Borough council not telling it like it is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transparent and Communicative Chautauqua is Possible

The Sidewalk to No Where debate has generated some comments and concerns on both sides of the project--yea and nea. But, I still can't help but ponder why we even have to have this debate on this blog--or why we even need this blog. All this discussion and analysis should be occurring within the structure organized and responsible for guiding this community: the PA Chautauqua.

Several years ago, I discovered the New York Chautauqua, who's website can be found at:

http://chautauqua.squarespace.com/about-chautauqua/

Granted, they have more resources than the PA Chautauqua--but there is no excuse why our Board is not posting more details, meeting minutes, committee compositions, contact info, etc at our website. They even post their homeowners association material with what seems to be complete transparency, when compared to us. So, you can even find their rules, meeting dates, etc. right online, at:

http://www.cpoa.ws/webhelp/cpoa.htm

Now, a quick look at their manual, and you find statements like:

"The Chautauqua Property Owners Association serves as a communication link between the property owners and the administration, advocating for the interests and needs of the owners, and, in turn, conveying to the owners the concerns of the Institution."

and, in comparison, here is how they would start to approach this whole safety, sidewalk to Princeton issue:

"Chautauqua was created as a walking community long before the advent of the automobile. Its streets are narrow, not designed for cars. Its lots are small with little or no space for parking cars.
When cars began to appear, it was understood they would be parked outside the fence. Today, cars, trucks, bicycles and golf carts appear everywhere often in violation of existing regulations. This creates three concerns: primarily safety, loss of ambiance and a loss of beauty.

The community would be safer for all community members, including young children and the elderly, the ambiance and quality of life would be enhanced, and beauty could be restored and preserved if all Chautauquans followed the driving and parking rules.

Chautauqua has always prided itself on being a walking community where pedestrians have the right of way. Bicycles are the preferred form of vehicular transportation and even bicycles must follow all of the N.Y. state laws which apply to automobiles.

Driving a car on the grounds is a privilege intended only for the necessities of loading or unloading baggage or other essentials. (Special provisions with a doctor’s certificate are made for the handicapped). The car driving privilege is intended for you to go directly from the entry gate designated on your pass to your place of residence to unload your groceries or other goods and then to return directly to the parking space assigned. The driving privilege is not intended for driving to:

The post office to pick up mail or a newspaper,
The Cinema,
The Plaza for a little shopping, or
To pick up or visit a friend, or to make such a visit a preliminary to a shopping trip off the grounds.

Please designate a meeting place at your exit gate.

The Institution has provided free busses and trams to take people from almost anywhere on the grounds to the major places of program or activity in a very efficient way. This shuttle service is reevaluated and improved every year.
Limited use of commercial vehicles is also an essential need for which special
provision is made. A property owner who schedules all but immediate need deliveries before or after the season is being a good neighbor and making a difference in the atmosphere of the community.

Parking of cars on the grounds is permitted only in the specifically designated parking place indicated on the parking permit issued to a ticket holder. This is usually a private home or an Institution lot.

If each resident makes the effort to adhere to these rules, although sometimes a bit
inconvenient, Chautauqua will truly be a pedestrian community and the unparalleled beauty and ambience of an atmosphere without cars and trucks will be our legacy to future generations."


A legacy for future generations--what a concept! I suppose that means that we can't just let ourselves deteriorate into just another subdivision...

It seems as if many of us here really want the subdivision amenities and aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to keep the unique and tranquil character of the Chautauqua. That is a tragedy, and it is unfair to those of us who chose to own property in the Chautauqua simply for that professed unique character. While you may have had that 30 years ago--you certainly are losing it rapidly now. So, its deceptive to maintain and solicit that that character still remains or will be protected.

Kathy Snavely and moral and financial bankruptcy

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Court rules in favor of N. Cornwall residents concerned about erosion of town character and elected officials conflict of interest

This weekend’s LDNs front-paged a story about a recent court decision involving North Cornwall that I think adds insight to the “elected-official apathy” that we see in our own community. Apparently, North Cornwall officials changed their zoning regs and deviated from their comprehensive plan in a way so as to allow for the development of a WalMart Supercenter. In doing so, it seems that North Cornwall elected officials ignored the local property owners’ concerns regarding how these ordinance changes and how proposed land development projects may erode the character of their community—and their property values. Local residents and property owners took their leaders to task, asking for everything from ordinance amendments and compliance with the town’s “comprehensive plan”[aka, the character of their community] to, eventually, court intervention.

Although the lower court interpreted its own authority to allow elected officials to ignore requests for ordinance changes, a reviewing court recently disagreed. The latter Commonwealth Court decision states that citizens have a right to appeal to elected officials to change ordinances. This decision gives strength to the idea that property owners have a right to define and protect the "character" of their community. Thus, I find this an especially interesting ruling given that it hits so close to home in so many ways.

To add even more insight to our own potential political situation, there is a “backstory” to this North Cornwall issue that the court also considered and issued a ruling on. North Cornwall's supervisor ran—and was elected, based on his anti-commercial development position. However, that supervisor was also hired by the commercial development project, and therefore, personally benefited from promoting commercial development activities in his town.

Further, his work for the developer conflicted with the town’s character, with the town’s comprehensive plan, and with his position as an elected official. It must have been a no-brainer for the court to rule that a conflict of interest exists and that this elected official must not participate in ANY decision-making matters related to this development project. This particular court decision further reinforces the FACT that, in our country anyway, an elected official's sole purpose and authority is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their constituents. This means that they do not have the authority to put themselves, their livelihood, or their personal interests ahead of the health, safety, and welfare of their constituents--that is the sacrifice you make when you volunteer to take on the burden of a public office.

Doesn’t this reasoning also apply to our own situation here, at least in terms of the conflicts inherent in conducting business activities and personal gain in the same place that you, as an elected official, participate in decision-making activities directly and indirectly affecting your business?