Da dee da deee da--here we go again

"stinkin' more than anybody has a right to"

Well, I just can't believe the fodder local political reps provide for the intelligent and inquisitive. Again, Kilgore--OUR solicitor, failed to present any evidence-or logic, justifying Mt. Gretna's participation in this extortion scheme the EIT Bureau and city solicitors are calling the "over/under-payment issue"--strike that, "problem", as Kilgore clarified last night. I now suspect that there is much more "foul play" and intentional covering-up going on. And, here's why.

Again, last night Kilgore tried to shoot the messenger, rather than heed the message. While being asked more questions about the EIT--specifically, what evidence that he has that shows that there is a foundation for any sort of "settlement" agreement on this over/under allegation, he again tried to suggest, in a public forum, that I didn't know the proper facts about the EIT. Don't forget that at the Oct. meeting, he also suggested that I needed to learn about the laws authorizing the EIT by telling me to "go read the EIT laws." As he, and his best buds should certainly know by now--I do my homework. So, with great pleasure, I reminded him that I had just finished my fourth reading of them in the hour before the meeting. And, with great pleasure, I will provide here the documentary evidence that he was, once again, wrong about what's been going on with the EIT here.

But, him being wrong, even multiple times, is not really a problem. Its his willingness to be wrong in public and the triggers that bring out this behavior in him that we should all be worrying about: when challenged substantively on the legal foundation for the allegations, the law, and the "process", he tries to destroy the inquirer's credibility and will even get the law and the facts wrong to do so. In witnessing this pattern of his--his willingness to publicly show his lack of knowledge about the issue and his lack of interest in getting the facts correct, I am beginning to suspect that he is motivated to take these risks because he knows something else is at stake--something other than a settlement. In other words, he is falling on his sword. So, I think that the question that we all should have now is " who is he falling on his sword for?" More about that by the time we get to the bottom of this post.

And, because my time is as valuable as his, and because I am providing the Boro with much needed information that Kilgore is failing to provide, I will send the boro the bill.

First, as to the EIT law, it is called the Local Tax Enabling Act. CapTax provides an easily accessible version of it on their website, but I have linked to it in the Community Info list at the bottom of this blog. Kilgore told me to read it when I asked him what evidence there was indicating that the historic distribution of the EIT in Leb. Co. was incorrect--or, "arbitrary", as the Bureau and the solicitors put it. His response was, to paraphrase, ""Fixed percentages" is just not how it was done. You get 50% of what you paid in. You would know that if you read the EIT laws." Well, Mr. Smarty-Pants. I knew you would say that. So, that's why I re-read them before asking you the question in a public forum--because there is no mandate for receiving 50% of what you paid in. NONE. But, I thought I would check with you. Thanks for that confirmation.

And, that tidbit is what JQ PUblic needs to know about the solicitors' and the Bureau's assertions: there is NO mandate in the laws to distribute EIT revenue the way Kilgore asserts. Further, there is no prohibition, in those laws, against distributing the revenue according to a percentage-allocation pattern fixed within the system--which is the distribution pattern the Bureau admits existed. So, just because we didn't get back 50% of what we paid in, doesn't mean that we didn't get what we were supposed to get. And, they can't prove we didn't get what we were supposed to get.

Second, all the real evidence presented here supports the idea that its the EIT Bureau's fault if anything went missing or misdirected. The EIT laws that Kilgore is refering to also require an annual EIT audit, and require each political subdivision to annually reconcile the EIT numbers and make the necessary adjustments. Here's the text of those laws:

Section 11
…the governing body of each political subdivision which levies and collects or provides for the levying of a tax upon earned income, shall provide for not less than one examination each year of the books, accounts and records of the income tax collector..

and

13.III.B.V.h
…The political subdivisions shall not be required to request the officer to distribute the funds collected but shall at least annually reconcile their receipts with the records of the officer and return to or credit the officer with any overpayment….

Ok, so, now we at the logical point where we need to know if Kilgore or the Bureau has any evidence that Mt. Gretna did NOT do the annual reconciliation and make the necessary credits or returns. Why is it important to know this? Its important because if all evidence shows that an annual reconciliation was done, then the most we could ever "owe" is the current year's possible overpayment.

So, last night I told Kilgore that I found evidence that Mt. Gretna had indeed did some type of reconciliation one year (1969)and requested--and received, a corrective payment. I then asked him if he knew of any OTHER evidence that suggests that the legally mandated annual reconciliations were not done. Again, he told me that the system was run in such a disorganized fashion, that laws like that don't mean anything--essentially, that I shouldn't and can't rely on the LAW to figure out what, if anything, we owe. But, then he just had to end his response by saying "That [corrective payment] could not have happened. Mt. Gretna wasn't even in the EIT until the 70's."

Well, folks, also in the links list below, you will find Cornwall-Lebanon School District meeting minutes from November 3, 1969, where the school board discusses Mt.Gretna's EIT-correction request and decides to issue them a check. Further, the C-L School District EIT was adopted in 1967, and Mt. Gretna was one of the first, if not the first, municipality to return their "acceptance" to participate in the intended EIT system. I also posted a link to those meeting minutes below. Now who, again, doesn't know what they are talking about---and getting paid for their ignorance....But, I suspect that there is a reason why he is not motivated to know his "legal" stuff about this issue.

So, in short, my research, which has been confirmed by EIT Bureau statements and by solicitor statements, suggests very clearly that:
1. there is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of arbitrary distribution.
2. There is no reasonable or legally sufficient evidence of mis-distribution.
3. There IS evidence of missing money--a lot of it, that can't be attributed to Foltz's activities. And,
4. our solicitors are acting more like the Bureau's front man than our legal representatives.

The story line here could go something like this: "

EIT Bureau and Solicitors, not wanting to shine spotlight on clients and long-time friends involved with the collection of EIT in Lebanon County, intentionally pursued--via threats of "crushing" financial and legal entanglements, settlement of allegations for which they knew there was grossly insufficient evidence to pursue properly."

I mean, really, we need to start asking loudly, "Could it be that both of these parties have a good suspicion where to look for the missing money, or that the "missing" part happened at levels lower than Foltz--like at the municipal EIT collector level?" That would explain a lot about their curious behavior and their lack of inquisitiveness, now wouldn't it?

Submit your nominations for

I have been getting more and more (mostly private) inquiries asking who people can cast a write-in vote for in the upcoming Boro Council elections on Nov. 3rd. I have to admit that I do not know the best way to respond to those inquiries-you see, I do have names (6, to be exact). But those names (except for one) have been suggested to me, and well, I haven't quite figured out how to approach those persons, because, well, its a tricky situtation. You see, if I make the approach, given my current public statements, it may give the appearance that I--just little 'ole me, am really the primary push behind changing our boro council leadership, and that would be an incorrect perception.

I hope that my neighbors recognize that I am telling the truth when I report that MANY OF YOU have expressed dissatisfaction with our current leadership, and for a variety of very legitimate reasons. That said, many of you have expressed appreciation for the leadership's dedication and contributions to Mt. Gretna. And, as I indicated in a previous post, that latter group shares some pretty stark demographic characteristics. Even so, that latter group has been a vocal minority in the issue of the upcoming election.

The problem is that that vocal minority may end up being our voting majority. So, what I find to be the most interesting question right now is "Will the vocal majority coalesce and make their desired change happen?"

Also, if someone does want to run, wouldn't it be best for that person to personally solicit his or her neighbor's for votes and to NOT make a public statement? If the incumbents do not know who may be running as write-ins, they will have to run on the issues, so to speak, and can't make it a personality debate, even if the debates occur around the neighbor's coffee table. I guess I am asking just what is the best way, in such a small community, to run as a write-in without allowing the general "campaign" to turn "personal"?

I haven't found the answer to that question yet, but I am certainly willing to share what I know about the write-in process, to publish write-in candidate's information and announcements, and to even help organize or conduct meetings. Whatever it takes to help the community's momentum change from what I am hearing it is today into something more reflective of a community made of many diverse individuals, concerns, needs, and skills.

I am also willing to serve as the "clearing house" for collecting your nominations and announcements for write-in candidates--publishing the list as it gets closer to Nov. 3rd.

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.