Mr. Treasurer, a question for you...

Are you asking us to believe that the audits are being done without the use of digital templates, and that you are not able to provide the public with a digital copy--perhaps for the price of a CD/DVD? Or even just provide a link to it on the entity's website?

Jeese, are we really in the stone age here still?

Safety and Quality of Life in Mt. Gretna

After witnessing various town officials ignore several residents' complaints related to the quality of life here in Mt.Gretna, I decided to measure and record certain aspects of what those complaints were about. So, I purchased a radar gun with a big digital display and set it up in the front yard. I also positoned the video recorder to record the readouts as vehicles drove through Mt. Gretna on 117.

The usual findings are that the largest majority of drivers on this road travel at well over the speed limit--even 50mph is not unusual. And, this routine speeding happens even with Cornwall Police cruisers parked at the tennis courts or elsewhere in Mt. Gretna.

Here is a sampling of readouts from just a ten minute time span, recorded in early Sept. Again, remember, this is just a ten minute time frame--which means that there are hundreds of speeding vehicles blasting through Mt. Gretna in a week. And, remember, that on a prolific month of ticket writing for Cornwall P.D., they maybe issue one ticket--and, I have never seen that speed radar trailer actually IN Mt. Gretna or used for obtaining detailed speed data (as Chief Harris touted that it was capable of when the trailer was acquired).









There are even more pix like these from that time period--but I think the point is made...

who is paying

At the last Borough meeting, our solicitor, Keith Kilgore, described how he is requesting to look at individual residents' tax filings (for years 2004 through 2006, presumed) in the process of representing us in this EIT "over/under payment" settlement debate.

Since he, and his law firm partner, represent allegedly overpaid municipalities (our category) AND alleged underpaid municipalities in this discussion, I have three questions for him:

1. Is he charging us for his time spent requesting and reviewing those tax returns and associated documents?

2. And when he gleans information from reviewing those documents, how much of that is he going to share with the other municipalities--like the alleged underpaids that he or his law firm partner represent?

3. And what does he expect to learn that will really address this issue?

If Foltz was indeed embezzling EIT payments, he likely was pulling individual local tax filings as his office received them and absconding, in some way with the individual's payment--and destroying the actual filing. Which means that a review of even local filings for the period in question will likely show some filings missing. Maybe the individual DID file local EIT filings and someone took the file, or maybe the individual did NOT file at all. Either way, Kilgore is likely to find that even some Mt. Gretna residents have no local file in those Iron Mountain boxes. If he does find that, will he really "report" that to the appropriate authorities, no matter who it may be without a local file?

Who is really watching where our money goes?

Does anyone know who the financial secretary and the treasurer is for the Sewer and Water Authority?

and for the Mt. Gretna Borough?

and for the Chautauqua?

and for the Art Show?

And who writes the checks that pays the bills for each of these entities?

Does anyone know how much revenue these bodies take in a year, combined?

and, do you know what their combined expenses are, annually and how much of a difference there is in those two numbers?

Does anyone know exactly how many staff the Borough has?

the water authority?

the sewer authority?

the Chautauqua?

More importantly, does anyone know exactly how many times we pay Bill Care for public works work here in our 87 acres? and how much is he paid for work in other locations, like at our neighbors...? Is he the Boro's public works director, and a director or consultant for a neighbor, for the Sewer Authority, for the Water Authority, for the Chautauqua? Just how many roles do he and Linda Bell have and how many times are they getting paid?


and how do we know that these entities are really separated when their contact information, leadership, and office location are all the same and the monies and checkbook are all controlled by the same persons? How do we know where our money is going--who can tell us with any sort of certainty and transparency?

Please feel free to make your anonymous responses to these questions.

But know that, according to my research, I can only find that three persons control the largest flow of money in and out of these 87 acres and that no one is really looking over their work. I also found that we have almost a MILLION bucks coming through here and only around $700,000 of it is accounted for in the budgets (when combined). Further, I have found no verification process for the tickets sold and cash received for the Art Show, which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I also have not been able to confirm what any entity has for staff (at council meetings, Care says the boro has 5 full time staff, on state documents, he says that the Sewer Authority has 5, just as an example), and thereby can not confirm labor expenses, benefits expenses, and "cost-sharing" arrangements--and I don't see how the auditor general--in determining public entities compliance with laws related to receipt of state funds, can really decipher these apparently undocumented "cost-sharing" arrangements, especially where the arrangements involve a private corporation like the Chautauqua.

I further can not imagine why a public official that handles almost a million dollars a year in public money--and who was the one handling taxes/revenue that the "borough" is accused of taking too much of, would take out well over $600,000 in mortgages since 2003, all secured by a house not nearly worth that amount, and from the same bank---AND pay $575,000 of those mortgages back in less than 18 months, as a routine, with the largest one taken and repaid that way being for $350,000. And, why would that official, or their spouse urge any of these entities to transfer the
entity's own accounts to this bank that has supplied them with mortgages exceeding the value of their home and that never exist longer than 18 months--especially when that bank does not provide FDIC depositor's insurance? If that official has a family member or friend working there, shouldn't that have been disclosed?

And, with all this sharing of costs and revenues, office space, staff and leadership that exists between allegedly separate entities, doesn't the legal distinction (and liability protection) fade away like piss in the katrina wind? Isn't this where someone shouts out, "Its like "piercing the corporate veil", or like getting a divorce judgment, and then moving back in with each other and comingling funds long enough to be judged common law spouses anyway?

To me, it strongly appears that all these separate entities within the 87 acres here really are intended to be a "paperwork" sham to cloud the money trail and to allow certain persons to benefit personally beyond their one full-time salary. Ergo, I can see why any one of these "gatekeepers", like Bill Care, would get nervous when I started poking around and asking questions back in January about our political infrastructure and money. I can also see, if there was misconduct involved, why they would want to try to scare or harass my partner and I into leaving Mt. Gretna. For those with lots to hide, it makes apparent sense that my persistence triggered a very serious tightening of the anal sphincter.

But, like with other residents requests, mine were also essentially ignored as if they never existed. Perhaps these officials think that if they create this dysfunctional denial pattern where they treat our inquiries as if they never happened, we all will carry on as if they never existed. This "false reality" gives explanation as to why somebody like Bill Care is shocked speechless by my partner's directness the day she went to him face to face and asked to know why the Cornwall Police refused to take our report on the off-duty Middletown police officer that "patrolled" our home and eventually came to our property to threaten and harass us. You see, Care responded to her by threatening us further, and she--being strongly aware that the conversation was really about his intent to harass us into leaving Mt. Gretna and our awareness of his intent, jumped right to replying that we would be more than happy to just sell our home to him--he doesn't have to threaten us, and that the Borough should just make an offer.

You see, its likely that he couldn't respond to that because, in his mind, he also knew the real context of his statements and he really had to think before saying something that confirmed the real context that was just admitted. Normally, if a person's underlying context of a conversation is innocent, they can respond almost immediately to apparent non-sequitors like that, saying something like, "What?"

See how simple that was. But, when you know your context is subversive or could get you into trouble, a statement by the other party that calls out your hidden context catches you like a sinkhole in your path. Thus, this behavior of his (along with statements made by other residents describing his conduct) shows me that he was committed--before my partner even showed up in his office, to a context of making her--and me, out to be criminals and threatening her based on that context. And this is the most likely reason why he wasn't ready to talk frankly about how to get rid of my inquisitiveness into his conduct as a public official.

But, even if he knows that I know what misconduct might be going on, he doesn't know the extent of my knowledge and therefore he can't risk offending me so much that he can't feign interested and innocent conversations with me--which he has done even after threatening my partner. He can also try to discover more information about me--information with which to further harass me and my family, through these conversations, and through soliciting information from other residents, the police, and even from me. Again, we may have a very naive and pure expectation of our community leaders, but we are smart enough to know about fishing and to know about about retaliation--and, having studied interview techniques and from representing alleged criminals, I certainly know how "guilty" people react and how they try to subversively protect and defend themselves.

One tactic is to try to tarnish the credibility of the "accuser" or the discoverer of misconduct. I mean really, public officials like Care don't accept how guilty it looks to organize, or even to participate in, throwing a whole slew of criminal allegations at perfectly upstanding middle-aged citizens with hardly a traffic ticket to their names--and to do so just as one of those citizen's research into those officials' public conduct has uncovered some very serious questions and concerns. And, don't they know that the more you do to cover your trail of misconduct and bad intentions, the more you give yourself away--and that certainly is true when you engage others in your retaliation towards the innocent citizen.

You see, for me, Care's behavior pretty much confirms that there is something very wrong going on here--and by targeting two upstanding middle-aged professional women who give in in-numerous ways to their community, he has let his "cat" out of the bag. I mean, really, what is the point--just show us where the money goes, show us all your own sources of income and possible conflicts, and make our lives safer by having traffic laws enforced. It is crystal clear to me that he is asking you and I to believe that it is easier and more appropriate for him to threaten and to engage in a pattern of conduct with the intent of running two responsible and contributing residents out of town than it is to respond to any of the concerned residents of this community who just want their community made more transparent and safer.

But, for the time being, I am still here, and the information I uncover about our public officials' behavior and use of our money only leads to more and more questions--not answers. I just hope that if something happens to me--like a speeding car nails me coming out of my driveway, or if I am "accidently" shot by a "hunter," that someone will keep looking for the answers and hold public officials accountable for their conduct. I also welcome your comments if you can clarify or add transparency or accountability to the questions first presented in this post.

Budget Analysis: Expenses Wages and Benefits burden of $400,000?!

Why should this figure be a red flag for us? Well, because we are a VERY small municipality, and this figure represents relatively large burdens for us. To compound the problem, because of our staff's pension benefits that we are paying into today, we, our grandchildren, and future residents, will be incurring this burden well into the future while receiving no benefit from this expense. This is another reason why, again, Mt. Gretnans pay so much more per capita annually ($2300+) to our municipality than similarly situated municipalities ($200-1000/year/capita).

And, let's not forget that the boro "shares" this staff with the Chautauqua--an incorporated homeowners association with little oversight or obligation to transparency as compared with a municipality or an authority.

Don't forget to review the Revenue side of things--its posted in the previous post, below. Please remember though, that I had to use a previous actual budget for the Chauatauqua Art Show, and the other data is from the 2010 Proposed Budgets.




2010 Proposed Budgets Analysis: Expenses

TRANSFERS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Chautauqua (Art Show), contribution to boro --15,500 ** (18% of gate receipts)
Chautauqua (Art Show), Contribution to boro-- 2,000 ( cultural grant)
Chautauqua (Art Show), transfer to PA Chaut. B&G -- 1,800
Chautauqua (Art Show), transfer to PA Chaut GenFund -- 5,027
Chautauqua (Art Show), transfer to PA Chautauqua Fdtn --10,000
Chautauqua (GenFund), Transfer to Sewer Fund -- 101,141
Chautauqua (GenFund), Transfer to Garbage Fund --36,170
Chautauqua (GenFund), Allocation to Summer Programs-- 3,000

>>>>>> 174,638 CHAUT TRANSFERS TOTAL

EQUIPMENT/RELATED
Chautauqua (Art Show), shuttle bus -- 8,160
Chautauqua (GenFund), Eqpmt rental -- 6,897
Chautauqua (GenFund), Street lights -- 11,000
Boro, Eqpmt use and maint -- 2,220
Sewer Authority, Eqpmt use and maint. -- 6,990
Water Authority, Eqpmt use and maint -- 4,730
Sewer Authority, Equipmt purchase -- 4,000

Sewer Authority, Cap Eqpmt Allocation -- 20,000
Sewer Authority, Cap Outlay Allocation -- 10,000

Boro, gas -- 3,072
Sewer Authority, gas -- 4,000

Chautauqua (Art Show), food court-water heater -- 3,548
Chautauqua (B&G), capital x-boardroom -- 3,000
Chautauqua (B&G), cap x-gift shop -- 2,500

Boro, Supplies and repairs-boro bldg -- 400
Chautauqua (B&G), Supplies (all bldgs) 3,500

Boro, Repairs to Eqpmt -- 5,000
Sewer Authority, repairs to eqpmt -- 8,000
Water Authority, repairs to eqpmt -- 417


OPERATING
Boro, repairs to roads -- 6,324
Boro, street signs -- 500
Chautauqua (Art Show), application/jury system -- 4,664
Chautauqua (Art Show), entertainment -- 4,900
Chautauqua (Art Show), jury day expenses -- 3,623
Chautauqua (Art Show), reseed park -- 52
Sewer Authority, repairs to Treatment Plant -- 10,000
Sewer Authority, sludge disposal -- 12,000

Boro, Operating supplies -- 400
Chautauqua (Art Show), awards -- 2,199
Chautauqua (Art Show), operating supplies -- 2,543
Sewer Authority, Operating Supplies -- 5,000
Water Authority, operating supplies -- 150
Water Authority, treatment supplies -- 10,000

Boro, Advertising and Printing -- 617
Chautauqua (Art Show), Advertising -- 4,500**
Sewer Authority, Advertising and Printing -- 400
Water Authority, Advertising and PR -- 100

Chautauqua (GenFund), communication -- 1,900

Boro, Office supplies -- 600
Chautauqua (Art Show), admin supplies -- 307
Chautauqua (GenFund), Office Supplies -- 500
Sewer Authority, Office Supplies -- 550
Water Authority, Office supplies -- 500
Sewer Authority, Office equip purchase -- 400
Sewer Authority, Office equip repair -- 600
>>>>>>> 3,457 OFFICE STUFF TOTAL

Boro, Phones and radios -- 2,000
Sewer Authority, Phones and radios -- 900
Water Authority, Phones and radios -- 900
>>>>> 3,800 PHONES & RADIOS TOTAL

But, as far as I can tell, these entities all have the same office and phones and radios…




FACILITY RELATED

Boro, rent-boardroom -- 400

Chautauqua (GenFund), rent-boro bldg -- 3,500
Sewer Authority, rent-boro bldg -- 5,000
Water Authority, rent-boro bldg -- 1,300

Boro, rent-office -- 1,817
Sewer Authority, rent-office -- 1,317

Chautauqua (B&G), Utilities, Boardroom -- 1,480 (381 sewer, 464 water)

>>>>>>>> 13334 RENTS PAID TOTAL

Boro, Utilities-boro building -- 2,221
Chautauqua (GenFund), Utilities-boro bldg -- 1,700 (includes insurance)
Sewer Authority, Utilities-boro bldg -- 1,000
Water Authority, Utilities-boro bldg -- 1,000

>>>>>>> 5921 BORO BLDG UTILITIES TOTAL

Boro, Utilities-Office -- 1,141
Chautauqua (B&G), Office -- 1,649 (127 sewer, 155 water)
Sewer Authority, Utilities-Office -- 500
Water Authority, Utilities-office -- 500

>>>>>>>> 3790 OFFICE UTILITIES TOTAL

Boro, tax collection supplies and fees -- 690
Chautauqua (GenFund), Director’s and Official Insurance -- 2,250
Sewer Authority, Dues and Memberships -- 1,000
Chautauqua (Art Show), Workshop registration -- 395


STAFFING RELATED (“full-time/permanent”) $395,877

Boro, tax collector’s bond -- 144 (L. Bell)
Boro, Financial Secretary’s Bond -- 474 (L. Bell)
Sewer Authority, Financial secretary’s bond-- 200 (L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)
Water Authority, Financial Secretary’s bond-- 200(L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)

Boro, Financial Secretary’ Salary -- 17,063 (L.Bell)
Chautauqua's Financial Secretary --No figure reported (L. Bell)

Sewer Authority, Financial Secretary’s salary-- 10,250 (L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)

Water Authority, Financial Secretary’s salary-- 4,700 (L. Bell? or maybe L. Bell's husband, M. Bell?)

>>>>>>>> 32,013 FINANCIAL SEC. SALARY TOTAL

It is also my understanding that tax and fee collectors get a commission based on the amounts that they collect.

Boro, FICA/Medicare -- 3,928
Chautauqua (GenFund), FICA/Medicare -- 4,851
Sewer Authority, FICA/Medicare -- 8,110
Water Authority, FICA/Medicare -- 3,763
>>>>>> 20,652 FICA/MEDICARE TOTAL

Chautauqua (GenFund), Dental/Vision Ins -- 1,626
Chautauqua (GenFund), Disability ins. -- 1,438
Chautauqua (GenFund), Health America -- 17,375
Boro, Employee Benefits -- 12,260
Sewer Authority, Employee Benefits -- 29,005
Water Authority, Employee Benefits -- 14,799
Chautauqua (GenFund), Pension Buy Back Prgm -- 1,340
>>>>>>> 77,843 BENEFITS TOTAL

Boro, Labor Salaries -- 34,283
Chautauqua (Art Show), labor services -- 1,425
Sewer Authority, Labor salaries -- 95,760
Sewer Authority, Director and Manager fee -- 2,160
Water Authority, Labor salaries -- 44,495
Chautauqua (GenFund), Labor Services -- 63,417
Chautauqua (GenFund), Office of the Secretary -- 600
>>>>>> 242,140 LABOR TOTAL

Boro, Pension -- 4,652
Chautauqua (GenFund), Pension -- 5,787
Sewer Authority, Pension -- 12,290
Water Authority, Pension -- 500
>>>>>> 23,229 PENSION TOTAL


Chautauqua (Art Show), Parking- MG Fire Dept-- 11,409** (13.25% of gate receipts)
Chautauqua (Art Show), Parking-Philhaven -- 2,200
Chautauqua (Art Show), Parking-Lots and Tents -- 11,135
Chautauqua (Art Show), traffic police/Security -- 16,909
(This obviously can't be for two days of art show. Its more like that this money is really spent on parking staff throughout the summer, which can be a couple/three thousand a month and may be "repaid" in "relative portions" by leaseholders with summer businesses, including the Jiggershop, which is owned and operated by the Boro Council President. However, the determination of his portion of that expense is not established via contract--at least not a contract that the Boro showed to me. And, I asked to see them all, including leases--which, are contracts for property interests.)
Chautauqua (GenFund), Temp Force Labor -- 5,000
Sewer Authority, Temp Force labor -- 2,042

Boro, Workman’s Comp -- 2,072
Chautauqua (GenFund), Workman’s Comp -- 2,320
Sewer Authority, Workman’s Comp -- 3,968
Water Authority, Workman’s Comp -- 1,711

Boro, Insurance (gen, car, prop, e&o) -- 4,884
Chautauqua (Art Show), insurance -- 5,018
Chautauqua (GenFund), auto -- 391
Sewer Authority, Insurance (gen, car, prop, e&o)-- 8,035
Water Authority, Insurance (“) -- 3,575

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EXPENSES (“repetitive” and “unique”)

Boro, Police Contract -- 28,467
Chautauqua (Art Show),ems services -- 1,560

Sewer Authority, Engineering Services -- 6000

Boro, solicitor -- 10,500
Chautauqua (GenFund), solicitor -- 3,500 (Kilgore)
Sewer Authority, solicitor -- 2,500 (Kilgore)
Water Authority, solicitor -- 500 (Kilgore)
Chautauqua (GenFund), other legal fees -- 400 (Kilgore)


Boro, Auditing -- 6,200
Chautauqua (Art Show), Auditing -- 2,200
Chautauqua (B&G), Auditing -- 1,560 (unable to confirm professional)
Chautauqua (GenFund), Auditing -- 3,978 (unable to confirm professional)
Sewer Authority, Auditing -- 2,950 (unable to confirm professional)
Water Authority, Auditing -- 3,350 (unable to confirm professional)

OTHER EXPENSES (“uniqueness” to one entity “certain”)
Chautauqua (B&G), Utilities, Phil. Hall -- 5,161 (456 sewer, 614 water, 165 waste)
Chautauqua (B&G), Garages/restrooms -- 1,155 (228 sewer, 307 water)
Chautauqua (B&G), Gift shop -- 1,675
Chautauqua (B&G), Lodge -- 7,996 (456 sewer, 614 water)
Chautauqua (B&G), improved parks -- 12,415 ( gen exp 2k, landscaping 2.5K, tree maint. 5k, tree purchases 0)
Chautauqua (B&G), unimproved parks -- 3,253 (tree maint 2k)
Chautauqua (B&G), Playground -- 8,774 (labor 4300, FICA/Medicare 329)
Chautauqua (B&G), Post Office -- 2,485 (456 sewer, 614 water)
Chautauqua (B&G), Visitor’s Info Center -- 2,193 (228 sewer, 307 water)*

Sewer Authority, Utilities-treatment Plant -- 5,500
Water Authority, Utilities-plant -- 7,100


* Theater not listed in Chautauqua B&G’s budget

**The Mt. Gretna Art Show, which is reported in the PA Chautauqua’s IRS files (990’s), is a serious cash generator as well as a serious expense for us. Therefore, I think it should certainly be considered in this analysis. However, because I only have the Art Show’s 2007 Budget to Actuals, I had to use those figures.

It requires lots of resources to execute the set up and break down within our community—on our grounds. The Boro apparently hires temporary help for this, and our staff is used extensively to set up, break down, and to prepare (i.e. installing permanent power stations throughout our Art Show area), and to repair the damage done to our improved parks. For example, this year, we had to resod a significant area of grassy area that rutted—a “soggy” situation that was certainly exacerbated by the trampling of thousands of people and tons of weight. Our monies and staff accomplished this “repair”. Also, I have not been shown any contract describing such an arrangement (although, again, I did ask the Boro to look at all contracts), it is rather common knowledge that the Art Show “splits” its revenues with at least the Boro, and the Fire dept., but that that “revenue” is not budgeted by them. It seems like it is treated more like a “donation” from another entity within this geo-political boundary ---an entity that claims to be completely independent from all others here even though it uses a significant amount of our monies and resources yet maintains that it is not accountable to us in any way for quality of life concerns we present to them.

Also, it appears as if the theater is not really owned and operated by the PA Chautauqua, but, rather by another non-profit, the Mount Gretna Arts Council. This council, of which one member is Dale Grundon and the contact is listed as Keith Kilgore, appears to be taking depreciation for this building on its own 990’s. Further, there is a PA Chautauqua Foundation, which claims things like the Cicada Festival, and this non-profit has the same officer composition and contact info as the PA Chautauqua, which is the same as the Boro, and the two authorities, as far as I can tell.

If you have any other info clarifying or confirming these comments, please make a comment and let me know what your source is--I am sure that we would all like to see documentation to confirm all this, and not just memory or hearsay. Thanks.

Budget Analysis: Revenue of a Million Bucks for Mt. Gretna?!

Ok, so the Chautauqua, the Boro, and the Water Authority and the Sewer Authority have published their proposed budgets for 2010. As, for example, the Boro's budget indicates that it is around $150,000, and that I was told that the Boro is engaged only in 5 contracts (1 police and 4 snow removal), AND that the Boro's public works director answered at the last council meeting that we only have 5 fulltime staff (not six, as the new guy we have been seeing since, oh AUgust, is a TempForce guy) a $150,000 Boro budget seemed a little "short" for me. The glaring but unspoken fact must be that there is some "cost sharing" "plant sharing" and maybe even "revenue sharing" going on between these entities.

So, I looked at all the budgets for these four entities. This post will include the revenues analysis. The next includes the Expenses Analysis. Please remember though, that I had to use a previous actual budget for the Chauatauqua Art Show, and the other data is from the 2010 Proposed Budgets.

Our 87 acres takes in almost a Million Bucks a year, which is one reason why our municipal "efficiency" numbers are through the roof, relatively speaking. Where our neighbors and similarly sized municipalities never receive more than $1000 per capita, we are at $2300+.

Where our neighbors--also participants in our water and sewer authority pay $1100 for five services (water, sewer, trash/leave/snow removal), we in Mt. Gretna pay close to $1900.And, in addition to paying the "fee" for water and sewer, we are also responsible for the salary and benefits paid to the same staff who are all on our payrolls: the Chaut, the Boro, the Water Authority, and the Sewer Authority Compared to rates in big cities, like Philadelphia, it still looks bad: for a full-time resident in Philadelphia, the water AND sewer bill averages about $450 a year.

Don't be fooled--there is no gold in our drinking water and our sewer pipes don't sing happy jingles to us when we flush. (Note that "infrastructure" work or improvements is a different assessment, so those figures don't effect these comments.)


Have a look for yourself:


2010 Proposed Budgets Analysis: REVENUE

Revenue

Chautauqua Art Show receipts -- 187,362 (2007 data)
Chautauqua HOA fees (1275 x 221) -- 280,000 (approx)*
Chautauqua Bldgs and Grounds, Leases -- 52,305
Chautauqua (B&G), allocation from capital project -- 8500



Boro, Intergovernmental Transfers -- Not in budget
Boro, snow removal contracts -- 8,600
Boro, tax revenues -- 87,488
Boro, Cable -- 4600
Boro, Liquid Fuels -- not in budget

Sewer Authority, Assessments** -- 188,000 (289,750 – Chaut transfer)

Water Authority, Assessments** -- 106,340

>>>>>>>>>>> 923,195 Rough total of Income

OTHER INCOME (“certain/sole” source)

Chautauqua, State Pension Aid -- 3,819
Sewer Authority, State Pension Aid -- 6,500
Water Authority, State Pension Aid -- 3,000

Boro, Art show admissions -- 16,000


OTHER INCOME (“uncertain/shared” source)

Boro, rental of boro building -- 9800

Boro, rental of equipmt -- 13511
Sewer Authority, rental of equipment -- 7327

Boro, Labor Services, MG Playhouse -- 5,956






Notes:
1. Neither the theater nor the Art Show are in the budget. The theater may be operated by another entity, but the art show is all PA Chautauqua, thus is included in the Chautauqua data. (See expense analysis notes in next post). As the Art Show generates nearly 250K in revenue annually, and has significant expenses that are often either directly or indirectly passed on to the budgets of the boro, tranparency requires that the Art Show numbers be included.

2. Now what does the Chaut. do with those assessments collected:
They pass 101K on to the Sewer Fund, leaving about 150K for maintenance of our infrastructure. However, the budget shows that that seems to be a piecemeal endeavor, at best. A lot of it seems to be operating expenses, rather than maintenance. See the expense analysis in next post.

3. Sewer and water fees appear to be egregiously inflated. First, neighboring municipalities that are also on our systems pay a flat out fee of about 1100 a year for sewer, water, snow removal, leave removal, etc. Adding all our fees up gets us to about 1800 bucks a year. Second, when we were using metered water, we were paying about 400 a year—and that was living in the house full time, which a lot of our homeowners around here do not do.

4. Before going on to the Expense Analysis, take note of which entity is claiming rental revenue (as opposed to lease revenue)--in other words, who is renting what building/space to whom here, where the "rentor's" office is located. Also, look at phone numbers, who is listed as "in charge," office supplies and equipment expenses, etc. A couple of months ago, I asked to see all the Boro's contracts and was presented with only police and snow removal. From this, I can only conclude that there is no "agreement" between these entities to "share" office space, office equipment, comunications equipment, and, especially, to share staffing. So how do we know who's clock or use paperclip anyone is on around here?
* From the 2010 proposed budget break down:

Chautauqua, Sewer Assessments -- 84,391
Chautauqua, Sewer Main replacement fee -- 16,200
Chautauqua, Home Waste Assessment -- 35,970
Chautauqua, Maintenance Assessment -- 146,970
>>>>>>Total: 283,531

**I assumed that these assessments include more than assessments from the residents of MGB.
It is also unclear to me why the Chautauqua’s sewer, garbage, and maintenance revenue streams are in their General Funds budget, and not in their Buildings and Grounds Budget.

Election Results

Well, even though detailed election results are not available yet (the write-in votes are not specific as to what name may have been written in), the LebCo website posted enough results data to make interesting observations and comments.

First, the Mt. Gretna position that received the most votes was for the Inspector of Election--with a total of 71 votes cast between two candidates. From this, we can assume that at least 71 MG voters turned out on Tuesday.

Second, two MGBoro positions were essentially totally ignored by even those 71 voters who did show up on Tuesday. The Assessor's position received one vote only--and that was for a write-in. Congrats to that person...And, the MG Boro Tax Collector position received only 6 votes--again, all cast for a write-in. The question now is, "How will those offices be filled?"

It is possible that there is a "majority" within the write-in, so would that person be "elected?" Or will the boro council "appoint" two persons to these two offices? If the incumbents for both positions did not run as candidates during this election, and if almost all of MG voters rejected the opportunity to cast their votes for the incumbents as a write-in, wouldn't that be a clear message to the council that the incumbents do not want the position anymore AND that the MG voters don't want the incumbents anymore? So, it will be interesting to see who the council appoints...

Third, if only 71 voters turned out on Tuesday, and more than a third of those votes were cast for write-ins, is that a sign of anything? I mean, I assume that a voter is not allowed to cast the same name as a write-in three times on the same ballot. So, that would mean that one voter's repetition of the same name would only count once, and that there were 25 distinct votes cast for someone other than a council incumbent. Or, to look at it another way, even if each voter could write-in "no confidence" in all three of their slots for boro council and the vote counters counted all three as three separate write-in votes, that means at least 9 people had the courage to cast a write-in vote.

Since it should be fairly obvious that I didn't vote 9 times (or 25 times) on Tuesday, I find comfort in knowing that there are at least 8 (and maybe 25) others out there with this kind of courage. That said, I hope the numbers provide our local elected officials with the motivation to also use their votes and decision-making powers with thoughtfulness and courage to "buck the trend." After-all, it is apparent now that there are allies out there that they can rely on when it comes to considering certain issues.

See the results at
http://www.lebcounty.org/lebanon/lib/lebanon/UnofficialFinalResults110309_0951p.HTM

Kathy Snavely and moral and financial bankruptcy

With great humor I read this email conversation that I had earlier this year with Kathy Snavely.
Her comments are in black, and my responses to her comments are in blue.

Even she, as far back as March of this year, can't shake the Mt. Gretna Myopia and see the reality of what kind of community the Chautauqua Board and the Borough Council have created for us and for themselves.

The best line from her is the p.s. (having the smallest Boro in the state). EXACTLY--listen, I am making these bumber stickers that say "3/87/170" That means: 3.2 miles of paved road, 87 acres of land, and 170 registered voters. Yet we have a public works crew, a fleet of public works machinery, vehicles, and equipment, pension plans and obligations that our grandchildren will be paying on, police service contracts that add no policing value to the community and automatically increase at 6% a year, 2 administrative boards, and a summer programs schedule that often attracts more of the coordinator's groupies than real audience members.

I met a guy the other day who said he was on the board in a neighboring town, where he dropped two staff, lowered taxes, and still closed his budget while also giving out raises. He was quick to say "just file bankruptcy." While I was laughing at the impossibility of our boro council thoroughly considering ALL possibilities, let alone this one, he jumped right in and said "I bet you even have a police contract. Bankruptcy will get you out of that contract, too." I said, "well, I don't see how it can hurt our credit rating." To which he replied, "Well, at least you ought to let two staff go and dump the police contract. That oughtta about make up for your $50,000 deficit, right?" Right. Who does the boro serve, anyway? Me or our employees...?

Anyway, the conversation between Snavely and I is posted at this link:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZATkbVJQ0FiZGZzMnd4Y2tfNGNoODd2NGhn&hl=en


And, for those of you who have been following the inside scoop, where Snavely has recently admitted to me, in writing, that she has been reporting my conversations to police, politicians, etc, note my explicit request to keep our conversation confidential, to which she agreed later in the conversation. Please also note who, of the two of us keeps trying to divert from my real concern--which is the deteriorating quality of life here, by mischaracterizing my concerns as much more specific than they really are.

Somebody's gonna be doin' some 'splainin'.... I only hope that we get back to part where some of the humor comes back into the dialogue...

Sidewalk to nowhere

Records from the recent paving of State road 117 indicate that our own Bill Care had urged, during the planning meetings for this project, that crosswalks be painted at the intersection of 117 and Pinch Rd. Now, why this was of interest to him was not recorded. But I suspect that it is because it is a dangerous intersection--frought with fatal peril.

However, when the project actually went down, the state said to Care, essentially, the entrance to the Campmeeting, across Pinch, leads to, aaahh, nowhere. So, they can't do the painted crosswalk there.

So, since that rejection, Care has been hell-bent to make a "receiver" end for that painted crosswalk that he wants across Pinch. Let's also admit that it gives his staff something to do for a month or so, as well as an excuse to use his "big toys." With a sidewalk in front of P&W's home, he can now request his coveted painted crosswalk.

Let's now talk about the reality of that scenario.
First, the Borough Council is not acting responsively to its constituents by carrying out this project. The Council has received any number of written and formal complaints about this type of "development" within the Chatuaqua. However, the Borough Council has never acknowledged and incorporated these concerns into their actions. Instead, they just do things like this project on the sly. FOr example, in the Sept. Borough Council meeting, they tabled this sidewalk project, essentially until P&W die. [That's a paraphrase of Care's comments, but I have it available on dvd for your review, if you would like to see for yourself.]

Second, you and your neighbor's elected this council, and, well, they can do what ever they want in this regard. As long as they spend less than ten thousand a pop, there basically isn't much to keep them in check.

Third, as with MANY other MGB commitments, this project serves noresident or property owner in MGB. It starts across the street in the Campmeeting, runs across a private citizen's property, and ends in, well, a road. It does not connect with another sidewalk, a park, a bench, nothing pedestrian or ped-like. Further, it does nothing to address the reasons WHY that intersection may be dangerous. And, whats more interesting, is that the residents that have really driven home the reason why that intersection is dangerous, have been ostracized and targeted for police harassment--all under the authoritative umbrella of authority from Care and the Council.

Fourth, the Chautauqua Board has adopted a "no more tree cutting" resolution, which applies to this project. Or, is supposed to apply---but is not really being enforced.

In the next couple of days I will post the video of the council tabling this project, and pictures of how it leads to nowhere. In the meantime, we are grieving the loss of a family friend-Toby. However, if anyone feels like it, I have the name of an attorney who is adept at filing Sunshine Act violations and will also file an injunction on this matter. I will gladly share it with you at your request.

"MGB, where incestuousness is the political standard?

At the risk of annoying those few persons in my community that I find have enough of that thing called integrity to show me that they deserve my respect, this post is going to be very frank. Mind you: you must read this post thoroughly, and repeat it accurately, for none of these people have said that they want to run for Borough Council in this Nov 3 election. I just think they--or people like them should be the ones at the helm right now, for we certainly seem to be in that political conundrum where the people who really have a sense of "representational" government and integrity in government also recognize the enormity of the burden and the commitment it takes to meet the task. So, they decline to run for things like boro council--and we are left with second best--if we are lucky.

So, I wrote to Santa yesterday and I asked him to make Nov 4, 2009 the day when I wake up to find that persons like Karl Gettle, Roberta Warshaw, and Bill Barlow have been elected to boro council. So, to my knowledge, based on all my review of public material, discussions with officials, and review of the laws, I think that:

1. The incumbents have proven completely unresponsive to citizen concerns. In fact, I have been trying to "make an appointment" to speak with one incumbent since before the Art Show. Apparently, spending time learning of your constituents' concerns is an option in Mt. Gretna. But I can't really say that that particular incumbent isn't just following her council president's lead-I also know him to never have responded to a constituent's concerns. By the way, he is also an incumbent this year.

2.Let's pull up our sleeves and stick our hands right in the dishwater. Our incumbent council president is the person responsible for the financial and administrative operations of our borough. And, here's what he has allowed to happen:

A. He has allowed our tax collector to apparently fail her duties--and is trying to pass resolving that financial disaster on to us. By law, our Earned Income Tax collector is required each year to reconcile the EIT monies and to repay any overpayment. However, Mt. Gretna Borough is being accused of being overpaid EIT for many years--to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. It seems to me that the only way for us to accumulate overpayments is for our tax collector NOT to have performed the required annual reconciliation. And, its a red herring to throw up, as a defense, that calls were made to the then EIT director and he said everything is fine. PA employers, also by law, are required to withhold their employees EIT AND to report those witholdings to the PA Dept of Revenue quarterly. The tax collectors certainly have access to that data, at least, which only means that they may have to wait three months or so for it.

B. He has allowed public equipment and personnel to be used for private gain. It is my understanding that staff like Bill Care and "his guys"--and our machinery, vehicles, and other equipment, are used to do things like re-grade roads in the Campmeeting or Heights. However, when I asked to see all the Boro's contracts, I was only shown three snow-plowing contracts and one police services contract. So, for example, I am only left to conclude that no contracts exist with Care for his personal use of our equipment or staff, or for accommodating his work as an independent contractor for any other entity. Nor can I conclude that there is any contract for MGB resources to be supplied to any other homeowners association or municipality.

C. He has allowed a slew of conflicting relationships to exist--none of which provide any benefit--either out of convenience or cost savings. He has allowed our city solicitor to represent us as well as the "enemy" on this alleged EIT overpayment issue. He has allowed the city solicitor to represent him and the boro in his personal real estate agreements with MGB--the very entity in which he is council president. He has allowed the tax collector and "bookkeeper" and our treasurer to be a married couple--under the law, spouses enjoy what we call "spousal immunity" when it comes to things like testifying against your "better half." This means that even if the treasurer, and the audit which he is responsible for generating each year, find something amiss, there are some serious questions as to whether he could publish that finding-especially if it leads to legal action.

D. He routinely violates our right to participate in municipal proceedings and discussions. He allows items of public interest to be tabled, while instructing/allowing staff to carry out the tabled item anyway, and he makes decisions without providing the public access to them. For example, the boro apparently reduced its staff size by one, yet I know of no public discussion of that issue. Reducing staff size is NOT a confidential matter--how you tell that person that his/her position is gone is confidential, however. So there is no excuse for us finding out through the grapevine that the Water Authority has "picked up" one of our staff.

Second example: at the Sept. Council meeting, the issue of taking a portion of Peter and Walter's land, cutting down more trees and paving a sidewalk from Campmeeting entrance to---nowhere in the Chautauqua, was tabled--for years. To paraphrase Allwein, he said that the budget right now couldn't afford it, and that Peter and Walter wouldn't own that property forever. Care's interjection was something like "Yeh, they'll be dead at some point." And, the issue was tabled until there were different owners to attempt to get them to contract away their land to the Boro. [Additionally, at the Sept Chautauqua meeting, the Board adopted a resolution placing a moratorium on cutting down trees in the Chaut.] Yet, just last Monday, Care and his crew started this project anyway, which will including cutting down at least 4 more trees in addition to the one that they cut down Monday. Again--the sidewalk leads to no where in the Chautauqua--travel lanes and parking areas for automobiles do not count, there simply is no place at the end of the proposed sidewalk to properly and safely receive pedestrians. If the intersection is an issue--perhaps dealing with it properly is in order...

I found what I consider to be a host of these examples, and Allwein himself admitted at the Sept Boro Council meeting that he has had, and intends to continue having, private discussions about public matters.

D. He has failed to present himself with transparency and the kind of integrity that we should expect from our representatives. In his campaign ethics disclosure, he fails to admit that he has an indirect real estate interest (his Jiggershop lease), that his lease has clauses in it that result in a interest in other leases and matters of both the Chautauqua and the Boro, that he has real estate agreements with the Boro, etc. The Boro budget also has a "Jiggershop" account, out of which it pays a relatively small portion of the temporary parking staff that is hired throughout the summer. Where is the contract for this, when was/is it negotiated, and why didn't I get to see that? More importantly, why is the Jiggershop's apparent burden so small compared to the other leaseholders in the Boro? Does Allwein recuse himself when it comes to parking issues? And, how many of these other types of "sweet deals" are there for him with the Boro?

It is time to pry open all these nasty little redundancies, overlaps, and deficiencies: just exactly how many ways are we going to allow staff to make money off our resources and our fees and tax money. Is Bill Care really our municipal works guy and a "private consultant" to the water authority or to any other municipality? Does he clock off the boro clock when he changes hats? If the EIT system was so poorly checked on that EIT collectors across the state are able to hold on to revenues without impunity--to the tune of $811,000 alone by the Leb Co EIT collector., and nobody's been checking on our EIT collector, who has any real idea what's been happening in MGB regarding EIT--or with any other monies going through our borough.

I think this confluence of events makes it imperative that we change the leadership in our community. Which is why I will not be casting one single vote for any of the three incumbents, but will be writing in three names of those I think would do a better job. I think of it as kind of a "vote of no confidence."

Honest and Open Government

I came across this preamble the other day while reading about our state's Open Records Law, it completely summarizes the concerns that I have heard from many of you regarding Mt. Gretna Borough Council (and the Chautauqua Board activities). So, I thought I would print it here for you, and provide you with the link.

"Ensuring open and honest government is a bedrock principle of democracy. It can only be attained through the unfettered exchange of information between citizens and their government. A citizen’s right-to-know, sometimes known as freedom of information, fosters accountability, prevents abuses of power and promotes trust in government. "

PA's right-to-know law is codified in Act 3 of 2008, and the state has a website about it for us at:

http://openrecords.state.pa.us/

PA's Sunshine Act, which can be found here http://www.dced.state.pa.us/public/oor/SunshineAct.pdf
requires that boro council officers conduct deliberations, and take official action, in public meetings. See Section 704.

The law further requires the boro council to give 3 days notice to the public of any meeting between them where they deliberate or take official action. See Section 709

However, it seems like A LOT of stuff has been secretly discussed and decided on by our boro council--and those discussions aren't necessarily protecting our health, safety, and welfare. Ever attend a council meeting? Sometimes there is such a lack of discussion before any vote, that the meetings only last 20 minutes or so. Sometimes, the boro council president just tells the others what the deal is going to be--i.e. the official action has already been taken, like giving informed consent to our city solicitor so he can represent both sides of this EIT issue. (Don't forget that such consent has to be given in writing--but that consent issue is never presented for discussion, much less voted on by council).

There is NO exception allowing the boro council to keep secret any such deliberations unless they are deliberating about something like an employee, a collective bargaining agreement, or a real estate contract. Oh, yes, and of course if its about something like they are actually being sued and its lawyer-client privileged stuff. See sections 707, 708, and 712

So, this means that we have the right to know about, attend, and record any deliberations that our council members have about boro business--including committee meetings, budget discussions, and this EIT issue. It also means that any of their discussions occuring outside of the public's access is illegal. Its not something that's up to Chuck to decide. Its the council's duty, requirement, obligation...according to PA LAW.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Borough created debt obligation;

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

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

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

Recordings of Council Meetings available to public

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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