Remember last November's Boro Proposed Budget

Well, the "final" numbers put the Borough's budget at around $200,000.
But, did you know that that document is more like a fanciful fiction than the legal truth that it is supposed to be?

"How is this?" you ask.
Well, here is how.
When Chucky and Linda "prepare" the proposed budget, they leave a lot of routine revenue out. In fact, they leave out hundreds of thousands of dollars of money that they know full well will be coming in to the Boro.

And, apparently, they leave a lot of the Borough's expenses out, too. Don't believe me?

Well, just look for yourself: look at the OTHER budget report that they are required by law to file every year: the Borough's annual financial report and audit to the state's Dept. of Community and Economic Development.

You can see Linda and Chuck's 2007 filing below by clicking on the docstoc link. I have even highlighted the "bottom lines".

And just remember these two things when you are looking through this report:

First, their proposed budget for 2007 would have been even less than last year's $200,000. So, Chucknuts and LindaLu are telling the state that the Boro has a budget that is 400% of what they tell us the Proposed Budget is. Why mislead us like that? If they urge that everyone is so happy with their delivery of PUBLIC services, then why hide the truth from us?

Second, when even just one of us says that its ok for public resources to be used outside of its legal purpose, you are also making your Boro neighbors pay for that. You may be willing to pay the extra costs that it is taking to keep a fulltime crew of 4 public works staff in a municipality that doesn't have any buildings or any public land, that doesn't have any sewer or water service responsibilities, or any paper trail evidence or actual evidence of sharing between government entities, but your retired 80 year old neighbor may not be willing to subsidize these illegal activities.


Mt Gretna DCED Report 2007

SPIN man Roger Groce

Ever notice that Groce's newsletter runs content that ignores the real and repeated comments that present concerns about the status quo that he sells? For example, over the last few years, I have heard several people complain about the Art Show being held in the Borough. Those complaints even came from one of the founders of the show, who said that he thinks the Art Show is too big for this community and should be held in a more appropriate location. He also told me that he has told Chuck Asswhine and the Board that several times. So,why isn't the Board or the Council responding to concerns like his? Its because they don't really give a crap.

And, why is it that Groce can get information that we lowly citizens can't? For example, he does not own property in the Chautauqua or in the Borough, yet he knows how much the Art Show made last year when we shareholders can't even get that information...Uhhmm, when were we shareholders given that info? Answer: Never.
And what would happen if we asked for it? Well, what would happen is we would be strung along and denied the information even if you made written requests and followed up with attendance at Board meetings.

And, how is it that Groce, on any given day, knows exactly how many people the Borough employs and their names when Borough citizens can't even get that info from the Borough? On one day, you can get three different answers!

The FACTS are that we shareholders can never verify Groce's information because the Board and the person who keeps the financial information refuse to produce the information for us. But, apparently, they can produce it for Groce...and you have to ask yourself why they don't want US to see the real numbers.

And, you have to ask yourself why, if the Art Show is so productive, our shareholder's fees are not offset by that activity's so-called "profit." Let's see, a $30K rake split among the shareholders would drop our annual fee by over $150.

And, why hasn't the Borough or the Chautauqua ever shown us exactly what Chautauqua financial secretary Linda Bell transfers (partially) to herself as the Borough financial secretary every year out of the Chautauqua funds? Why isn't that clearly shown to us shareholders every year, and why isn't the portion that she receives personally reported as a transfer of compensation to a voting Chautauqua Board member, because that's what it is?

Both the Borough and the Chautauqua want us to think that less of a transfer happens every year than what is really the truth. The Borough completely fails to report to us ANY funds received from the Chautauqua, and the Chautauqua apparently wants us to think its what's represented by their Buildings and Grounds Fund maintenance costs. But these representations are not even apparently close to the real amount of money Bell is transferring from the Chautauqua accounts and receiving and "recording" into the Borough accounts---including into her own payroll. So, again, why is it that they feel it is necessary to hide the real numbers from us? If nothing is criminal or unethical about the transfers, then why all the subterfuge and secrecy? Why only leak suggested numbers via Groce? Perhaps the answer is that they don't want us to realize that we are paying WAY TOO MUCH for something that we shouldn't be paying for at all.

It is because, yeah, "spin" appears to be his job, and he does it well. And, well, when your goal is to "con" and squeeze the citizens for every penny, you need a good spinman to help sell the organization and pass out the Kool-Aid.

The True Mount Gretna Character

"repression involves the actual or threatened use of physical sanctions against an individual for the purpose of imposing a cost on the target as well as deterring specific activities and/or beliefs perceived to be challenging to government personnel, practices or institutions." (Goldstein 1978, p. xxvii).

For those of you who think the "sanctions" came BEFORE the discovery of financial improprieties by Mount Gretna public officials, I ask you can you really be that stupid--or is it just spite? Either way, there is no justification for accomodating these corrupt officials further bad behavior in targeting a challenger to their practices. Shame on you...

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