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.

Leb.Cty. solicitors and their conflicting representations

Below is the url to view the copy of my notes researching which lawyers represent which municipalities. Note that many lawyers represent several municipalities, and, like MGB, their lawyer may represent an "opposing" party in this EIT issue.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiODZlYmI4M2MtMTU0ZS00YTE0LTk0MDItNTg4Y2M5YzdhNjcx&hl=en

Evidence of a distinct EIT distribution plan that was adhered to.

Here is the link to my calculations showing a distinct EIT distribution plan, and that the plan was adhered to through the years 2004 through 2006.
The chart's 2007 data is incomplete, so can't really be relied on in these calculations. But I crunched them anyway for Mt. Gretna and for the School Districts.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiNmE1ZTExZDQtZGQ4Ny00M2E3LTk1ZGEtNTU4YWU4NzkzYjYw&hl=en

The EIT report

Below, in the Links list, I will provide the links to documents and sources for the information I discuss on this blog.
The first on is the EIT report issued in January of this year.
It is at

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiNDI4Nzg1NGEtZmJjMy00NjM2LWI2YzctM2IyZTAwZmEyNmFi&hl=en

That's all one url, with no spaces.

I will direct you to several points of interest, but still, I encourage you to read it throughly and ask questions.

Note 1: In its explanation of its data sources used for this report (pages 6 through 9), M-A states that it only referred to EIT accounts to match up things like SSN's and municipalities of residence with a person's state tax records. They don't indicate that they are really matching up collection and distribution data from their multiple sources.

The problems here are that your state tax file for the year present different numbers than your EIT filing for that year. Second problem is that your reporting of your EIT tax burden is completely self-motivated. In other words, the state isn't looking at your state filing and cross-checking the EIT database to make sure you filed EIT. The state Dept Of Revenue (DOR) just doesn't "do" EIT. The locals do. Third, there is no explanation for how M-A acounted for workers working out of state but living in PA, and all those anomalies.

Note 2: In its resulting tables, M-A calculated what it thinks should have been collected and distributed according to DOR data--not according to EIT filings. For reasons stated in Note 1, this approach may yield serious inaccuracies when compared to reality. In short, although PA companies have to report EIT witheld from PA residents, M-A doesn't explain how companies' reporting data was used,or if it even was used, and how it adjusted for EIT information the DOR just doesn't have. Further, EIT collectors also give reports t0 the Dept of Revenue. How did M-A incorporate those reports...or did it even go to the DOE? Still, M-A goes ahead with this limited and likely inaccurate data and rewrites history for us anyway, and recalculates what it thinks was EIT revenue collected and disbursed. (See tables 1 through 3)

Note 3: See table 4, where only actual numbers were used. If you crunch the numbers, you will find that there is an actual pattern of disbursement that is consistent from year to year.
However, M-A ignores that fact in its analysis. Instead, it continues to apply its recreated scenario.

Note 4: See last table, where M-A states that actual disbursements for the years were more than the estimated EIT collected. This would be a very difficult thing for the EIT executive director to do--to give away money that he hadn't even received yet. Further, this demonstrates that the M-A calculations are defective. If we paid back what they are saying was overpaid for the year 2006, for example, our effective tax rate, BY THEIR OWN CALCULATIONS would be 1.1%. That's a big deal, since by law, they are only allowed to collect 1%. Taxes are very strict that way.