" numbers put the Borough's budget at around $200,000.
But, did you know that that document is more like a fanciful fiction than the legal truth that it is supposed to be?
"How is this?" you ask.
Well, here is how.
When Chucky and Linda "prepare" the proposed budget, they leave a lot of routine revenue out. In fact, they leave out hundreds of thousands of dollars of money that they know full well will be coming in to the Boro.
And, apparently, they leave a lot of the Borough's expenses out, too. Don't believe me?
Well, just look for yourself: look at the OTHER budget report that they are required by law to file every year: the Borough's annual financial report and audit to the state's Dept. of Community and Economic Development.
You can see Linda and Chuck's 2007 filing below by clicking on the docstoc link. I have even highlighted the "bottom lines".
And just remember these two things when you are looking through this report:
First, their proposed budget for 2007 would have been even less than last year's $200,000. So, Chucknuts and LindaLu are telling the state that the Boro has a budget that is 400% of what they tell us the Proposed Budget is. Why mislead us like that? If they urge that everyone is so happy with their delivery of PUBLIC services, then why hide the truth from us?
Second, when even just one of us says that its ok for public resources to be used outside of its legal purpose, you are also making your Boro neighbors pay for that. You may be willing to pay the extra costs that it is taking to keep a fulltime crew of 4 public works staff in a municipality that doesn't have any buildings or any public land, that doesn't have any sewer or water service responsibilities, or any paper trail evidence or actual evidence of sharing between government entities, but your retired 80 year old neighbor may not be willing to subsidize these illegal activities.
Mt Gretna DCED Report 2007
But, did you know that that document is more like a fanciful fiction than the legal truth that it is supposed to be?
"How is this?" you ask.
Well, here is how.
When Chucky and Linda "prepare" the proposed budget, they leave a lot of routine revenue out. In fact, they leave out hundreds of thousands of dollars of money that they know full well will be coming in to the Boro.
And, apparently, they leave a lot of the Borough's expenses out, too. Don't believe me?
Well, just look for yourself: look at the OTHER budget report that they are required by law to file every year: the Borough's annual financial report and audit to the state's Dept. of Community and Economic Development.
You can see Linda and Chuck's 2007 filing below by clicking on the docstoc link. I have even highlighted the "bottom lines".
And just remember these two things when you are looking through this report:
First, their proposed budget for 2007 would have been even less than last year's $200,000. So, Chucknuts and LindaLu are telling the state that the Boro has a budget that is 400% of what they tell us the Proposed Budget is. Why mislead us like that? If they urge that everyone is so happy with their delivery of PUBLIC services, then why hide the truth from us?
Second, when even just one of us says that its ok for public resources to be used outside of its legal purpose, you are also making your Boro neighbors pay for that. You may be willing to pay the extra costs that it is taking to keep a fulltime crew of 4 public works staff in a municipality that doesn't have any buildings or any public land, that doesn't have any sewer or water service responsibilities, or any paper trail evidence or actual evidence of sharing between government entities, but your retired 80 year old neighbor may not be willing to subsidize these illegal activities.
Mt Gretna DCED Report 2007
Monday, August 1, 2011
SPIN man Roger Groce
Ever notice that Groce's newsletter runs content that ignores the real and repeated comments that present concerns about the status quo that he sells? For example, over the last few years, I have heard several people complain about the Art Show being held in the Borough. Those complaints even came from one of the founders of the show, who said that he thinks the Art Show is too big for this community and should be held in a more appropriate location. He also told me that he has told Chuck Asswhine and the Board that several times. So,why isn't the Board or the Council responding to concerns like his? Its because they don't really give a crap.
And, why is it that Groce can get information that we lowly citizens can't? For example, he does not own property in the Chautauqua or in the Borough, yet he knows how much the Art Show made last year when we shareholders can't even get that information...Uhhmm, when were we shareholders given that info? Answer: Never.
And what would happen if we asked for it? Well, what would happen is we would be strung along and denied the information even if you made written requests and followed up with attendance at Board meetings.
And, how is it that Groce, on any given day, knows exactly how many people the Borough employs and their names when Borough citizens can't even get that info from the Borough? On one day, you can get three different answers!
The FACTS are that we shareholders can never verify Groce's information because the Board and the person who keeps the financial information refuse to produce the information for us. But, apparently, they can produce it for Groce...and you have to ask yourself why they don't want US to see the real numbers.
And, you have to ask yourself why, if the Art Show is so productive, our shareholder's fees are not offset by that activity's so-called "profit." Let's see, a $30K rake split among the shareholders would drop our annual fee by over $150.
And, why is it that Groce can get information that we lowly citizens can't? For example, he does not own property in the Chautauqua or in the Borough, yet he knows how much the Art Show made last year when we shareholders can't even get that information...Uhhmm, when were we shareholders given that info? Answer: Never.
And what would happen if we asked for it? Well, what would happen is we would be strung along and denied the information even if you made written requests and followed up with attendance at Board meetings.
And, how is it that Groce, on any given day, knows exactly how many people the Borough employs and their names when Borough citizens can't even get that info from the Borough? On one day, you can get three different answers!
The FACTS are that we shareholders can never verify Groce's information because the Board and the person who keeps the financial information refuse to produce the information for us. But, apparently, they can produce it for Groce...and you have to ask yourself why they don't want US to see the real numbers.
And, you have to ask yourself why, if the Art Show is so productive, our shareholder's fees are not offset by that activity's so-called "profit." Let's see, a $30K rake split among the shareholders would drop our annual fee by over $150.
And, why hasn't the Borough or the Chautauqua ever shown us exactly what Chautauqua financial secretary Linda Bell transfers (partially) to herself as the Borough financial secretary every year out of the Chautauqua funds? Why isn't that clearly shown to us shareholders every year, and why isn't the portion that she receives personally reported as a transfer of compensation to a voting Chautauqua Board member, because that's what it is?
Both the Borough and the Chautauqua want us to think that less of a transfer happens every year than what is really the truth. The Borough completely fails to report to us ANY funds received from the Chautauqua, and the Chautauqua apparently wants us to think its what's represented by their Buildings and Grounds Fund maintenance costs. But these representations are not even apparently close to the real amount of money Bell is transferring from the Chautauqua accounts and receiving and "recording" into the Borough accounts---including into her own payroll. So, again, why is it that they feel it is necessary to hide the real numbers from us? If nothing is criminal or unethical about the transfers, then why all the subterfuge and secrecy? Why only leak suggested numbers via Groce? Perhaps the answer is that they don't want us to realize that we are paying WAY TOO MUCH for something that we shouldn't be paying for at all.
It is because, yeah, "spin" appears to be his job, and he does it well. And, well, when your goal is to "con" and squeeze the citizens for every penny, you need a good spinman to help sell the organization and pass out the Kool-Aid.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The True Mount Gretna Character
"repression involves the actual or threatened use of physical sanctions against an individual for the purpose of imposing a cost on the target as well as deterring specific activities and/or beliefs perceived to be challenging to government personnel, practices or institutions." (Goldstein 1978, p. xxvii).
For those of you who think the "sanctions" came BEFORE the discovery of financial improprieties by Mount Gretna public officials, I ask you can you really be that stupid--or is it just spite? Either way, there is no justification for accomodating these corrupt officials further bad behavior in targeting a challenger to their practices. Shame on you...
For those of you who think the "sanctions" came BEFORE the discovery of financial improprieties by Mount Gretna public officials, I ask you can you really be that stupid--or is it just spite? Either way, there is no justification for accomodating these corrupt officials further bad behavior in targeting a challenger to their practices. Shame on you...
Monday, February 14, 2011
101
"Political Culture of the [Corrupt] Municipality
Many local governments have an established political culture with certain expectations and practices that often determine what is seen as acceptable and not acceptable in local politics. In municipalities with an undeveloped or underdeveloped political culture, accountability and legitimacy is usually low and principles of ethics in government are not established. This can encourage corruption to take hold in the local government because citizens do not know what is considered corrupt, and local officials are not afraid to be corrupt because of the low accountability. In some places the local governments have been corrupt for so long that the citizens think that is how it is supposed to work because that is all they have been exposed to. "
Emphasis added.
Above is an excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_local_government
Many local governments have an established political culture with certain expectations and practices that often determine what is seen as acceptable and not acceptable in local politics. In municipalities with an undeveloped or underdeveloped political culture, accountability and legitimacy is usually low and principles of ethics in government are not established. This can encourage corruption to take hold in the local government because citizens do not know what is considered corrupt, and local officials are not afraid to be corrupt because of the low accountability. In some places the local governments have been corrupt for so long that the citizens think that is how it is supposed to work because that is all they have been exposed to. "
Emphasis added.
Above is an excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_local_government
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
