So my new assignment has me interviewing attorneys, which has been exceptionally enlightening. Let me tell you briefly about one thing that I learned so far in this process.
I learned that under Pennsylvania law, Shareholders can directly sue the corporation. Minority Shareholders, even....can sue the corporation for not providing access to its financial information (hmm--I wonder if not telling the shareholders about government investigations of its tax reporting counts here), for allowing and engaging in self-dealing (you know, the kind where the Board annually issues its LARGEST expense contract to a voting officer of the Board--without a written contract or even a bid), and/or for destroying the value of the shareholder's investment.
Yep, you see that correctly: MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS CAN DIRECTLY SUE THE CORPORATION.
And the remedies can range from judicial assignment of an entity to "supervise" the Board/Corporation or even to dissolution of the corporation. Most PA cases, however, end in buyout of the shareholder's investment.
You know what this means don't you? This means that a single shareholder in the PA Chautauqua corporation can directly sue that pitiful excuse of an HOA.
Just fucking fascinating, don't you think?
Oh, now, I know that the grand-poopah solicitor will likely try to reassure you that it can't or won't happen. But I would not get all greasy-eyed yet. Make sure he tells you that the case law supports that a minority shareholder holding less than 5% of shares can directly sue the corporation, and that the legislature intended the applicable definitions to be determined on a case-by-case basis (like pornography--the court will know it when it sees it). god forbid that that day comes when your solicitor has to backtrack and then explain how it is indeed possible for one shareholder's suit to survive to trial...and win.
Now see, if a Board doesn't like that a shareholder is asking you to show him the financial information that he needs to determine the value of his investment--or to determine the value of the buyer-of-his-investment's investment, or if you don't like that a shareholder asks for this information or that she asks for you--Board, to do your fucking fiduciary duties, without a smile on her face, well then you need to take some time to come to grips with yourself and put those big, big, big girl and boy pants on and either bow out, or act like the observant christians that you profess to be--or at least act like a person that cares about the minority shareholders and their investments.
That whole thing about getting more with honey goes both ways...except, of course, when the honey is forced up the shareholder's ass.
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Monday, May 30, 2016
Monday, February 14, 2011
101
"Political Culture of the [Corrupt] Municipality
Many local governments have an established political culture with certain expectations and practices that often determine what is seen as acceptable and not acceptable in local politics. In municipalities with an undeveloped or underdeveloped political culture, accountability and legitimacy is usually low and principles of ethics in government are not established. This can encourage corruption to take hold in the local government because citizens do not know what is considered corrupt, and local officials are not afraid to be corrupt because of the low accountability. In some places the local governments have been corrupt for so long that the citizens think that is how it is supposed to work because that is all they have been exposed to. "
Emphasis added.
Above is an excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_local_government
Many local governments have an established political culture with certain expectations and practices that often determine what is seen as acceptable and not acceptable in local politics. In municipalities with an undeveloped or underdeveloped political culture, accountability and legitimacy is usually low and principles of ethics in government are not established. This can encourage corruption to take hold in the local government because citizens do not know what is considered corrupt, and local officials are not afraid to be corrupt because of the low accountability. In some places the local governments have been corrupt for so long that the citizens think that is how it is supposed to work because that is all they have been exposed to. "
Emphasis added.
Above is an excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_local_government
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Cheatemore and Chucknut's modus operandi stolen by the State!
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?
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?
Friday, April 9, 2010
What is the Chaut. Board thinking!?
Borough financial records indicate that the Chautauqua is routinely used for paying the following Borough bills. Don't forget that Chautauqua records suggest to US, the lowly shareholders, that it has its own separate bills for many of these "line items.":
1. AT&T
2. Code Enforcement
3. Comcast
4. State Pensions
5. Workman’s Compensation
6. Met Ed
7. Heating Oil
8. Life Insurance
9. Verizon
10. Verizon Wireless
11. Blue Cross
12. Executive Answering Service
13. Lebanon Mobile Phone
14. Propane
15. Public Risk Management Insurance
16. Business Insurance
17. Disability Insurance
18. Radio Maintenance
19. Electric Maintenance
20. Stauffers (of Kissel Hill)
21. Staples
22. Traffic Control (aka-- the maniacal chain-smoking parking lot attendants)
23. Sysco
24. JH Brubaker
25. Zeager Brothers
26. Bashore’s Restaurant Equipment
27. Sporting Valley Turf Farm
28. United Rentals
29. Stephenson Equipment
In addition to these charges, the Borough also sends Chautauqua shareholders twice-monthly bills for Labor Services, for Art Show labor, and the Chautauqua also outright “contributes” a substantial amount every year (usually around $18,000, which is more than the Chautuaqua tells the IRS that it spends on summer programs). Historically, the yearly total sucked from shareholders is over $200,000.
All this, in addition to taking our property taxes, earned income taxes, water and sewer fees, and pass-through funds like state and county taxes or fees (like the liquid fuels surcharges on the gas we buy and state income tax).
Oh don't get me wrong--the Council isn't to get all the blame in this. Its time to ask the Chautauqua Board what in the hell they were thinking--this is clearly not about efficient delivery of services to us. Its about squeezing us for all we are worth.
Its about figuring out all the redundant ways in which they can extract money from us to pay for the same set of services provided to the same set of people BY the same set of people.
1. AT&T
2. Code Enforcement
3. Comcast
4. State Pensions
5. Workman’s Compensation
6. Met Ed
7. Heating Oil
8. Life Insurance
9. Verizon
10. Verizon Wireless
11. Blue Cross
12. Executive Answering Service
13. Lebanon Mobile Phone
14. Propane
15. Public Risk Management Insurance
16. Business Insurance
17. Disability Insurance
18. Radio Maintenance
19. Electric Maintenance
20. Stauffers (of Kissel Hill)
21. Staples
22. Traffic Control (aka-- the maniacal chain-smoking parking lot attendants)
23. Sysco
24. JH Brubaker
25. Zeager Brothers
26. Bashore’s Restaurant Equipment
27. Sporting Valley Turf Farm
28. United Rentals
29. Stephenson Equipment
In addition to these charges, the Borough also sends Chautauqua shareholders twice-monthly bills for Labor Services, for Art Show labor, and the Chautauqua also outright “contributes” a substantial amount every year (usually around $18,000, which is more than the Chautuaqua tells the IRS that it spends on summer programs). Historically, the yearly total sucked from shareholders is over $200,000.
All this, in addition to taking our property taxes, earned income taxes, water and sewer fees, and pass-through funds like state and county taxes or fees (like the liquid fuels surcharges on the gas we buy and state income tax).
Oh don't get me wrong--the Council isn't to get all the blame in this. Its time to ask the Chautauqua Board what in the hell they were thinking--this is clearly not about efficient delivery of services to us. Its about squeezing us for all we are worth.
Its about figuring out all the redundant ways in which they can extract money from us to pay for the same set of services provided to the same set of people BY the same set of people.
Why don't all these numbers show up in the Borough's proposed budget that they let us see every year? and why won't the Chautauqua tell the IRS where all this money is really going? Heck, why don't they tell us where it is really going?
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Why Entrenched Leaders Keep Saying the Word "Good" to Constituents
Currently, I am dancing between two books:
Raj Patel’s The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society, and Shelby Steele’s White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era.
I didn’t plan to read them at the same time. It just happened. Ironically, though, they are very similar. Both topics discuss generalized social behavior—one, capitalism/consumerism, and the other, civil rights and the responses to that movement. Where they overlap is that, in the lead up to each of their discussion points, they necessarily describe the power dynamics displayed socially. Both rely on the idea that, in social groups historically, the group in power imposes negative conditions on the less powerful group. Now, these conditions are usually couched in terms that really do NOT reflect the truth about that particular society or situation. But the less powerful group will see the trade off in accepting this “lie” from the power group, and will concede or comply with the falsities, largely because the lie fits in with the context that the power group has created and perpetuates. In the societal situations in both books, the power group’s falsities always rely on enough of a historically and morally truism to provide the less powerful group with enough of a basis to convince themselves that its ok to adopt the power group’s false construct.
Also, interestingly enough, Steele included a comment about when he first realized, on a drive through California, that there was this moral deficiency in the current social construct dealing with America’s history of racism. He was worried that his drive would end too soon. To quote: “It had been a luxury just to drive along in Chautauqua-like contemplation of a paradox.” That statement took me back to a statement published by a Chautauqua resident not so long ago. It seems that a couple of their programs triggered some “religious” blowback, and that Chautauquan took the time to remind his compatriots that that’s what Chautauqua’s did—their programming and speakers were intended to bring seemingly oppositional or incongruent positions or knowledges together, whether in one presentation or in a series of such, and to reveal any overlap, common ground, or compromise.
Although I had been seeing the applications of both men’s writings to the social construct that is Mt. Gretna, Steele’s reference made it imperative that the connection be made. So, here goes.
In discussing the good intentions of the architects behind the Great Society, Steele mentions how politicians and social leaders are a “touchy lot.” Both authors spend ample text showing us how these power figures, being human after all, express an innate drive to be seen, and for their policies and actions to be seen, as “good.” This drive extends throughout their lives, long after the end of the usefulness of their innovations, long after community needs are no longer fulfilled by their innovations, and, most relevant to us, long after their innovations have turned into something that is now harmful to the group.
Both authors also discuss how the power group, in its effort to keep control of its “good” image or moral character, will become blind to their own motivations, to their own humanity. They assume a pattern of making decisions and setting agendas that put their innovations in the best light possible. More importantly here, they also establish a pattern of ignoring any issue or fact that would only serve to challenge or threaten their reputation for “effectiveness” or of “good intentions.”
So, I now learn more abut why Chuck, Peggy, Bill, Linda, etc can’t, or won’t, acknowledge the truth or realities of the needs here or of the finances here—because it would necessarily lead to the possibility that something that they decided or did was not “correct” for this community and that, in turn would erode their sense of accomplishment and contribution to this community. Forget about the fact that the community now has a leadership structure that is not responding to the actual needs of the community, their blind reliance on the concept that something that they once did forty years ago makes even their current behavior “good” and, more importantly, not open to debate. Otherwise, to apply reality as a test of their current effectiveness would be to also erode the perception of their authority, legitimacy, and power in this community today.
Ergo, here in MG, where forty years ago we saw leaders pursuing innovations that truly spoke to the needs of the community, today this same community sees those same leaders continuing to try to rest on those historic laurels. Only, the innovations of yesterday are not enough for the community of today. It simply is not enough to say that Chuck or Bill or Linda provided a great service to the community in the 1980’s and to assume that that applies today. The community has changed in dramatic ways and their “innovations” of the past have taken on such a life of their own as to have become a beast to us.
I present to you today’s situation, and ask you to apply that “Chautauquan” approach to exploring our community situation today. Specifically, to explore how ethical and efficient is it to allow entrenched leadership to continue to avoid the proper scrutiny—Chautauquan scrutiny, if I may. For, if one really cares about this community, they will forego the perpetual mulligan that has been issued to protect anachronistic leadership policies and decisions. Coming soon, you will have the opportunity to ask our leadership:
1. Why this community has a million dollars flowing through it annually yet only reports to us taxpayers a combined expense budget of around $740,000?
2. Why Borough can report to us an annual total budget of around $150,000, yet report to the state an annual budget of $589,000?
3. Why we pay more for Authority services than other participants, who only pay their water/sewer fee and never have to pay for shared labor costs between their Authority and with their Borough or with their homeowners association?
4. Why we have the physically smallest sized municipality in the state and a water/sewer use pattern that never—ever, reaches its capacity, yet we have a staff of 5 full time employees, especially when other municipalities our size have only one full time staff. Do you all really believe that you are getting THAT much “good” service today, or is it that you ONCE got that level of service?
5. Why, with a staff that has four extra full-time staff, our public works director still can’t get the job done without billing us taxpayers for an average of 520 hours of overtime a year? Could it be that its not “Extra” service that he’s delivering, but extra pension and income that he is taking?
6. Why, when the original arrangement is that the Borough is supposed to provide set up and breakdown for the Art Show for free, employees bill overtime for those periods and that overtime is marked as “Chautauqua” or even as “Art Show”?
7. Why a public office and materials paid for by the taxpayer can be diverted for use by a public officer in his private business operations?
8. Why a public government can routinely and regularly bill a private corporation—the Chautauqua, for labor, yet the corporation can deny that it has any labor costs on its IRS tax filings and yet both entities can deny that any contract or documentation of terms exists? And, when that Chautauqua money is used to pay for labor services of someone who is also a Chautauqua officer, the Chautauqua also denies to the IRS that it transferred any payment to any of its officers? More importantly, why is every member of the Board approving the submission of IRS forms in which they know improper answers were given?
9. Why, or how, the Chautauqua Board, can justify, year after year, spending more money (around $150,000 a year) on a non-competitive labor “arrangement” for maintenance of such few grounds and buildings than on its summer programs (around $9000)—which is a required activity under its incorporation document? And why won’t either party provide us with a written explanation of the terms of this arrangement, like how overtime is determined, approved, allocated and paid for?
10. Given the current “arrangements”, how can the Chautauqua Board even justify its continued existence? Either through open or completely obscured and hidden transactions, the corporation as pawned off or ignored almost all of its real responsibilities, and, today, only tangentially serves as the programming coordinator it was intended to be. This Chautauqua’s mission fulfillment pales in comparison to other Chautauquas’, and there is no excuse for it.
11. Why, when LebCo’s transportation profile shows a truck traffic increase on 117 of 50% in the last eight years and a 67% increase to year 2030, and when at least 6 different people from 6 different households in the last 5 years have raised concerns about safety or asked for increased enforcement of traffic laws like speed laws, this leadership sees fit to ignore the reality around us or to denigrate or besmirch either the issue or the constituent. I will never forget Chuck’s curt re-characterization of Mt. Gretna when he told me years ago that newcomers would just have to get used to speeding because, well, choosing Mt. Gretna really was an act of “coming to the harm.” That’s exactly what he said. How is that good service, guys, when your leader pretty much sets up your community to guarantee a tragic traffic death in the near future?
So, yeah, the toilets may flush and the drinking water is drinkable. But that in no way means you are getting “good” service overall or that our leadership really cares about us. Just look at their willingness, Council and Board alike, to figure out even another way to reach into our pockets and take our money to pay for an issue that has never been proven to have any merit—the EIT overpayment allegation. Yeah, they care about us—but it seems only in terms of our wallet and whether we keep it open to their whims and to stuffing their pensions and whether we keep calling them “good public servants.”
As I learned from the above referenced books, just because the power group in this community feeds to us a little of the good thing that they are supposed to be delivering to us, it doesn’t mean that asking for an acknowledgement of our true, present-day reality, you know, for example, asking for an accounting of their present day financial on-goings, or asking for substantive traffic law enforcement when hundreds are violating such laws every day in our community, is “stirring up trouble.” Rather it’s a sign of responsible citizenry, of persons who care about someone other than themselves—their neighbors.
Raj Patel’s The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society, and Shelby Steele’s White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era.
I didn’t plan to read them at the same time. It just happened. Ironically, though, they are very similar. Both topics discuss generalized social behavior—one, capitalism/consumerism, and the other, civil rights and the responses to that movement. Where they overlap is that, in the lead up to each of their discussion points, they necessarily describe the power dynamics displayed socially. Both rely on the idea that, in social groups historically, the group in power imposes negative conditions on the less powerful group. Now, these conditions are usually couched in terms that really do NOT reflect the truth about that particular society or situation. But the less powerful group will see the trade off in accepting this “lie” from the power group, and will concede or comply with the falsities, largely because the lie fits in with the context that the power group has created and perpetuates. In the societal situations in both books, the power group’s falsities always rely on enough of a historically and morally truism to provide the less powerful group with enough of a basis to convince themselves that its ok to adopt the power group’s false construct.
Also, interestingly enough, Steele included a comment about when he first realized, on a drive through California, that there was this moral deficiency in the current social construct dealing with America’s history of racism. He was worried that his drive would end too soon. To quote: “It had been a luxury just to drive along in Chautauqua-like contemplation of a paradox.” That statement took me back to a statement published by a Chautauqua resident not so long ago. It seems that a couple of their programs triggered some “religious” blowback, and that Chautauquan took the time to remind his compatriots that that’s what Chautauqua’s did—their programming and speakers were intended to bring seemingly oppositional or incongruent positions or knowledges together, whether in one presentation or in a series of such, and to reveal any overlap, common ground, or compromise.
Although I had been seeing the applications of both men’s writings to the social construct that is Mt. Gretna, Steele’s reference made it imperative that the connection be made. So, here goes.
In discussing the good intentions of the architects behind the Great Society, Steele mentions how politicians and social leaders are a “touchy lot.” Both authors spend ample text showing us how these power figures, being human after all, express an innate drive to be seen, and for their policies and actions to be seen, as “good.” This drive extends throughout their lives, long after the end of the usefulness of their innovations, long after community needs are no longer fulfilled by their innovations, and, most relevant to us, long after their innovations have turned into something that is now harmful to the group.
Both authors also discuss how the power group, in its effort to keep control of its “good” image or moral character, will become blind to their own motivations, to their own humanity. They assume a pattern of making decisions and setting agendas that put their innovations in the best light possible. More importantly here, they also establish a pattern of ignoring any issue or fact that would only serve to challenge or threaten their reputation for “effectiveness” or of “good intentions.”
So, I now learn more abut why Chuck, Peggy, Bill, Linda, etc can’t, or won’t, acknowledge the truth or realities of the needs here or of the finances here—because it would necessarily lead to the possibility that something that they decided or did was not “correct” for this community and that, in turn would erode their sense of accomplishment and contribution to this community. Forget about the fact that the community now has a leadership structure that is not responding to the actual needs of the community, their blind reliance on the concept that something that they once did forty years ago makes even their current behavior “good” and, more importantly, not open to debate. Otherwise, to apply reality as a test of their current effectiveness would be to also erode the perception of their authority, legitimacy, and power in this community today.
Ergo, here in MG, where forty years ago we saw leaders pursuing innovations that truly spoke to the needs of the community, today this same community sees those same leaders continuing to try to rest on those historic laurels. Only, the innovations of yesterday are not enough for the community of today. It simply is not enough to say that Chuck or Bill or Linda provided a great service to the community in the 1980’s and to assume that that applies today. The community has changed in dramatic ways and their “innovations” of the past have taken on such a life of their own as to have become a beast to us.
I present to you today’s situation, and ask you to apply that “Chautauquan” approach to exploring our community situation today. Specifically, to explore how ethical and efficient is it to allow entrenched leadership to continue to avoid the proper scrutiny—Chautauquan scrutiny, if I may. For, if one really cares about this community, they will forego the perpetual mulligan that has been issued to protect anachronistic leadership policies and decisions. Coming soon, you will have the opportunity to ask our leadership:
1. Why this community has a million dollars flowing through it annually yet only reports to us taxpayers a combined expense budget of around $740,000?
2. Why Borough can report to us an annual total budget of around $150,000, yet report to the state an annual budget of $589,000?
3. Why we pay more for Authority services than other participants, who only pay their water/sewer fee and never have to pay for shared labor costs between their Authority and with their Borough or with their homeowners association?
4. Why we have the physically smallest sized municipality in the state and a water/sewer use pattern that never—ever, reaches its capacity, yet we have a staff of 5 full time employees, especially when other municipalities our size have only one full time staff. Do you all really believe that you are getting THAT much “good” service today, or is it that you ONCE got that level of service?
5. Why, with a staff that has four extra full-time staff, our public works director still can’t get the job done without billing us taxpayers for an average of 520 hours of overtime a year? Could it be that its not “Extra” service that he’s delivering, but extra pension and income that he is taking?
6. Why, when the original arrangement is that the Borough is supposed to provide set up and breakdown for the Art Show for free, employees bill overtime for those periods and that overtime is marked as “Chautauqua” or even as “Art Show”?
7. Why a public office and materials paid for by the taxpayer can be diverted for use by a public officer in his private business operations?
8. Why a public government can routinely and regularly bill a private corporation—the Chautauqua, for labor, yet the corporation can deny that it has any labor costs on its IRS tax filings and yet both entities can deny that any contract or documentation of terms exists? And, when that Chautauqua money is used to pay for labor services of someone who is also a Chautauqua officer, the Chautauqua also denies to the IRS that it transferred any payment to any of its officers? More importantly, why is every member of the Board approving the submission of IRS forms in which they know improper answers were given?
9. Why, or how, the Chautauqua Board, can justify, year after year, spending more money (around $150,000 a year) on a non-competitive labor “arrangement” for maintenance of such few grounds and buildings than on its summer programs (around $9000)—which is a required activity under its incorporation document? And why won’t either party provide us with a written explanation of the terms of this arrangement, like how overtime is determined, approved, allocated and paid for?
10. Given the current “arrangements”, how can the Chautauqua Board even justify its continued existence? Either through open or completely obscured and hidden transactions, the corporation as pawned off or ignored almost all of its real responsibilities, and, today, only tangentially serves as the programming coordinator it was intended to be. This Chautauqua’s mission fulfillment pales in comparison to other Chautauquas’, and there is no excuse for it.
11. Why, when LebCo’s transportation profile shows a truck traffic increase on 117 of 50% in the last eight years and a 67% increase to year 2030, and when at least 6 different people from 6 different households in the last 5 years have raised concerns about safety or asked for increased enforcement of traffic laws like speed laws, this leadership sees fit to ignore the reality around us or to denigrate or besmirch either the issue or the constituent. I will never forget Chuck’s curt re-characterization of Mt. Gretna when he told me years ago that newcomers would just have to get used to speeding because, well, choosing Mt. Gretna really was an act of “coming to the harm.” That’s exactly what he said. How is that good service, guys, when your leader pretty much sets up your community to guarantee a tragic traffic death in the near future?
So, yeah, the toilets may flush and the drinking water is drinkable. But that in no way means you are getting “good” service overall or that our leadership really cares about us. Just look at their willingness, Council and Board alike, to figure out even another way to reach into our pockets and take our money to pay for an issue that has never been proven to have any merit—the EIT overpayment allegation. Yeah, they care about us—but it seems only in terms of our wallet and whether we keep it open to their whims and to stuffing their pensions and whether we keep calling them “good public servants.”
As I learned from the above referenced books, just because the power group in this community feeds to us a little of the good thing that they are supposed to be delivering to us, it doesn’t mean that asking for an acknowledgement of our true, present-day reality, you know, for example, asking for an accounting of their present day financial on-goings, or asking for substantive traffic law enforcement when hundreds are violating such laws every day in our community, is “stirring up trouble.” Rather it’s a sign of responsible citizenry, of persons who care about someone other than themselves—their neighbors.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Borough council not telling it like it is
Every November, Mt. Gretna Borough officials comply with state laws that require that independent public bodies publish the upcoming year's budget for the taxpaying public to review and comment on. Independent government bodies have to publish, each their own, a budget. Here, the Authority and the Borough are independent public bodies. Easy enough. They produce separate budgets for us to review in November.
Now, its fairly obvious that the intent behind that law is to provide the public with a mechanism to follow the fiscal operations of its public body.
So, when the Borough publishes a November budget for us that indicates a total budget of $150,000, you have to ask yourself who is trying to pull the wool over whose eyes when the Borough then reports a budget of around $589,000 to the state.
There is alot of fancy shifting and "relabeling" of monies here. And, don't be fooled. What was once promoted to the public thirty or twenty years ago as an "efficiency-based relationship" is certainly no longer an efficiency for us.
Times brought changes, yet the multiple ways in which this thirty year-old public administration has devised to reach into all our wallet's pockets have not matured and evolved with the times, nor with the community. Which is why this BOROUGH sees fit to reach freely into OUR water fees, sewer assessments, Chautauqua maintenance assessments, and Borough taxes to appropriate the hundreds of thousands of dollars each year that it takes to keep their long-time friends properly equipped and working fulltime--ALBEIT PROVIDING SERVICES TO PRIVATE ENTITIES OUTSIDE THE BOROUGH. And when it comes time for the borough staff to respond to one of our needs, we are also paying their overtime when they have spent the bulk of their time doing work that benefits someone else.
Now, if Care or Bell were worried about making a living while working part-time for a very small public entity, they absolutely could have taken a second job, or built their own business. Care could have gone and hung his own shingle testing water for other water supplies and plowing. But he would have to tell us that he is doing for others stuff similar to what he does for us, the public. AND, more importantly, he would have to buy, use, and maintain his own equipment. In no uncertain terms is he allowed to use borough, or authority, stuff (including people) to add to his income by doing some type of work for non-borough constituents. It doesn't matter if Kilgore, Chucky, Council or God expressed their approval of Care using public resources to bolster his income and state pension--it simply is not allowed under PA law. It also doesn't matter that its been allowed for decades--its simply not allowed under the law. So, TOTO, you can see why Chucky wants to shoot the messenger.
These "labor and cost sharing realtionships" that Chucky has lead us into are not what the state means when it encourages municipalities to create "efficiency-driven" relationships. Our borough, or Authority, for that matter, can only use its public staff and resources to provide services for us. And, when a neighboring municipality--not a private entity, a MUNICIPALITY, needs something that we can share with it, we can create these "cost-sharing" and "labor sharing" relationships, AS LONG AS WE DERIVE SOME BENEFIT FROM THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OTHER MUNICIPALITY. Simply put again, the borough can't enter into a relationship to provide services to a private entity. Period. And, the Borough can't enter into a relationship with a municipality if the taxpayers in the municipality that it serves receive no benefit from the relationship.
In other words, they can't pimp out our public staff and resources just to make sure that their friends have full-time work, plenty of overtime, and expensive equipment to use. But that's exactly what Chuck has created here.
Thirty years ago, you may have had to worry about the quality of work delivered by the public servants that provided your services. Today, however, you have to ask yourself how appropriate it is for our public leaders to suggest or threaten us with slow response times, with poorly plowed roads, or with icky-tasting drinking water if we don't pay their friends for 160, 200, or 240 hours of work per week for what really takes only one or two people to perform in a regular work week, or if we don't fork over the money for equipment and vehicles that a municipality with only 3.2 miles of paved roads has no business purchasing and maintaining.
We really have to ask ourselves if these actions are so appropriate, then why aren't they admitting the Borough's true expenses to us in November? and why aren't they calling out these "relationships" exactly for what they are when reporting to the IRS or to the State?
A taxpayer can profess his love for his friend, but it doesn't change his friend's errant or unethical behavior. Still, I thank Chucky for publically acknowledging that he is reading my posts and that they affect him so much. Maybe he will grow from the experience. maybe not. let's pray for growth.
Again, times have changed, my friend. The 70's are way long gone.
Now, its fairly obvious that the intent behind that law is to provide the public with a mechanism to follow the fiscal operations of its public body.
So, when the Borough publishes a November budget for us that indicates a total budget of $150,000, you have to ask yourself who is trying to pull the wool over whose eyes when the Borough then reports a budget of around $589,000 to the state.
There is alot of fancy shifting and "relabeling" of monies here. And, don't be fooled. What was once promoted to the public thirty or twenty years ago as an "efficiency-based relationship" is certainly no longer an efficiency for us.
Times brought changes, yet the multiple ways in which this thirty year-old public administration has devised to reach into all our wallet's pockets have not matured and evolved with the times, nor with the community. Which is why this BOROUGH sees fit to reach freely into OUR water fees, sewer assessments, Chautauqua maintenance assessments, and Borough taxes to appropriate the hundreds of thousands of dollars each year that it takes to keep their long-time friends properly equipped and working fulltime--ALBEIT PROVIDING SERVICES TO PRIVATE ENTITIES OUTSIDE THE BOROUGH. And when it comes time for the borough staff to respond to one of our needs, we are also paying their overtime when they have spent the bulk of their time doing work that benefits someone else.
Now, if Care or Bell were worried about making a living while working part-time for a very small public entity, they absolutely could have taken a second job, or built their own business. Care could have gone and hung his own shingle testing water for other water supplies and plowing. But he would have to tell us that he is doing for others stuff similar to what he does for us, the public. AND, more importantly, he would have to buy, use, and maintain his own equipment. In no uncertain terms is he allowed to use borough, or authority, stuff (including people) to add to his income by doing some type of work for non-borough constituents. It doesn't matter if Kilgore, Chucky, Council or God expressed their approval of Care using public resources to bolster his income and state pension--it simply is not allowed under PA law. It also doesn't matter that its been allowed for decades--its simply not allowed under the law. So, TOTO, you can see why Chucky wants to shoot the messenger.
These "labor and cost sharing realtionships" that Chucky has lead us into are not what the state means when it encourages municipalities to create "efficiency-driven" relationships. Our borough, or Authority, for that matter, can only use its public staff and resources to provide services for us. And, when a neighboring municipality--not a private entity, a MUNICIPALITY, needs something that we can share with it, we can create these "cost-sharing" and "labor sharing" relationships, AS LONG AS WE DERIVE SOME BENEFIT FROM THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OTHER MUNICIPALITY. Simply put again, the borough can't enter into a relationship to provide services to a private entity. Period. And, the Borough can't enter into a relationship with a municipality if the taxpayers in the municipality that it serves receive no benefit from the relationship.
In other words, they can't pimp out our public staff and resources just to make sure that their friends have full-time work, plenty of overtime, and expensive equipment to use. But that's exactly what Chuck has created here.
Thirty years ago, you may have had to worry about the quality of work delivered by the public servants that provided your services. Today, however, you have to ask yourself how appropriate it is for our public leaders to suggest or threaten us with slow response times, with poorly plowed roads, or with icky-tasting drinking water if we don't pay their friends for 160, 200, or 240 hours of work per week for what really takes only one or two people to perform in a regular work week, or if we don't fork over the money for equipment and vehicles that a municipality with only 3.2 miles of paved roads has no business purchasing and maintaining.
We really have to ask ourselves if these actions are so appropriate, then why aren't they admitting the Borough's true expenses to us in November? and why aren't they calling out these "relationships" exactly for what they are when reporting to the IRS or to the State?
A taxpayer can profess his love for his friend, but it doesn't change his friend's errant or unethical behavior. Still, I thank Chucky for publically acknowledging that he is reading my posts and that they affect him so much. Maybe he will grow from the experience. maybe not. let's pray for growth.
Again, times have changed, my friend. The 70's are way long gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
