I have been reading news stories about PA's botched Tax Amnesty Program and have come across some similarities with Kilgore and Chucky's modus operandi. Apparently, these tax amnesty letters are just simply stating that "you owe a debt to us" and don't include any information whatsoever about this alleged debt--not even an amount or a time frame. And, just like Cheatemore and Chucknut's strategy, rather than using proof, they use threats of penalties, etc, to extort more money from the little taxpayer. Certain Mt. Gretnan's may feel wealthy enough to play their game with them, but its really unethical, corrupt, and belligerent behavior--not to mention very unpatriotic, and not all Mt. Gretnan's actually are wealthy enough to participate in a corrupt political community.
Here, with this Amnesty stuff, some people have developed some interesting ways to deal with these mysterious notices. Below is a copy of one response that I thought many of you would find interesting:
April 27, 2010
PA Dept Of Revenue
Office of Tax Amnesty
POBox 281101
Harrisburg, PA 1712801101
Dear Sir or Madam:
I recently received your letter of “Notice of PA Tax Amnesty Program” and have made several attempts to contact you via the information suggested in that letter. Through no fault of my own, I was not able to reach your office using either of these two methods. Thus this letter serves as the only accessible route to making contact and obtaining information necessary to resolve the issue created in your letter.
In order to determine the fairness and accuracy of the debt alleged in your letter, please timely send me information establishing the basis of the original "debt" amount; relevant dates; copies of all correspondence sent to me regarding this alleged debt. This letter serves as timely notice to you that I am indeed availing myself of this opportunity to participate, and that, however, the details of my participation will necessarily depend on the amount that you prove that I owe. Please also note that your office’s failure to timely provide access to my information should in no way prevent me from participating in the program, should your response fairly and accurately prove that I do indeed owe a tax debt to PA.
A copy of your letter to me is enclosed, as it provides all the necessary personal information with which to identify this issue.
I think that I would also send it return receipt requested--and add a little blurb about how incompetent and cheating PA public officials have grown that they can just "say" that you owe a debt and never prove that it really exists.
Other people have printed out all their "error notices" when trying to register, and have sent copies to their representatives. I guess this is to remind them that their incompetence is showing, again.
Still, I revel in the fact that I am not a lone voice crying out against all this insanity. I am sure that there are others asking why Kilgore never showed us the results of his little investigation of our tax returns? Uhmmm, I wonder, what did he do with all that access to our personal and financial information. Obviously, he didn't find anything to use to help us out of this whole EIT scam that he organized upon us. It is quite possible then that he really only used the EIT issue as a pretext to gain access to our tax filings so that he could have even more leverage to use against us to keep us in step and line with Cheatemore and Chucknut's organizational objectives to rip us off to the fullest extent possible.
A former EIT employee once told me that they found out that a very high-earning Mt. Gretnan had no EIT tax files on record, suggesting that Kilgore's investigation is going to be very tricky for him because he is not going to want to reveal that that particular Mt. Gretnan may not have paid their EIT. What's up with that, Keithy? Who are you protecting? Have you counseled the Borough to file a claim for that person's EIT owed us? Why not?
Showing posts with label EIT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EIT. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
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?
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?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Rebate or Offset Requested
Well, I have been pondering the logic of making my wife and I participate in this community's EIT "repayment program."
The logic goes, so I was told by local public officials, is that she and I now benefit from the infrastructure investments that these officials spent the EIT revenue on, so we should help "pay for it." So, under that logic, I think she and I, and any other current resident that was NOT living here during the "EIT Overpayment" years should be able to either get a rebate back from the municipalities in which we WERE living back in, oh, say 2004, 2005, 2006, etc,. Or, we at least should be able to offset our current "burden" here by what we paid to those municipalities years ago. Afterall, we are no longer able to enjoy the "infrastructure" benefits that those other municipalities spent our previous contributions on.
Since our EIT-equivalent contribution to Philly in the last year alone that we lived there exceeded $12,000, I would certainly be ok with our offset...It seems only fair.
The logic goes, so I was told by local public officials, is that she and I now benefit from the infrastructure investments that these officials spent the EIT revenue on, so we should help "pay for it." So, under that logic, I think she and I, and any other current resident that was NOT living here during the "EIT Overpayment" years should be able to either get a rebate back from the municipalities in which we WERE living back in, oh, say 2004, 2005, 2006, etc,. Or, we at least should be able to offset our current "burden" here by what we paid to those municipalities years ago. Afterall, we are no longer able to enjoy the "infrastructure" benefits that those other municipalities spent our previous contributions on.
Since our EIT-equivalent contribution to Philly in the last year alone that we lived there exceeded $12,000, I would certainly be ok with our offset...It seems only fair.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
EIT Bureau admits there was a pattern of distribution based on set or predetermined percentages
I recently asked the EIT Bureau Board President to confirm whether or not there was a percent-allocation distribution schedule. He recently clearly replied that there was a pattern of distribution based on a predetermined, or set, percentages. However, he said that it wasn't a "schedule." This response confirms the three points that I have been blogging about since July:
1. There was a known distribution pattern that Foltz did not deviate from. The accusers' own report demonstrates this.
2. Keystone's current distribution of EIT revenue is a deviation from an admitted distribution pattern, yet this change in the rules of administration for this tax was never properly enacted. The Enabling Act for the EIT requires such rules be adopted via resolution. There is no evidence that this was ever done. In the meantime, because our solicitor is failing to push the EIT Bureau and Keystone to follow the law here, Mt. Gretna is getting seriously short changed.
3. Our city solicitor is failing to properly represent Mt. Gretna on this issue. The accusers have not presented any evidence that presents any sort of legal sufficiency--its all been conclusory hearsay and accusation. Therefore, there is no basis for our solicitor to get us into any "settlement" negotiations, much less, a "settlement." His failure to properly represent us is primarily based in his conflicting representation of municipalities that are the "accusers" in this matter.
At the last Borough meeting, I asked our borough solicitor to "Please show me where you are finding the proof that something was done wrong here, because, in all my research, I can't find that proof?" His answer was for me to "read the Local Tax Enabling Act. The proof is in there." That is not a sufficient answer--and I knew that, because I, unlike some legal practictioners Ihave met, like to do my homework BEFORE asking the question. So, I kindly replied to him that I have already referred to that Act, and the laws embodied there really contradict all the things he has been asserting. (Later in the meeting, he admitted to another concerned resident that the documentary evidence that was found really is poor--"paper shoved in garbage bags shoved in a closet.")
You other residents should know that, before presenting that question to the Borough, I spoke at length with three very knowledgable sources--other EIT collectors and the Harrisburg guru on the matter, who each spent enormous amounts of time reviewing the Enabling Act with me. I am very appreciative of their graciousness in spending so much time with me and their transparent and eager sharing of knowledge on the administration of the EIT and the Local Tax Enabling Act. However, in each conversation, we concluded that:
1. There is NO mandate for distribution according to actual contributions to the EIT pool. That's simply how EIT taxing entities usually do it.
2. That taxing bodies are allowed to deviate from the 50/50 split by agreement (as long as they don't exceed the tax allowed by law), and
3. That such rules can be created by the tax officer but must be adopted by resolution.
So, applying these laws to the facts here, the conclusions are that an agreement to distribute according to the admitted to percentages was made some time ago, it was adhered to, and Keystone is deviating from that policy even though no resolution has been adopted that changes the administration of this tax in terms of distribution.
Further, the Enabling Act requires that each municipality annually reconcile its EIT receipts with the tax officer so that any adjustments for over or under payments can be immediately made. There has been no suggestion or evidence presented that this did not happen, and there is no requirement that it be done in writing. For nearly 50 years since this tax has been levied in Lebanon County, NO municipality or school district is known to have complained about being accused of, via this annual reconciliation and adjustment requirement, under or overpaying. So, absent sufficient evidence establishing the contrary, the ONLY supported conclusion here is that the distribution pattern was indeed an accepted "schedule" and ALL under and over-payments were reconciled annually.
The reality is that the EIT Bureau lost track of what it was supposed to be doing. That Foltz embezzled $800,000, that he could send a municipality a check at the ring of a phone call, and that he didn't send EIT entities outside Lebanon County their due revenues collected do NOT show that he didn't distribute the revenue appropriately within the County. Why? Well, a recent state study of the EIT shows that this tax is so poorly administered that millions and millions are "lost" each year--even to embezzlement. (The estimates put the loss at from $100 million to $200 million, a year!) Further, if your county's plan allocates a set percentage to each municipality, you know exactly how much you can send it when it calls you asking for a check. In Mt. Gretna's case, Foltz knew he could send us .35% of whatever had come in recently. From the resulting consistencies demonstrated in the actual EIT data of the McKonly Asbury report, Foltz apparently did an efficient job of making sure municipalities got only their percentage for the year, even though you could call and get part of that percentage earlier, rather than later. And, that recent government study also established that many EIT collectors weren't even sending the outside taxing bodies the tax their own county collected from the other counties' residents--ever. So, its no surprise that Foltz may have been under-paying these other taxing bodies--that was, and still is, common practice across the state.
Ultimately, all this is irrelevant but highlights a much more important point: it is up to the alleging entity to prove its case--it is not up to Mt. Gretna to prove its "innocence."
Here, the allegedly under-paid municipalities, the EIT Bureau, and our own solicitor are relying on the McKonly-Asbury report to make the accusers' case. (There is a link to that report in the Links List at the bottom of the page.) However, that report does not have the authority of an audit, and it relies on highly inaccurate data and hidden formulas to craft a conclusory argument:
1. The DOR data is simply not a reflection of EIT data, and therefore can not be used in place of EIT data--the two are very different sets of numbers, and
2. According to the Bureau's own admission, set percentages were apparently applied to the McKonly derived DOR data, yet those percentages were never called out in the report. Nor does the report explain its use of those percentages.
The report simply is a well-crafted, non-objective statement manipulated by the accusers to state their accusations in a different way. More importantly, no matter what way I read the report, I can not find that it provides support to their allegations--especially not legally sufficient support to justify taking more of our money for any type of "repayment" plan.
The documents referred to in this post can be viewed by clicking their link in the Links List at the bottom of this page.
1. There was a known distribution pattern that Foltz did not deviate from. The accusers' own report demonstrates this.
2. Keystone's current distribution of EIT revenue is a deviation from an admitted distribution pattern, yet this change in the rules of administration for this tax was never properly enacted. The Enabling Act for the EIT requires such rules be adopted via resolution. There is no evidence that this was ever done. In the meantime, because our solicitor is failing to push the EIT Bureau and Keystone to follow the law here, Mt. Gretna is getting seriously short changed.
3. Our city solicitor is failing to properly represent Mt. Gretna on this issue. The accusers have not presented any evidence that presents any sort of legal sufficiency--its all been conclusory hearsay and accusation. Therefore, there is no basis for our solicitor to get us into any "settlement" negotiations, much less, a "settlement." His failure to properly represent us is primarily based in his conflicting representation of municipalities that are the "accusers" in this matter.
At the last Borough meeting, I asked our borough solicitor to "Please show me where you are finding the proof that something was done wrong here, because, in all my research, I can't find that proof?" His answer was for me to "read the Local Tax Enabling Act. The proof is in there." That is not a sufficient answer--and I knew that, because I, unlike some legal practictioners Ihave met, like to do my homework BEFORE asking the question. So, I kindly replied to him that I have already referred to that Act, and the laws embodied there really contradict all the things he has been asserting. (Later in the meeting, he admitted to another concerned resident that the documentary evidence that was found really is poor--"paper shoved in garbage bags shoved in a closet.")
You other residents should know that, before presenting that question to the Borough, I spoke at length with three very knowledgable sources--other EIT collectors and the Harrisburg guru on the matter, who each spent enormous amounts of time reviewing the Enabling Act with me. I am very appreciative of their graciousness in spending so much time with me and their transparent and eager sharing of knowledge on the administration of the EIT and the Local Tax Enabling Act. However, in each conversation, we concluded that:
1. There is NO mandate for distribution according to actual contributions to the EIT pool. That's simply how EIT taxing entities usually do it.
2. That taxing bodies are allowed to deviate from the 50/50 split by agreement (as long as they don't exceed the tax allowed by law), and
3. That such rules can be created by the tax officer but must be adopted by resolution.
So, applying these laws to the facts here, the conclusions are that an agreement to distribute according to the admitted to percentages was made some time ago, it was adhered to, and Keystone is deviating from that policy even though no resolution has been adopted that changes the administration of this tax in terms of distribution.
Further, the Enabling Act requires that each municipality annually reconcile its EIT receipts with the tax officer so that any adjustments for over or under payments can be immediately made. There has been no suggestion or evidence presented that this did not happen, and there is no requirement that it be done in writing. For nearly 50 years since this tax has been levied in Lebanon County, NO municipality or school district is known to have complained about being accused of, via this annual reconciliation and adjustment requirement, under or overpaying. So, absent sufficient evidence establishing the contrary, the ONLY supported conclusion here is that the distribution pattern was indeed an accepted "schedule" and ALL under and over-payments were reconciled annually.
The reality is that the EIT Bureau lost track of what it was supposed to be doing. That Foltz embezzled $800,000, that he could send a municipality a check at the ring of a phone call, and that he didn't send EIT entities outside Lebanon County their due revenues collected do NOT show that he didn't distribute the revenue appropriately within the County. Why? Well, a recent state study of the EIT shows that this tax is so poorly administered that millions and millions are "lost" each year--even to embezzlement. (The estimates put the loss at from $100 million to $200 million, a year!) Further, if your county's plan allocates a set percentage to each municipality, you know exactly how much you can send it when it calls you asking for a check. In Mt. Gretna's case, Foltz knew he could send us .35% of whatever had come in recently. From the resulting consistencies demonstrated in the actual EIT data of the McKonly Asbury report, Foltz apparently did an efficient job of making sure municipalities got only their percentage for the year, even though you could call and get part of that percentage earlier, rather than later. And, that recent government study also established that many EIT collectors weren't even sending the outside taxing bodies the tax their own county collected from the other counties' residents--ever. So, its no surprise that Foltz may have been under-paying these other taxing bodies--that was, and still is, common practice across the state.
Ultimately, all this is irrelevant but highlights a much more important point: it is up to the alleging entity to prove its case--it is not up to Mt. Gretna to prove its "innocence."
Here, the allegedly under-paid municipalities, the EIT Bureau, and our own solicitor are relying on the McKonly-Asbury report to make the accusers' case. (There is a link to that report in the Links List at the bottom of the page.) However, that report does not have the authority of an audit, and it relies on highly inaccurate data and hidden formulas to craft a conclusory argument:
1. The DOR data is simply not a reflection of EIT data, and therefore can not be used in place of EIT data--the two are very different sets of numbers, and
2. According to the Bureau's own admission, set percentages were apparently applied to the McKonly derived DOR data, yet those percentages were never called out in the report. Nor does the report explain its use of those percentages.
The report simply is a well-crafted, non-objective statement manipulated by the accusers to state their accusations in a different way. More importantly, no matter what way I read the report, I can not find that it provides support to their allegations--especially not legally sufficient support to justify taking more of our money for any type of "repayment" plan.
The documents referred to in this post can be viewed by clicking their link in the Links List at the bottom of this page.
Monday, October 5, 2009
EIT Community Meeting
will be Tuesday, Oct 20th, at 6:30 p.m, in the Boro's Boardroom (behind the post office).
This meeting is to provide the answers to those pesky questions about this alleged overpayment of EIT revenue. And, we will share with you how other municipalities are dealing with the issue--like Cornwall, whose council president recognizes that there is no real basis for extracting any "repayment" from Cornwall residents.
We will talk about what the real issue is--because its NOT complicated. Its just been made to be "mysterious".
RSVP if you like, and review some of the documents before you come, again, if you like. I will post as much as I can in the links list below.(I haven't yet figured out how to get the DVD up, but I am still working on it.)
This meeting is to provide the answers to those pesky questions about this alleged overpayment of EIT revenue. And, we will share with you how other municipalities are dealing with the issue--like Cornwall, whose council president recognizes that there is no real basis for extracting any "repayment" from Cornwall residents.
We will talk about what the real issue is--because its NOT complicated. Its just been made to be "mysterious".
RSVP if you like, and review some of the documents before you come, again, if you like. I will post as much as I can in the links list below.(I haven't yet figured out how to get the DVD up, but I am still working on it.)
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Leb.Cty. solicitors and their conflicting representations
Below is the url to view the copy of my notes researching which lawyers represent which municipalities. Note that many lawyers represent several municipalities, and, like MGB, their lawyer may represent an "opposing" party in this EIT issue.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiODZlYmI4M2MtMTU0ZS00YTE0LTk0MDItNTg4Y2M5YzdhNjcx&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiODZlYmI4M2MtMTU0ZS00YTE0LTk0MDItNTg4Y2M5YzdhNjcx&hl=en
Evidence of a distinct EIT distribution plan that was adhered to.
Here is the link to my calculations showing a distinct EIT distribution plan, and that the plan was adhered to through the years 2004 through 2006.
The chart's 2007 data is incomplete, so can't really be relied on in these calculations. But I crunched them anyway for Mt. Gretna and for the School Districts.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiNmE1ZTExZDQtZGQ4Ny00M2E3LTk1ZGEtNTU4YWU4NzkzYjYw&hl=en
The chart's 2007 data is incomplete, so can't really be relied on in these calculations. But I crunched them anyway for Mt. Gretna and for the School Districts.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiNmE1ZTExZDQtZGQ4Ny00M2E3LTk1ZGEtNTU4YWU4NzkzYjYw&hl=en
Monday, September 28, 2009
The EIT report
Below, in the Links list, I will provide the links to documents and sources for the information I discuss on this blog.
The first on is the EIT report issued in January of this year.
It is at
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiNDI4Nzg1NGEtZmJjMy00NjM2LWI2YzctM2IyZTAwZmEyNmFi&hl=en
That's all one url, with no spaces.
I will direct you to several points of interest, but still, I encourage you to read it throughly and ask questions.
Note 1: In its explanation of its data sources used for this report (pages 6 through 9), M-A states that it only referred to EIT accounts to match up things like SSN's and municipalities of residence with a person's state tax records. They don't indicate that they are really matching up collection and distribution data from their multiple sources.
The problems here are that your state tax file for the year present different numbers than your EIT filing for that year. Second problem is that your reporting of your EIT tax burden is completely self-motivated. In other words, the state isn't looking at your state filing and cross-checking the EIT database to make sure you filed EIT. The state Dept Of Revenue (DOR) just doesn't "do" EIT. The locals do. Third, there is no explanation for how M-A acounted for workers working out of state but living in PA, and all those anomalies.
Note 2: In its resulting tables, M-A calculated what it thinks should have been collected and distributed according to DOR data--not according to EIT filings. For reasons stated in Note 1, this approach may yield serious inaccuracies when compared to reality. In short, although PA companies have to report EIT witheld from PA residents, M-A doesn't explain how companies' reporting data was used,or if it even was used, and how it adjusted for EIT information the DOR just doesn't have. Further, EIT collectors also give reports t0 the Dept of Revenue. How did M-A incorporate those reports...or did it even go to the DOE? Still, M-A goes ahead with this limited and likely inaccurate data and rewrites history for us anyway, and recalculates what it thinks was EIT revenue collected and disbursed. (See tables 1 through 3)
Note 3: See table 4, where only actual numbers were used. If you crunch the numbers, you will find that there is an actual pattern of disbursement that is consistent from year to year.
However, M-A ignores that fact in its analysis. Instead, it continues to apply its recreated scenario.
Note 4: See last table, where M-A states that actual disbursements for the years were more than the estimated EIT collected. This would be a very difficult thing for the EIT executive director to do--to give away money that he hadn't even received yet. Further, this demonstrates that the M-A calculations are defective. If we paid back what they are saying was overpaid for the year 2006, for example, our effective tax rate, BY THEIR OWN CALCULATIONS would be 1.1%. That's a big deal, since by law, they are only allowed to collect 1%. Taxes are very strict that way.
The first on is the EIT report issued in January of this year.
It is at
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiNDI4Nzg1NGEtZmJjMy00NjM2LWI2YzctM2IyZTAwZmEyNmFi&hl=en
That's all one url, with no spaces.
I will direct you to several points of interest, but still, I encourage you to read it throughly and ask questions.
Note 1: In its explanation of its data sources used for this report (pages 6 through 9), M-A states that it only referred to EIT accounts to match up things like SSN's and municipalities of residence with a person's state tax records. They don't indicate that they are really matching up collection and distribution data from their multiple sources.
The problems here are that your state tax file for the year present different numbers than your EIT filing for that year. Second problem is that your reporting of your EIT tax burden is completely self-motivated. In other words, the state isn't looking at your state filing and cross-checking the EIT database to make sure you filed EIT. The state Dept Of Revenue (DOR) just doesn't "do" EIT. The locals do. Third, there is no explanation for how M-A acounted for workers working out of state but living in PA, and all those anomalies.
Note 2: In its resulting tables, M-A calculated what it thinks should have been collected and distributed according to DOR data--not according to EIT filings. For reasons stated in Note 1, this approach may yield serious inaccuracies when compared to reality. In short, although PA companies have to report EIT witheld from PA residents, M-A doesn't explain how companies' reporting data was used,or if it even was used, and how it adjusted for EIT information the DOR just doesn't have. Further, EIT collectors also give reports t0 the Dept of Revenue. How did M-A incorporate those reports...or did it even go to the DOE? Still, M-A goes ahead with this limited and likely inaccurate data and rewrites history for us anyway, and recalculates what it thinks was EIT revenue collected and disbursed. (See tables 1 through 3)
Note 3: See table 4, where only actual numbers were used. If you crunch the numbers, you will find that there is an actual pattern of disbursement that is consistent from year to year.
However, M-A ignores that fact in its analysis. Instead, it continues to apply its recreated scenario.
Note 4: See last table, where M-A states that actual disbursements for the years were more than the estimated EIT collected. This would be a very difficult thing for the EIT executive director to do--to give away money that he hadn't even received yet. Further, this demonstrates that the M-A calculations are defective. If we paid back what they are saying was overpaid for the year 2006, for example, our effective tax rate, BY THEIR OWN CALCULATIONS would be 1.1%. That's a big deal, since by law, they are only allowed to collect 1%. Taxes are very strict that way.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Our solicitor represents us AND the opposing team!!!
Keith Kilgore, our Mount Gretna Borough AND Chautauqua solicitor has been representing MGB in the pursuit of a resolution that would require us to "repay" an alleged $224000 "overpayment."
The trouble is that while he is supposed to be our advocate in this issue, he also is the municipal solicitor for South Lebanon AND North Londonderry--both municipalities that are claiming to be underpaid EIT revenues and seeking Mt. Gretnans' tax dollars to "repay them."
To make matters worse, Kilgore's partner, John Enck also represents both Millcreek and Bethel as their municipal solicitor.
In a recent Boro meeting, our council president acknowledged that kilgore "represents several other municipalities in this issue." But that seemed ok to him--he never mentioned how they dealt with this dual representation or the conflicts it creates. Perhaps they took care of that in a separate meeting and Allwein simply has not availed himself of another opportunity to paternalize us...
Let me show you PA's professional code of conduct that Kilgore, and Enck, are required to follow as licensed PA attorneys:
(you can find it yourself at http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/s1.7.html)*
Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
Now, that rule suggests that in Para. b, there is a way to represent both an allegedly underpaid and an overpaid in this situation. But let me present to you paragraph B and draw your attention specifically to (B)(3), which basically states one lawyer can represent two clients where a conflict may exist---BUT NOT WHERE THOSE CLIENTS OPPOSE EACH OTHER in a proceeding. In other words, they can't be direct adversaries.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: [...]
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal;
and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent.
Now, doesn't this appear to present a pretty clear motivation for Kilgore to jump straight to the position "hey give these guys your money, and let's not litigate this--because then I would be representing two adversaries on the opposite sides of a claim that is in litigation."
And, even if you want to say, "well, we really aren't adversaries in a proceeding yet, so its ok for him to do this", then I encourage you to look at this rule's Note 8. This is the question that has to be answered in order for Kilgore, Enck, or any attorney to represent more than one party in this issue. And, let me remind you that adherence to professional conduct rules is NOT an OPTION nor is it an afterthought!
Note 8
(8) Even where there is no direct adverseness, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests.
So here, let me say my thoughts outloud:
The only reason that we are NOT in litigation or before a tribunal on this over/under allegation is because it is in the SOLICITORS' best interests--not because it may be in our best interests. I especially think this because to get us out of this issue, it really looks relatively simple--just stop participating in the meetings. Publish a nice, concise letter to whomever is organizing these "repayment" meetings, telling them that,
"while we support the proper distribution and receipt of all tax revenues, we simply can not advise our municipal client to enter into any sort of agreement at this time. However, if more or substantial evidence supporting the allegations of your claim come into your possession, we would be pleased to consider reopening discussions." End of story. No more bills from solicitors' for attending these discussions...
Based on Kilgore's results for us in this issue, I think he has made it abundantly clear that he is materially limited in his ability to consider an appropriate course of action for us--he has laid us Mt. Gretna taxpayers out like a lamb to slaughter, not even formally questioning the veracity and sufficiency of the "overpayment" claim. There is an obvious lack of evidence here, and the only document be presented as "evidence" is a report by a firm selected, instructed, and paid by the "claimant". And, that report itself has some pretty obvious deficiencies that even a first year law student would be able to spot and use to argue for a better position for his clients.
Instead, Kilgore is preserving, without flinching, apparently, his other clients' unproven claims that they have a right to reach into our pockets for more money. How convenient for him, to not challenge the claim, to not have to absolve himself from representing any entity on this EIT issue, and to be able to keep billing all these clients for both his time spent on this EIT issue AND his regular "solicitor" hours. And he will certainly be billing us for his advocacy of our Borough!
Again, our municipal leadership has set us up to foot someone else's bill, assuming they get us into a repayment agreement or raise or taxes or tack on a special assessment through the Chautauqua.
By the way, Kilgore also serves as zone hearing board solicitor for Swatara, Union, Heidelberg, AND West Cornwall Township. Enck serves as zoning hearing board solicitor for Myerstown.
You can confirm this information at http://www.lebcounty.org/lebanon/lib/lebanon/Public_Officials_Directory_2009-REV.pdf
If you would like to find out for yourself whether his representation of both sides suffers "material limitations", you can ask for someone for an answer. You can be discreet, or a straight up P'O'd taxpayer. You can ask these guys for an answer at: http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/forms/consumer.php
or you can ask more taxpayer rights' types of questions at
http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Department/Info/Investigations/
*To see more rules of professional conduct for attorneys, check out PA Title 204, Chap 81-- a peek of which is at
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/chap81toc.html
The trouble is that while he is supposed to be our advocate in this issue, he also is the municipal solicitor for South Lebanon AND North Londonderry--both municipalities that are claiming to be underpaid EIT revenues and seeking Mt. Gretnans' tax dollars to "repay them."
To make matters worse, Kilgore's partner, John Enck also represents both Millcreek and Bethel as their municipal solicitor.
In a recent Boro meeting, our council president acknowledged that kilgore "represents several other municipalities in this issue." But that seemed ok to him--he never mentioned how they dealt with this dual representation or the conflicts it creates. Perhaps they took care of that in a separate meeting and Allwein simply has not availed himself of another opportunity to paternalize us...
Let me show you PA's professional code of conduct that Kilgore, and Enck, are required to follow as licensed PA attorneys:
(you can find it yourself at http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/s1.7.html)*
Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
Now, that rule suggests that in Para. b, there is a way to represent both an allegedly underpaid and an overpaid in this situation. But let me present to you paragraph B and draw your attention specifically to (B)(3), which basically states one lawyer can represent two clients where a conflict may exist---BUT NOT WHERE THOSE CLIENTS OPPOSE EACH OTHER in a proceeding. In other words, they can't be direct adversaries.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: [...]
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal;
and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent.
Now, doesn't this appear to present a pretty clear motivation for Kilgore to jump straight to the position "hey give these guys your money, and let's not litigate this--because then I would be representing two adversaries on the opposite sides of a claim that is in litigation."
And, even if you want to say, "well, we really aren't adversaries in a proceeding yet, so its ok for him to do this", then I encourage you to look at this rule's Note 8. This is the question that has to be answered in order for Kilgore, Enck, or any attorney to represent more than one party in this issue. And, let me remind you that adherence to professional conduct rules is NOT an OPTION nor is it an afterthought!
Note 8
(8) Even where there is no direct adverseness, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests.
So here, let me say my thoughts outloud:
The only reason that we are NOT in litigation or before a tribunal on this over/under allegation is because it is in the SOLICITORS' best interests--not because it may be in our best interests. I especially think this because to get us out of this issue, it really looks relatively simple--just stop participating in the meetings. Publish a nice, concise letter to whomever is organizing these "repayment" meetings, telling them that,
"while we support the proper distribution and receipt of all tax revenues, we simply can not advise our municipal client to enter into any sort of agreement at this time. However, if more or substantial evidence supporting the allegations of your claim come into your possession, we would be pleased to consider reopening discussions." End of story. No more bills from solicitors' for attending these discussions...
Based on Kilgore's results for us in this issue, I think he has made it abundantly clear that he is materially limited in his ability to consider an appropriate course of action for us--he has laid us Mt. Gretna taxpayers out like a lamb to slaughter, not even formally questioning the veracity and sufficiency of the "overpayment" claim. There is an obvious lack of evidence here, and the only document be presented as "evidence" is a report by a firm selected, instructed, and paid by the "claimant". And, that report itself has some pretty obvious deficiencies that even a first year law student would be able to spot and use to argue for a better position for his clients.
Instead, Kilgore is preserving, without flinching, apparently, his other clients' unproven claims that they have a right to reach into our pockets for more money. How convenient for him, to not challenge the claim, to not have to absolve himself from representing any entity on this EIT issue, and to be able to keep billing all these clients for both his time spent on this EIT issue AND his regular "solicitor" hours. And he will certainly be billing us for his advocacy of our Borough!
Again, our municipal leadership has set us up to foot someone else's bill, assuming they get us into a repayment agreement or raise or taxes or tack on a special assessment through the Chautauqua.
By the way, Kilgore also serves as zone hearing board solicitor for Swatara, Union, Heidelberg, AND West Cornwall Township. Enck serves as zoning hearing board solicitor for Myerstown.
You can confirm this information at http://www.lebcounty.org/lebanon/lib/lebanon/Public_Officials_Directory_2009-REV.pdf
If you would like to find out for yourself whether his representation of both sides suffers "material limitations", you can ask for someone for an answer. You can be discreet, or a straight up P'O'd taxpayer. You can ask these guys for an answer at: http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/forms/consumer.php
or you can ask more taxpayer rights' types of questions at
http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Department/Info/Investigations/
*To see more rules of professional conduct for attorneys, check out PA Title 204, Chap 81-- a peek of which is at
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/chap81toc.html
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
MGB to turn to Chautauqua for help addressing EIT issue--let me count the ways that this is wrong
At the last Borough Council meeting, the prez tried to comfort us by stating that the Boro will be pulling in the Chautauqua to try to resolve this EIT/budget issue. This may be an egregiously wrong thing to do and here's why:
(I have a video of the meeting and those comments if any one wants a copy.)
First:
In all my research and reading of primary source documents, I can find NO LEGAL BASIS for Mt. Gretna Boro (or Chautauqua) residents paying anyone an alleged EIT overpayment. Some people think this is the complicated part, but its not--its the mysterious part. Mysterious because even the EIT Bureau, the entity responsible for administering this tax, conveniently "doesn't have" any supportive documentation for this claim. So, because no one is presenting any legal evidence that proves any distribution was done incorrectly, no one can prove that any entity was "overpaid."
Further, even the EIT Bureau's own report on the issue demonstrates that the school districts and municipalities each received a consistent percentage of the overall EIT pot, year after year. This pattern contradicts their assertions that they can't determine what their own distribution plan was and that Foltz was not being consistent with the distribution plan. So, the only evidence presented so far demonstrates a plan and that the distributions were consistent year after year. Translated, that means that there is no proof that anyone got over or under paid according to the distribution plan. And, that means that there is no basis for any adjustments.
So, to municipal leaders and solicitors: STOP ENGAGING IN THESE OVER/UNDER REPAYMENT DISCUSSIONS. There is no foundation for them, and you lawyers are charging us for this activity. That's wrong. In fact, in Mt. Gretna's case, its really wrong since our solicitor is also representing several other municipalities in these discussions. This brings up a whole slew of questions like, does he also represent a "complainer" wanting money from us, does he divide his charges up equally between his municipal clients, or does he charge us all as if we were his only client while he attended that meeting...
Second:
The current distribution of EIT revenue is apparently determined soley by what your residents paid in. In other words, Keystone's distribution plan is a deviation from the original distribution plan and is a deviation of the plan evidenced by the EIT Bureau's own report. This plan, according to my research, is an adminstrative policy or procedure created contemporaneously with the law creating the LCEIT. Therefore, it can't be changed just by the Bureau hiring a new 3-third party collection agency and giving them distribution instructions that deviate from a contemporaneously created administrative procedure.
So, our municipal leaders and solicitors need to start demanding that we get our appropriate distribution, and not this new thing that Keystone has been told to do.
Third:
These tax structures include an administrative process for pursuing complaints. The allegedly under-paid entities can file a complaint and avail themselves of the administrative process for determining this issue. Pressuring another entity's taxpayers to give you their cash using another route is inappropriate, at best, and has no legal basis.
So, to those entities claiming that they were "underpaid", suck it up, gather up your evidence, ask for a hearing, attend it and make your best case. Stop trying to extort money out of your taxpaying neighbors when you aren't even willing to show us your evidence and that you really have something to complain about.
Now, if you made it this far, then this is probably a legit and serious concern of yours. If so, then I think it is important that each of you concerned persons WRITE a letter to the Boro and attend the next meeting. Because who knows what they will commit us to when we are not looking.
P.O. Box 61 Mt. Gretna, PA 17064 ; Meeting time: Second Monday, 7 p.m., board room behind post office. Residents desiring to attend can stop by my place a little after 6 for a quick happy hour before the anticipated dreary hour.
By the way, the EIT Bureau report suggests that Mt. Gretna Borough is to receive, annually, 0.35% of the total EIT collected by Lebanon County for the year. The area designated by our school district and its municipalities is to receive 26% of the annual collection. I say this to suggest that you municipal officers can check to see if Keystone is sending you your proper amount. I will post the distribution pattern I discovered from the report as soon as I have crunched all the entities' numbers.
(I have a video of the meeting and those comments if any one wants a copy.)
First:
In all my research and reading of primary source documents, I can find NO LEGAL BASIS for Mt. Gretna Boro (or Chautauqua) residents paying anyone an alleged EIT overpayment. Some people think this is the complicated part, but its not--its the mysterious part. Mysterious because even the EIT Bureau, the entity responsible for administering this tax, conveniently "doesn't have" any supportive documentation for this claim. So, because no one is presenting any legal evidence that proves any distribution was done incorrectly, no one can prove that any entity was "overpaid."
Further, even the EIT Bureau's own report on the issue demonstrates that the school districts and municipalities each received a consistent percentage of the overall EIT pot, year after year. This pattern contradicts their assertions that they can't determine what their own distribution plan was and that Foltz was not being consistent with the distribution plan. So, the only evidence presented so far demonstrates a plan and that the distributions were consistent year after year. Translated, that means that there is no proof that anyone got over or under paid according to the distribution plan. And, that means that there is no basis for any adjustments.
So, to municipal leaders and solicitors: STOP ENGAGING IN THESE OVER/UNDER REPAYMENT DISCUSSIONS. There is no foundation for them, and you lawyers are charging us for this activity. That's wrong. In fact, in Mt. Gretna's case, its really wrong since our solicitor is also representing several other municipalities in these discussions. This brings up a whole slew of questions like, does he also represent a "complainer" wanting money from us, does he divide his charges up equally between his municipal clients, or does he charge us all as if we were his only client while he attended that meeting...
Second:
The current distribution of EIT revenue is apparently determined soley by what your residents paid in. In other words, Keystone's distribution plan is a deviation from the original distribution plan and is a deviation of the plan evidenced by the EIT Bureau's own report. This plan, according to my research, is an adminstrative policy or procedure created contemporaneously with the law creating the LCEIT. Therefore, it can't be changed just by the Bureau hiring a new 3-third party collection agency and giving them distribution instructions that deviate from a contemporaneously created administrative procedure.
So, our municipal leaders and solicitors need to start demanding that we get our appropriate distribution, and not this new thing that Keystone has been told to do.
Third:
These tax structures include an administrative process for pursuing complaints. The allegedly under-paid entities can file a complaint and avail themselves of the administrative process for determining this issue. Pressuring another entity's taxpayers to give you their cash using another route is inappropriate, at best, and has no legal basis.
So, to those entities claiming that they were "underpaid", suck it up, gather up your evidence, ask for a hearing, attend it and make your best case. Stop trying to extort money out of your taxpaying neighbors when you aren't even willing to show us your evidence and that you really have something to complain about.
Now, if you made it this far, then this is probably a legit and serious concern of yours. If so, then I think it is important that each of you concerned persons WRITE a letter to the Boro and attend the next meeting. Because who knows what they will commit us to when we are not looking.
P.O. Box 61 Mt. Gretna, PA 17064 ; Meeting time: Second Monday, 7 p.m., board room behind post office. Residents desiring to attend can stop by my place a little after 6 for a quick happy hour before the anticipated dreary hour.
By the way, the EIT Bureau report suggests that Mt. Gretna Borough is to receive, annually, 0.35% of the total EIT collected by Lebanon County for the year. The area designated by our school district and its municipalities is to receive 26% of the annual collection. I say this to suggest that you municipal officers can check to see if Keystone is sending you your proper amount. I will post the distribution pattern I discovered from the report as soon as I have crunched all the entities' numbers.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Another way of looking at this EIT issue
Entities that were OVERpaid EIT revenues*
Name Percent overpaid
Cleona Borough 10
North Annville Township 39
South Annville Township 31
Cornwall Borough 59
Mt. Gretna Borough 180
West Cornwall Township 17
Heidelberg Township 54
East Hanover Township 22
Entities that were UNDERpaid EIT revenues
Name Percent UNDERPAID
North Cornwall Township -10
North Lebanon Township -20
South Lebanon Township -14
Lebanon City (with Annex) -11
West Lebanon Township -28
Jonestown Borough -35
Swatara Township -11
Union Township -16
North Londonderry Township -16
South Londonderry Township -18
Entities paid a relatively appropriate amount (deviation of 6% or less)
Annville Township
Jackson Township
Millcreek Township
Myerstown Township
Richland Borough
Palmyra Borough
*Averages over 2004, 2005, and 2006. Calculations do not adjust for fees and such that are usually taken from such revenues and are not foolproof. Thus, they may be off by a few percentage points. If so, I would say that the appropriate adjustment would be to shave at least 3 percentage points off all calculations. Still, even after considering these factors, the pattern—or the outlier, is glaringly apparent.
Name Percent overpaid
Cleona Borough 10
North Annville Township 39
South Annville Township 31
Cornwall Borough 59
Mt. Gretna Borough 180
West Cornwall Township 17
Heidelberg Township 54
East Hanover Township 22
Entities that were UNDERpaid EIT revenues
Name Percent UNDERPAID
North Cornwall Township -10
North Lebanon Township -20
South Lebanon Township -14
Lebanon City (with Annex) -11
West Lebanon Township -28
Jonestown Borough -35
Swatara Township -11
Union Township -16
North Londonderry Township -16
South Londonderry Township -18
Entities paid a relatively appropriate amount (deviation of 6% or less)
Annville Township
Jackson Township
Millcreek Township
Myerstown Township
Richland Borough
Palmyra Borough
*Averages over 2004, 2005, and 2006. Calculations do not adjust for fees and such that are usually taken from such revenues and are not foolproof. Thus, they may be off by a few percentage points. If so, I would say that the appropriate adjustment would be to shave at least 3 percentage points off all calculations. Still, even after considering these factors, the pattern—or the outlier, is glaringly apparent.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Municipal leaders, why aren't you working on our concerns rather than working with bully Middletown cops to try to scare us silent?
Well, I can't really tell you all the details, but I want to say enough to let you know that even if our leaders resort to conspiring with off-duty Middletown cops--with a reputation for being a bully, to harass and threaten vocal Mt. Gretna residents on their own property, this blogger has no intention of stopping her research and publication of my findings. Indeed, I continue to encourage my neighbors to consider the facts that I uncover and what those facts mean to us.
So, I want to update you on the EIT issue. Although I have gotten no response from the Gretna Borough on their current discussions about how to finance any return of an overpayment of EIT, I have been told by several neighbors that two ideas are in the works. First, one idea is to birth a "special assessment" and attach it to our taxes. Second, the Chautauqua Board is considering organizing an ad hoc financial committee to address this EIT issue.
The first issue, the special assessment, presents many of the same issues we have been discussing on this blogsite. First, how does that assessment get determined and enacted? Second, how do we prevent our expense budget from "blossoming" in response to the anticipation of increased revenues due to this assessment? Third, how do we ensure that the assessment absolutely dies when the "debt" is repaid? Fourth, why is it again that we haven't drawn from our receiver's/treasurer's/accountant's bond and that we are justifying collecting repayment from persons having nothing to do with alleged criminal activity associated with this under/over-payment problem?
The second issue is even more problematic, as the EIT issue is a Borough issue and NOT a Chautauqua issue. Or at least they would like to have us think that the two bodies are separate entities (which is probably why, in his financial ethics disclosure recently filed, Chuck Allwein fails to disclose his indirect real estate interest in property belonging to the municipality for which he is running for re-election this November)...but that is another post. So, why is the Chautauqua considering forming this committee--is the Chautauqua assuming responsibility for the EIT issue? or is the Chautauqua just trying to prepare for decreased revenues from the Borough? What's going on here?
I think the real frustration surfacing in all of this is that neither of these entities is acting with much transparency. Oh, sure, they say that you can go to the meetings, or that all the relevant documents are available for you to get copies of at the Borough office. But just try to go to a meeting or try to ask for a chance to see a set of documents. It's hit or miss whether you will be allowed to stay for all the meeting or whether you will be told that the document is not at the Borough office. And, how many of us have gone to a meeting and made a request only to never have it responded to...
I know that a neighbor has requested agenda time so that she be heard on some EIT related questions mentioned above. So this is a good time to attend the meeting and to demand transparency and accountability, at least from the Borough Council and in relation to this EIT issue. Our next Borough Council meeting is Monday, Sept. 14th, 7p.m. and I encourage everyone to attend.
Also, write to the Chautauqua Board and request that the meeting minutes be posted online. This was brought up at the last meeting, so now is the time to be heard on it. The address is:
The Pennsylvania Chautauqua, PO Box 637, Mt. Gretna, PA 17064
Attn: Peggy O'Neil, Pres.
I recommend sending it certified, as then you will have a receipt showing that you did actually mail them something.
Additionally, if anyone else has spoken out about something here and felt that they were then targeted or retaliated against, please let me know. viragogretna@gmail.com It will remain a confidential communication. And, just in case they manage to harass me right into jail on these trumped up charges, are there any volunteers to keep the blog going in my absence?
So, I want to update you on the EIT issue. Although I have gotten no response from the Gretna Borough on their current discussions about how to finance any return of an overpayment of EIT, I have been told by several neighbors that two ideas are in the works. First, one idea is to birth a "special assessment" and attach it to our taxes. Second, the Chautauqua Board is considering organizing an ad hoc financial committee to address this EIT issue.
The first issue, the special assessment, presents many of the same issues we have been discussing on this blogsite. First, how does that assessment get determined and enacted? Second, how do we prevent our expense budget from "blossoming" in response to the anticipation of increased revenues due to this assessment? Third, how do we ensure that the assessment absolutely dies when the "debt" is repaid? Fourth, why is it again that we haven't drawn from our receiver's/treasurer's/accountant's bond and that we are justifying collecting repayment from persons having nothing to do with alleged criminal activity associated with this under/over-payment problem?
The second issue is even more problematic, as the EIT issue is a Borough issue and NOT a Chautauqua issue. Or at least they would like to have us think that the two bodies are separate entities (which is probably why, in his financial ethics disclosure recently filed, Chuck Allwein fails to disclose his indirect real estate interest in property belonging to the municipality for which he is running for re-election this November)...but that is another post. So, why is the Chautauqua considering forming this committee--is the Chautauqua assuming responsibility for the EIT issue? or is the Chautauqua just trying to prepare for decreased revenues from the Borough? What's going on here?
I think the real frustration surfacing in all of this is that neither of these entities is acting with much transparency. Oh, sure, they say that you can go to the meetings, or that all the relevant documents are available for you to get copies of at the Borough office. But just try to go to a meeting or try to ask for a chance to see a set of documents. It's hit or miss whether you will be allowed to stay for all the meeting or whether you will be told that the document is not at the Borough office. And, how many of us have gone to a meeting and made a request only to never have it responded to...
I know that a neighbor has requested agenda time so that she be heard on some EIT related questions mentioned above. So this is a good time to attend the meeting and to demand transparency and accountability, at least from the Borough Council and in relation to this EIT issue. Our next Borough Council meeting is Monday, Sept. 14th, 7p.m. and I encourage everyone to attend.
Also, write to the Chautauqua Board and request that the meeting minutes be posted online. This was brought up at the last meeting, so now is the time to be heard on it. The address is:
The Pennsylvania Chautauqua, PO Box 637, Mt. Gretna, PA 17064
Attn: Peggy O'Neil, Pres.
I recommend sending it certified, as then you will have a receipt showing that you did actually mail them something.
Additionally, if anyone else has spoken out about something here and felt that they were then targeted or retaliated against, please let me know. viragogretna@gmail.com It will remain a confidential communication. And, just in case they manage to harass me right into jail on these trumped up charges, are there any volunteers to keep the blog going in my absence?
Let all your neighbors know about this blog, please!
I am having a wonderful time going door to door to meet you all, but the summer is over and many of you will be going back home. And, because I am having many long and honest conversations with you, I have not been able to meet everyone. So please pass on the url for this blog.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Earned Income Tax Misallocations: The Issue Explained
If any of you who attended the Annual Chautauqua meeting this year still have some questions about the recently confirmed Earned Income Tax misallocation issue, I did a little research and have more details for us. I requested from the EIT Bureau Board, and promptly received, a rather detailed presentation of the issue, including its history and a breakdown of the "financials" from 2004 to 2006 and by municipalities involved. This included numbers for Mt. Gretna Borough, which, by the way only has 207 registered voters.
The short story on how this came to light is that certain recipients of Lebanon County's EIT revenues were receiving what they thought to be significantly smaller amounts of monies than they knew they were owed, so they started making complaints, which led to an investigation/audit.
According to the attendees at last night's EIT Board meeting, the formula for determing what amount of the total EIT Revenue that a municipality is allocated in a given year is directly proportional to its contribution to that pot. Here is an example: Say the total EIT revenue for the year 2020 was $100 and Mt. Gretna Borough residents contributed $10 to that total. So, the result of the formula applied here is that half of Mt. Gretna's residents' contributions are given to the school district, and half of that contribution is given to Mt. Gretna Borough. So, in my example, for the year 2020, Mt. Gretna Borough would receive $5 from the EIT revenue (give or take a little for nominal fees/adjustments charged to the $5).
Sticking to only the numbers as they pertain the Mount Gretna Borough, it was found that, for the years 2004 through 2007:
Total Earned Income reported to the Dept. of Revenue $ 6,349,685,057
Total Mt. Gretna Borough residents' earned income $ 18,005,380
Total EI Tax reported to the DOR $ 97,673,527
Total Mt. Gretna Borough residents' EI Tax contribution $ 123,370
Applying the formula for distribution of that revenue, for the years 2004 through 2006, Mt. Gretna Borough should have received about half of its EIT contribution, so about
$ 61,000
Instead, Mt. Gretna actually received $ 256,642
This is an overpayment of $ 195,642
Now, the auditing firm's research included more years than I have included here, which is why we are told that the amount we were overpaid was really around $244,000.
The EIT Bureau Board seems to be on the right track in pursuing a fair resolution to this problem. It has moved forward from Day 1 adhering to the principals of transparency and collaboration, rather than with paternalism and heavy-handedness. The Board seems to consider communicating with the taxpaying public as an essential that is preferred over just relying on city solicitors' participation negotiating municipal agreements for "re-direction" of overpayments, and encourages us to attend their monthly meetings, held every third Wednesday, at 6:30pm at the Lebanon School District Office (just go in the door and turn to the left).
However, the next two meetings will be held at the Municipal Building's auditorium, as we have some very important voting to participate in in Sept. and Oct. They will also be publishing a new website and designating a Right-to-Know officer soon. I will keep you posted on those accomplishments as they happen.
Before I hit the publish button on this post, I want to bring up two points for thought that this tax stuff generates.
First, via a phone conversation with our Borough Office, I learned this morning that Mt. Gretna Borough does not have an "official Municipal Representative" to the tax board. While we may "manage to get someone, including our solicitor (Kilgore) to attend the important stuff", we need to have an official municipal representative. Why? Well, because this is how a taxing body establishes its constitutionality for taxing us--remember that whole "taxation without representation" thing?
And, don't we, as Borough residents, get the opportunity to vote on the issue of the Borough aqcuiring long-term debt obligations? Again, the process pursued here is not settlement negotiations in some legal action--it is the development of a contractual financial obligation, the assumption of a debt obligation. So, why aren't we being informed and brought in on this whole process? Look, I have faith that my neighbors will do the right thing when presented with factual information, so I honestly don't think that returning overpayments is something that we would avoid.
However, the scenario presented to us at the annual meeting suggests that our solicitor is making all the decisions and entering the Borough into these long-term commitments. This situation is confirmed by the Board's statements last night that they do not know who our official Municipal Representative is, but that they pass on all such communications to Bill [Care] and by the Borough administration denying that we even have an "official Municipal representative."
So, who is committing the Borough taxpayers to this debt obligation? Because this isn't a legal action, Kilgore's real role here is to profer to his or her client a legal review of an agreement's terms--it is not to act as executive officer for a municipality.
While our Borough administrators may defer to him and think that Kilgore "is really one of us", he REALLY is not, and I would not, by a long shot, be the only Mt. Gretna resident to make that assertion. And, if the response to that fact is that he "has been here long enough" or longer than I have, so that justifies placing a restriction or qualification on my requests for proper representation, or for enforcement of Borough Ordinances or state laws, then I respectfully request a pro-rated reduction on my tax burdens and Chautauqua fees. The reality is that each of us is a full-fledged resident, with attendant rights and obligations. Period. Any other heirarchy or "classification" of residents is parternalistic, and unethical.
The second point of concern is that there doesn't seem to be a "zealous representation" by our solicitor of our interests in the resolution of this Over-Under EIT issue. Kilgore himself said at the annual meeting that he was negotiating a longer payment term for us, but he made no reference to or informed us as to our alternative of challenging the total amount, especially in terms of using new residents' tax payments to pay for another person's criminal misconduct, or of using any resident's Borough contributions to pay for another person's criminal misconduct.
Arguments like that are legitimate to make on behalf of your client, and do not need to be made or pursued in a way that is adversarial or that erodes your respect for the real issue at hand: that some municipalities or school districts were underpaid and need the money. At the end of the day, we all go home to each other as neighbors, so we all have a vested interest in the health and success of our neighboring municipalities and school districts. But just as the underpaid entities seek fairness in the resolution of this issue, the overpaid entities have a right to fairness as well, and to "zealous representation" by whatever legal representative they hire. And, for us, Kilgore has assumed that job.
One thing that I learned from growing up in a rural community is that these little nuanced failings, like the ones that I have described in these last few paragraphs, will be remembered--they get talked about over card tables, over tailgates, and on porches for years, if not generations, and they contribute to aging your legacy into either wine, or into vinegar.
The short story on how this came to light is that certain recipients of Lebanon County's EIT revenues were receiving what they thought to be significantly smaller amounts of monies than they knew they were owed, so they started making complaints, which led to an investigation/audit.
According to the attendees at last night's EIT Board meeting, the formula for determing what amount of the total EIT Revenue that a municipality is allocated in a given year is directly proportional to its contribution to that pot. Here is an example: Say the total EIT revenue for the year 2020 was $100 and Mt. Gretna Borough residents contributed $10 to that total. So, the result of the formula applied here is that half of Mt. Gretna's residents' contributions are given to the school district, and half of that contribution is given to Mt. Gretna Borough. So, in my example, for the year 2020, Mt. Gretna Borough would receive $5 from the EIT revenue (give or take a little for nominal fees/adjustments charged to the $5).
Sticking to only the numbers as they pertain the Mount Gretna Borough, it was found that, for the years 2004 through 2007:
Total Earned Income reported to the Dept. of Revenue $ 6,349,685,057
Total Mt. Gretna Borough residents' earned income $ 18,005,380
Total EI Tax reported to the DOR $ 97,673,527
Total Mt. Gretna Borough residents' EI Tax contribution $ 123,370
Applying the formula for distribution of that revenue, for the years 2004 through 2006, Mt. Gretna Borough should have received about half of its EIT contribution, so about
$ 61,000
Instead, Mt. Gretna actually received $ 256,642
This is an overpayment of $ 195,642
Now, the auditing firm's research included more years than I have included here, which is why we are told that the amount we were overpaid was really around $244,000.
The EIT Bureau Board seems to be on the right track in pursuing a fair resolution to this problem. It has moved forward from Day 1 adhering to the principals of transparency and collaboration, rather than with paternalism and heavy-handedness. The Board seems to consider communicating with the taxpaying public as an essential that is preferred over just relying on city solicitors' participation negotiating municipal agreements for "re-direction" of overpayments, and encourages us to attend their monthly meetings, held every third Wednesday, at 6:30pm at the Lebanon School District Office (just go in the door and turn to the left).
However, the next two meetings will be held at the Municipal Building's auditorium, as we have some very important voting to participate in in Sept. and Oct. They will also be publishing a new website and designating a Right-to-Know officer soon. I will keep you posted on those accomplishments as they happen.
Before I hit the publish button on this post, I want to bring up two points for thought that this tax stuff generates.
First, via a phone conversation with our Borough Office, I learned this morning that Mt. Gretna Borough does not have an "official Municipal Representative" to the tax board. While we may "manage to get someone, including our solicitor (Kilgore) to attend the important stuff", we need to have an official municipal representative. Why? Well, because this is how a taxing body establishes its constitutionality for taxing us--remember that whole "taxation without representation" thing?
And, don't we, as Borough residents, get the opportunity to vote on the issue of the Borough aqcuiring long-term debt obligations? Again, the process pursued here is not settlement negotiations in some legal action--it is the development of a contractual financial obligation, the assumption of a debt obligation. So, why aren't we being informed and brought in on this whole process? Look, I have faith that my neighbors will do the right thing when presented with factual information, so I honestly don't think that returning overpayments is something that we would avoid.
However, the scenario presented to us at the annual meeting suggests that our solicitor is making all the decisions and entering the Borough into these long-term commitments. This situation is confirmed by the Board's statements last night that they do not know who our official Municipal Representative is, but that they pass on all such communications to Bill [Care] and by the Borough administration denying that we even have an "official Municipal representative."
So, who is committing the Borough taxpayers to this debt obligation? Because this isn't a legal action, Kilgore's real role here is to profer to his or her client a legal review of an agreement's terms--it is not to act as executive officer for a municipality.
While our Borough administrators may defer to him and think that Kilgore "is really one of us", he REALLY is not, and I would not, by a long shot, be the only Mt. Gretna resident to make that assertion. And, if the response to that fact is that he "has been here long enough" or longer than I have, so that justifies placing a restriction or qualification on my requests for proper representation, or for enforcement of Borough Ordinances or state laws, then I respectfully request a pro-rated reduction on my tax burdens and Chautauqua fees. The reality is that each of us is a full-fledged resident, with attendant rights and obligations. Period. Any other heirarchy or "classification" of residents is parternalistic, and unethical.
The second point of concern is that there doesn't seem to be a "zealous representation" by our solicitor of our interests in the resolution of this Over-Under EIT issue. Kilgore himself said at the annual meeting that he was negotiating a longer payment term for us, but he made no reference to or informed us as to our alternative of challenging the total amount, especially in terms of using new residents' tax payments to pay for another person's criminal misconduct, or of using any resident's Borough contributions to pay for another person's criminal misconduct.
Arguments like that are legitimate to make on behalf of your client, and do not need to be made or pursued in a way that is adversarial or that erodes your respect for the real issue at hand: that some municipalities or school districts were underpaid and need the money. At the end of the day, we all go home to each other as neighbors, so we all have a vested interest in the health and success of our neighboring municipalities and school districts. But just as the underpaid entities seek fairness in the resolution of this issue, the overpaid entities have a right to fairness as well, and to "zealous representation" by whatever legal representative they hire. And, for us, Kilgore has assumed that job.
One thing that I learned from growing up in a rural community is that these little nuanced failings, like the ones that I have described in these last few paragraphs, will be remembered--they get talked about over card tables, over tailgates, and on porches for years, if not generations, and they contribute to aging your legacy into either wine, or into vinegar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
