Monday, December 7, 2009
first snow winter 09/10
Although I haven't forgotten thanksgiving, I thought these pictures would be nice to share right now.If anyone wants to reprint or use them, just ask me.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Another new skill found
Last week I finished a new bathroom floor--grouting tile for the first time ever. I picked the materials and design, trying to support the existing--and very old, wall tile that remains, while giving them a little "pick-me-up".
It doesn't look like much without the fixtures, but here is the finished product.
I also got to rebuilding some dried but rotten trim. The front was fine, but sweat behind the piece had taken its toll and thinned it at the bottom. So I put this hardener on it and will fill it with wood epoxy before stripping and reinstalling it.
It doesn't look like much without the fixtures, but here is the finished product.
I also got to rebuilding some dried but rotten trim. The front was fine, but sweat behind the piece had taken its toll and thinned it at the bottom. So I put this hardener on it and will fill it with wood epoxy before stripping and reinstalling it.
Mt. Gretna's Roosters
Seems as if last year's little abandoned cock as attracted quite a fraternity of fellow roosters. Every Saturday, for quite some time now, many of Mt. Gretna's informal and formal community leaders--apparently all white males, meet at the pizza shop for breakfast. And, so I have been told, to gossip and to talk politics.
I even heard that I have been the subject of their conversations on more than one occassion. However, the discussions center on whether or not I am really an attorney, and on how much of a "troublemaker" I am.
I found this all very flattering--its as if they find me and my words too powerful to actually engage me in the substance of these conversations. Its also as if they feel that they have no "weapons"--like contrary documents, with which to dialoque or confront my words with, so they have to try to tarnish my credibility.
This behavior of theirs' is very unfortunate, because the topics that I am presenting have very serious and often negative impacts on many of these roosters neighbors, if not themselves. So, I really can't see why they aren't expressing more concern about these questions and concerns that I am presenting, rather than worrying about whether or not I am really an attorney--like that would have anything to do with the topic at hand. Right?
So, that's why I showed them bar card on Saturday. And, I gave them copies of the documents I used to write my last post,and asked them for their input, possibly an explanation as to why Chautauqua accounts were transfered to a bank without FDIC insurance, and transfered on a motion by a treasurer that I think should have disclosed his personal relationship with that bank and recused himself from the vote. I haven't heard anything from them, yet.
So, let's hope that they can now refocus their collective resources and address the real issues at hand.
Namely, that over $900,000 flows through this community every year, yet our public officials still keep reaching deeper and deeper into our pockets to raise our taxes, fees, or assessments. And many of these "pockets" are on fixed incomes and have limited resources. That is probably what should certainly be the main concern when roosters discuss my comments on local politics or public officials.
Maybe they are concerned, but have let their "impulses" to "keep a woman in her place" take priority over dealing with possible political transgressions or issues. Still, why not just show me the flaws in my research or reasoning rather than spew personal judgments and petty opinions--we all deserve a robust and fully informed conversation on these topics. And I am sure the roosters have much to contribute substantively to the conversations.So, please, if you, Mr. Rooster, know of a flaw in my research or reasoning, please, please, bring it to the table for all to see.
I even heard that I have been the subject of their conversations on more than one occassion. However, the discussions center on whether or not I am really an attorney, and on how much of a "troublemaker" I am.
I found this all very flattering--its as if they find me and my words too powerful to actually engage me in the substance of these conversations. Its also as if they feel that they have no "weapons"--like contrary documents, with which to dialoque or confront my words with, so they have to try to tarnish my credibility.
This behavior of theirs' is very unfortunate, because the topics that I am presenting have very serious and often negative impacts on many of these roosters neighbors, if not themselves. So, I really can't see why they aren't expressing more concern about these questions and concerns that I am presenting, rather than worrying about whether or not I am really an attorney--like that would have anything to do with the topic at hand. Right?
So, that's why I showed them bar card on Saturday. And, I gave them copies of the documents I used to write my last post,and asked them for their input, possibly an explanation as to why Chautauqua accounts were transfered to a bank without FDIC insurance, and transfered on a motion by a treasurer that I think should have disclosed his personal relationship with that bank and recused himself from the vote. I haven't heard anything from them, yet.
So, let's hope that they can now refocus their collective resources and address the real issues at hand.
Namely, that over $900,000 flows through this community every year, yet our public officials still keep reaching deeper and deeper into our pockets to raise our taxes, fees, or assessments. And many of these "pockets" are on fixed incomes and have limited resources. That is probably what should certainly be the main concern when roosters discuss my comments on local politics or public officials.
Maybe they are concerned, but have let their "impulses" to "keep a woman in her place" take priority over dealing with possible political transgressions or issues. Still, why not just show me the flaws in my research or reasoning rather than spew personal judgments and petty opinions--we all deserve a robust and fully informed conversation on these topics. And I am sure the roosters have much to contribute substantively to the conversations.So, please, if you, Mr. Rooster, know of a flaw in my research or reasoning, please, please, bring it to the table for all to see.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Who is really watching where our money goes?
Does anyone know who the financial secretary and the treasurer is for the Sewer and Water Authority?
and for the Mt. Gretna Borough?
and for the Chautauqua?
and for the Art Show?
And who writes the checks that pays the bills for each of these entities?
Does anyone know how much revenue these bodies take in a year, combined?
and, do you know what their combined expenses are, annually and how much of a difference there is in those two numbers?
Does anyone know exactly how many staff the Borough has?
the water authority?
the sewer authority?
the Chautauqua?
More importantly, does anyone know exactly how many times we pay Bill Care for public works work here in our 87 acres? and how much is he paid for work in other locations, like at our neighbors...? Is he the Boro's public works director, and a director or consultant for a neighbor, for the Sewer Authority, for the Water Authority, for the Chautauqua? Just how many roles do he and Linda Bell have and how many times are they getting paid?
and how do we know that these entities are really separated when their contact information, leadership, and office location are all the same and the monies and checkbook are all controlled by the same persons? How do we know where our money is going--who can tell us with any sort of certainty and transparency?
Please feel free to make your anonymous responses to these questions.
But know that, according to my research, I can only find that three persons control the largest flow of money in and out of these 87 acres and that no one is really looking over their work. I also found that we have almost a MILLION bucks coming through here and only around $700,000 of it is accounted for in the budgets (when combined). Further, I have found no verification process for the tickets sold and cash received for the Art Show, which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I also have not been able to confirm what any entity has for staff (at council meetings, Care says the boro has 5 full time staff, on state documents, he says that the Sewer Authority has 5, just as an example), and thereby can not confirm labor expenses, benefits expenses, and "cost-sharing" arrangements--and I don't see how the auditor general--in determining public entities compliance with laws related to receipt of state funds, can really decipher these apparently undocumented "cost-sharing" arrangements, especially where the arrangements involve a private corporation like the Chautauqua.
I further can not imagine why a public official that handles almost a million dollars a year in public money--and who was the one handling taxes/revenue that the "borough" is accused of taking too much of, would take out well over $600,000 in mortgages since 2003, all secured by a house not nearly worth that amount, and from the same bank---AND pay $575,000 of those mortgages back in less than 18 months, as a routine, with the largest one taken and repaid that way being for $350,000. And, why would that official, or their spouse urge any of these entities to transfer the
entity's own accounts to this bank that has supplied them with mortgages exceeding the value of their home and that never exist longer than 18 months--especially when that bank does not provide FDIC depositor's insurance? If that official has a family member or friend working there, shouldn't that have been disclosed?
And, with all this sharing of costs and revenues, office space, staff and leadership that exists between allegedly separate entities, doesn't the legal distinction (and liability protection) fade away like piss in the katrina wind? Isn't this where someone shouts out, "Its like "piercing the corporate veil", or like getting a divorce judgment, and then moving back in with each other and comingling funds long enough to be judged common law spouses anyway?
To me, it strongly appears that all these separate entities within the 87 acres here really are intended to be a "paperwork" sham to cloud the money trail and to allow certain persons to benefit personally beyond their one full-time salary. Ergo, I can see why any one of these "gatekeepers", like Bill Care, would get nervous when I started poking around and asking questions back in January about our political infrastructure and money. I can also see, if there was misconduct involved, why they would want to try to scare or harass my partner and I into leaving Mt. Gretna. For those with lots to hide, it makes apparent sense that my persistence triggered a very serious tightening of the anal sphincter.
But, like with other residents requests, mine were also essentially ignored as if they never existed. Perhaps these officials think that if they create this dysfunctional denial pattern where they treat our inquiries as if they never happened, we all will carry on as if they never existed. This "false reality" gives explanation as to why somebody like Bill Care is shocked speechless by my partner's directness the day she went to him face to face and asked to know why the Cornwall Police refused to take our report on the off-duty Middletown police officer that "patrolled" our home and eventually came to our property to threaten and harass us. You see, Care responded to her by threatening us further, and she--being strongly aware that the conversation was really about his intent to harass us into leaving Mt. Gretna and our awareness of his intent, jumped right to replying that we would be more than happy to just sell our home to him--he doesn't have to threaten us, and that the Borough should just make an offer.
You see, its likely that he couldn't respond to that because, in his mind, he also knew the real context of his statements and he really had to think before saying something that confirmed the real context that was just admitted. Normally, if a person's underlying context of a conversation is innocent, they can respond almost immediately to apparent non-sequitors like that, saying something like, "What?"
See how simple that was. But, when you know your context is subversive or could get you into trouble, a statement by the other party that calls out your hidden context catches you like a sinkhole in your path. Thus, this behavior of his (along with statements made by other residents describing his conduct) shows me that he was committed--before my partner even showed up in his office, to a context of making her--and me, out to be criminals and threatening her based on that context. And this is the most likely reason why he wasn't ready to talk frankly about how to get rid of my inquisitiveness into his conduct as a public official.
But, even if he knows that I know what misconduct might be going on, he doesn't know the extent of my knowledge and therefore he can't risk offending me so much that he can't feign interested and innocent conversations with me--which he has done even after threatening my partner. He can also try to discover more information about me--information with which to further harass me and my family, through these conversations, and through soliciting information from other residents, the police, and even from me. Again, we may have a very naive and pure expectation of our community leaders, but we are smart enough to know about fishing and to know about about retaliation--and, having studied interview techniques and from representing alleged criminals, I certainly know how "guilty" people react and how they try to subversively protect and defend themselves.
One tactic is to try to tarnish the credibility of the "accuser" or the discoverer of misconduct. I mean really, public officials like Care don't accept how guilty it looks to organize, or even to participate in, throwing a whole slew of criminal allegations at perfectly upstanding middle-aged citizens with hardly a traffic ticket to their names--and to do so just as one of those citizen's research into those officials' public conduct has uncovered some very serious questions and concerns. And, don't they know that the more you do to cover your trail of misconduct and bad intentions, the more you give yourself away--and that certainly is true when you engage others in your retaliation towards the innocent citizen.
You see, for me, Care's behavior pretty much confirms that there is something very wrong going on here--and by targeting two upstanding middle-aged professional women who give in in-numerous ways to their community, he has let his "cat" out of the bag. I mean, really, what is the point--just show us where the money goes, show us all your own sources of income and possible conflicts, and make our lives safer by having traffic laws enforced. It is crystal clear to me that he is asking you and I to believe that it is easier and more appropriate for him to threaten and to engage in a pattern of conduct with the intent of running two responsible and contributing residents out of town than it is to respond to any of the concerned residents of this community who just want their community made more transparent and safer.
But, for the time being, I am still here, and the information I uncover about our public officials' behavior and use of our money only leads to more and more questions--not answers. I just hope that if something happens to me--like a speeding car nails me coming out of my driveway, or if I am "accidently" shot by a "hunter," that someone will keep looking for the answers and hold public officials accountable for their conduct. I also welcome your comments if you can clarify or add transparency or accountability to the questions first presented in this post.
and for the Mt. Gretna Borough?
and for the Chautauqua?
and for the Art Show?
And who writes the checks that pays the bills for each of these entities?
Does anyone know how much revenue these bodies take in a year, combined?
and, do you know what their combined expenses are, annually and how much of a difference there is in those two numbers?
Does anyone know exactly how many staff the Borough has?
the water authority?
the sewer authority?
the Chautauqua?
More importantly, does anyone know exactly how many times we pay Bill Care for public works work here in our 87 acres? and how much is he paid for work in other locations, like at our neighbors...? Is he the Boro's public works director, and a director or consultant for a neighbor, for the Sewer Authority, for the Water Authority, for the Chautauqua? Just how many roles do he and Linda Bell have and how many times are they getting paid?
and how do we know that these entities are really separated when their contact information, leadership, and office location are all the same and the monies and checkbook are all controlled by the same persons? How do we know where our money is going--who can tell us with any sort of certainty and transparency?
Please feel free to make your anonymous responses to these questions.
But know that, according to my research, I can only find that three persons control the largest flow of money in and out of these 87 acres and that no one is really looking over their work. I also found that we have almost a MILLION bucks coming through here and only around $700,000 of it is accounted for in the budgets (when combined). Further, I have found no verification process for the tickets sold and cash received for the Art Show, which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I also have not been able to confirm what any entity has for staff (at council meetings, Care says the boro has 5 full time staff, on state documents, he says that the Sewer Authority has 5, just as an example), and thereby can not confirm labor expenses, benefits expenses, and "cost-sharing" arrangements--and I don't see how the auditor general--in determining public entities compliance with laws related to receipt of state funds, can really decipher these apparently undocumented "cost-sharing" arrangements, especially where the arrangements involve a private corporation like the Chautauqua.
I further can not imagine why a public official that handles almost a million dollars a year in public money--and who was the one handling taxes/revenue that the "borough" is accused of taking too much of, would take out well over $600,000 in mortgages since 2003, all secured by a house not nearly worth that amount, and from the same bank---AND pay $575,000 of those mortgages back in less than 18 months, as a routine, with the largest one taken and repaid that way being for $350,000. And, why would that official, or their spouse urge any of these entities to transfer the
entity's own accounts to this bank that has supplied them with mortgages exceeding the value of their home and that never exist longer than 18 months--especially when that bank does not provide FDIC depositor's insurance? If that official has a family member or friend working there, shouldn't that have been disclosed?
And, with all this sharing of costs and revenues, office space, staff and leadership that exists between allegedly separate entities, doesn't the legal distinction (and liability protection) fade away like piss in the katrina wind? Isn't this where someone shouts out, "Its like "piercing the corporate veil", or like getting a divorce judgment, and then moving back in with each other and comingling funds long enough to be judged common law spouses anyway?
To me, it strongly appears that all these separate entities within the 87 acres here really are intended to be a "paperwork" sham to cloud the money trail and to allow certain persons to benefit personally beyond their one full-time salary. Ergo, I can see why any one of these "gatekeepers", like Bill Care, would get nervous when I started poking around and asking questions back in January about our political infrastructure and money. I can also see, if there was misconduct involved, why they would want to try to scare or harass my partner and I into leaving Mt. Gretna. For those with lots to hide, it makes apparent sense that my persistence triggered a very serious tightening of the anal sphincter.
But, like with other residents requests, mine were also essentially ignored as if they never existed. Perhaps these officials think that if they create this dysfunctional denial pattern where they treat our inquiries as if they never happened, we all will carry on as if they never existed. This "false reality" gives explanation as to why somebody like Bill Care is shocked speechless by my partner's directness the day she went to him face to face and asked to know why the Cornwall Police refused to take our report on the off-duty Middletown police officer that "patrolled" our home and eventually came to our property to threaten and harass us. You see, Care responded to her by threatening us further, and she--being strongly aware that the conversation was really about his intent to harass us into leaving Mt. Gretna and our awareness of his intent, jumped right to replying that we would be more than happy to just sell our home to him--he doesn't have to threaten us, and that the Borough should just make an offer.
You see, its likely that he couldn't respond to that because, in his mind, he also knew the real context of his statements and he really had to think before saying something that confirmed the real context that was just admitted. Normally, if a person's underlying context of a conversation is innocent, they can respond almost immediately to apparent non-sequitors like that, saying something like, "What?"
See how simple that was. But, when you know your context is subversive or could get you into trouble, a statement by the other party that calls out your hidden context catches you like a sinkhole in your path. Thus, this behavior of his (along with statements made by other residents describing his conduct) shows me that he was committed--before my partner even showed up in his office, to a context of making her--and me, out to be criminals and threatening her based on that context. And this is the most likely reason why he wasn't ready to talk frankly about how to get rid of my inquisitiveness into his conduct as a public official.
But, even if he knows that I know what misconduct might be going on, he doesn't know the extent of my knowledge and therefore he can't risk offending me so much that he can't feign interested and innocent conversations with me--which he has done even after threatening my partner. He can also try to discover more information about me--information with which to further harass me and my family, through these conversations, and through soliciting information from other residents, the police, and even from me. Again, we may have a very naive and pure expectation of our community leaders, but we are smart enough to know about fishing and to know about about retaliation--and, having studied interview techniques and from representing alleged criminals, I certainly know how "guilty" people react and how they try to subversively protect and defend themselves.
One tactic is to try to tarnish the credibility of the "accuser" or the discoverer of misconduct. I mean really, public officials like Care don't accept how guilty it looks to organize, or even to participate in, throwing a whole slew of criminal allegations at perfectly upstanding middle-aged citizens with hardly a traffic ticket to their names--and to do so just as one of those citizen's research into those officials' public conduct has uncovered some very serious questions and concerns. And, don't they know that the more you do to cover your trail of misconduct and bad intentions, the more you give yourself away--and that certainly is true when you engage others in your retaliation towards the innocent citizen.
You see, for me, Care's behavior pretty much confirms that there is something very wrong going on here--and by targeting two upstanding middle-aged professional women who give in in-numerous ways to their community, he has let his "cat" out of the bag. I mean, really, what is the point--just show us where the money goes, show us all your own sources of income and possible conflicts, and make our lives safer by having traffic laws enforced. It is crystal clear to me that he is asking you and I to believe that it is easier and more appropriate for him to threaten and to engage in a pattern of conduct with the intent of running two responsible and contributing residents out of town than it is to respond to any of the concerned residents of this community who just want their community made more transparent and safer.
But, for the time being, I am still here, and the information I uncover about our public officials' behavior and use of our money only leads to more and more questions--not answers. I just hope that if something happens to me--like a speeding car nails me coming out of my driveway, or if I am "accidently" shot by a "hunter," that someone will keep looking for the answers and hold public officials accountable for their conduct. I also welcome your comments if you can clarify or add transparency or accountability to the questions first presented in this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
