Below are archival blog posts related to the Mercer County Commissioners:
 Written
by Roberta Biros
Today is March 15th. Today is also my 44th birthday. As an annual
tradition, I have the pleasure of posting a selfish little blog
. . . because I am the Editor. My comments today aren’t about
politics (well, not specifically any way). I’ll give the Google
and Yahoo search engines a break today and I won’t mention
any of the typical HOT TOPICS like:
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (soon to be referred
to as former Congresswoman and Millionaire Kathy Dahlkemper)
Senator Bob Robbins (a.k.a. Coconut Bob or Bob
“I never met a payraise I didn’t like” Robbins)
Representative Michele Brooks (a.k.a. “they
can’t stand me but they know they can’t beat me”
Brooks)
Representative Mark Longietti (a.k.a. “I
can make better decisions for my constituents than they can make
for themselves” Longietti)
Representative Dick Stevenson (a.k.a. “don’t
send me email messages” Dick)
Mercer County Commissioners Ken Ammann, Brian Beader, or
John Lechner (a.k.a. Moe, Larry, and Curly)
or Farm Subsidies (and the “greedy and corrupt”
people that take them)
Today’s blog is NOT about those people (but
Google and Yahoo will have a blast sorting out my references to
them today).
Today’s blog is simply a set of two musical references for
your enjoyment. For those of you that have followed this blog over
the past year and a half, you know that I like to toss in musical
references from time to time as a matter of personal therapy. I
share my very personal thoughts with you so that you may gain an
understanding of what makes me tick. Today is one of those “times”.
God is Great, Beer is Good, and People are Crazy
The first is a little ditty that I have really grown to love. I
added it to my iPod a few months back, and I smile every time my
playlist cycles through to it. The song is “God is Great,
Beer is Good, and People are Crazy” by Billy Currington. There
is nothing specific in the lyrics that needs to be highlighted.
Instead, the simple title alone says it all. There are times when
I think back at some of the crazy (and crazed) people that I’ve
met over the past year, and this song simply helps to put it all
in perspective. Sometimes there is no way to explain people or their
behavior. There are situations in life when you just have to say
“people are crazy”.
HERE is
a link to the full video on YouTube if you’d care to indulge.
It's the Climb
Second is a song that I never thought much about until last week.
Did you ever hear a song a hundred times and never really think
much of it . . . but then one day you hear the lyrics and they are
different some how? It is as though words and music suddenly BECAME
something that they never were before. I heard this song on the
radio just last week, and it wasn’t until about half way through
that I actually listened to the words. It was at that moment I saw
the meaning in the song and how it applied to me. The song is “It’s
the Climb” by Miley Cyrus. Allow me to quote the specific
portion of the lyrics that made me stop and think:
There's always gonna be another mountain
I'm always gonna wanna make it move
Always gonna be a uphill battle
Sometimes I'm gonna have to lose
Ain't about how fast I get there
Ain't about what's waiting on the other side
It's the climb
The words “There’s always gonna be another mountain,
I’m always gonna wanna make it move” applies to me specifically
because when I run into a mountain I don’t try to find a way
around it. I’d rather move the whole darn thing. In politics,
that has made me quite the hot potato in Mercer County, but I pride
myself on my determination and my unique ability to think outside
of the box. I'm a bit of a renegade in that way.
The words “Always gonna be an uphill battle, Sometimes I’m
gonna have to lose” were the words that got my attention and
made me take pause. In the political scene I have lost,
but it is important to understand that doing so was simply an inevitable
part of the big picture. In much the same thought as "what does
not kill us makes us stronger", the concept of embracing "being
a loser" makes us better people . . . and I like that.
Lastly, the words “Ain’t about how fast I get there,
Ain’t about what’s waiting on the other side, It’s
the climb” again applies to me in a special way. I’ve
decided that what I’m doing in my small realm of political
activism is a long journey. I may never make it to the other side,
but from this moment on I’m going to enjoy "the climb". "My
Climb" may, in fact, be my very special mission.
“Enjoy the Climb” is now my new anthem. I’ll use
it often to remind myself that winning or losing isn’t what
matters. It is more important than that . . . I do what I do because
it is bigger than just me.
Cool, huh?
HERE is
a link to the video on YouTube if you’d care to take a minute
to hear the full song.
Have a great day . . . I intend to!
.
 Written
by Roberta Biros
The Mercer County Conservatives website was modified slightly last year.
The changes were made for two reasons. The first reason is that I was
devoting my energy toward my political campaign and removed portions
of the site that required time-consuming maintenance. Second, I modified
the site in an effort to diffuse some of the rhetoric that was surfacing
from both sides of the aisle in local politics. Many articles were temporarily
suspended from public viewing, and the “comment” feature
was turned off to prevent ugly arguments. My political campaign last
year triggered lots of emotions from Republicans and Democrats alike,
and I couldn’t keep up with the constant arguing between politicians
while also managing my own campaign for public office. I toned things
down a bit in an effort to get through the campaign with my sanity intact.
Now that the campaign is squarely behind me, I’ve taken a look
at Mercer County Conservatives and have decided to once again let out
all of the stops. The changes are numerous, but here is a brief overview:
Our standard website at http://www.mercerconservatives.com/
has been re-initialized and re-tooled. The purpose of the site is to
provide some structure to our blog and to make our content available
to people and search engines in a simple HTML format. You can continue
to access our blog through the mercerconservatives.blogspot.com
address, but as an alternative you can access the blog through our
standard web page at http://www.mercerconservatives.com/.
It is an easier address to remember and it serves as a jump off point
for our many activities.
Site Update #1: Most Popular Topics
The MercerConservatives.com site now offers an exciting summary area
which provides easy access to our most popular topics. According to
our web statistics, we receive the most traffic from individuals searching
on the following topics through the standard search engines (Google,
Yahoo, other). I’ve provided a brief opinion of why each topic
is of interest.
Congresswoman
Kathy Dahlkemper
The single most popular search query that points people to our many
websites is the name of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. The Congresswoman’s
personality creates quite a bit of curiosity amongst the electorate.
While on the exterior Mrs. Dahlkemper carries herself in a distinguished
manner, when you get an opportunity to talk to her she comes off more
like a wet blanket than a U.S. Congressperson.
Congresswoman Dahlkemper is an anomaly to the educated politico. She
is neither Republican nor Democrat. She is neither conservative nor
liberal. She is neither “Blue Dog” nor Progressive. She
attempts to be all things to all people, and yet manages to stand for
nothing (I will expand upon this topic with a full blog post later this
week). People are intrigued by her in much the same way that we ponder
the age old question of “why do tornados always manage to find
a trailer park to destroy”. Those in “the know” wonder
about Mrs. Dahlkemper and they seek information in one of the few places
that it is available . . . the internet. The internet is still one of
the few places where freedom of speech is exercised on a daily basis.
It is no wonder that she is our #1 topic of interest (nationwide, statewide,
and countywide).
Representative
Michele Brooks
People seek information regarding State Representative Michele Brooks
from our site for numerous reasons. On the state-wide front, there are
fiscal conservatives that watch the activities of Ms. Brooks and others
in hopes of someday turning around the budgetary problems of the Commonwealth.
Ms. Brooks has become an important member of a fiscal conservative movement
in Harrisburg that is watched closely by many groups that support good
government. Rep. Brooks also draws web traffic from her numerous enemies
on the left who are just waiting for her to trip and fall in the public
arena.
Running unopposed this year, Rep. Brooks finds herself in the cat-bird
seat (a comfortable position that is also shared by Reps. Stevenson
and Longietti and Senator Robbins). Unfortunately for her, the uncontrollable
tendency to put friends, supporters, and concerned citizens on the backburner
until she decides that needs them again may be a mistake in the long
run. The “incumbent attitude” may eventually leave some
former supporters with a sense that she is no different than the rest.
For now, however, Rep. Brooks is at the top of her game, and she gets
the web traffic that proves it.
State
Senator Bob Robbins
I’m quite sure that the reason people come to our site in search
of information regarding “our fine Senator” is that we are
the only place on the internet that validates that “Coconut Bob”
is, in fact, still alive and kicking. His inability to understand technology
leaves his web presence well below zero. He rarely if ever publishes
information about his accomplishments on the web. It may be because
he doesn’t think it is important . . . or it is probably because
he has no accomplishments to publicize. Yes, he still holds office,
but only because he has made the position look so uninteresting that
no one else wants it. State Senator "Coconut Bob" Robbins holds spot
#3 in our most popular blog topics.
Roberta Biros
In the top of the pack of search queries, we find "Roberta Biros". Yep,
that’s me.
While I’m currently nothing more than a concerned citizen, I draw
attention from all corners of the state and county. While it is not
unusual to receive daily visits to our sites from Mercer Countians looking
for information about me and my very public opinions, I find it amazing
when folks from Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh are typing
my name into Google to learn more about me and my blog topics. Perhaps
I should consider more activities statewide in the future?
Mercer
County Commissioners and Farm
Subsidies
These two topics rate almost equal in web search queries. Searches regarding
Commissioners John Lechner, Ken Ammann, and Brian Beader (a.k.a. Moe,
Larry, and Curly) are frequent throughout Mercer County. It is no doubt
that the reason for the frequent searches is the disgust and dissatisfaction
that many Mercer Countians have with our three stooges. The common link
to Farm Subsidies is interesting as this issue of corruption is only
tied to one of our fine Commissioners (Mr. Ammann), but many people
in Mercer County and across the state link the two topics together.
I find that very interesting.
Representative
Mark Longietti and Representative
Dick Stevenson
Rounding out the bottom of our most popular web queries are Representative
Longietti and Representative Dick Stevenson. These two legislators receive
an almost equal number of queries on a monthly basis. Both legislators
fail to stand out in any positive way. They generally follow partisan
straight-party politics, and they leave many political enthusiasts in
the state looking for more substance. Unfortunately, it is an impossible
task as these legislators are an unexciting as watching paint dry. Web
visitors may be looking for more, but I simply don’t have anything
to offer as both are simply politicians whose main concern is their
own political well-being.
Site Update #2: Comments are Back ON
MercerConservatives.com
has always been about sharing ideas and talking about current issues.
The center of the conversation was our blog “comment” feature.
Last year (during my campaign) I suspended “comments” as
I simply didn’t have the time to moderate or respond to the many
conversations that were going on. Now that we are back on track, I’ve
re-initialized comments on the site so that we can get back to discussing
the business of Mercer County politics. In making the change, I’ve
also made available all of our past on-line conversations regarding
farm subsidies, past County corruption and scandals, and examples of
poor character in local politics. All of that information is back on-line
and available for your review. Enjoy!
Site Update #3: The Gloves are Off
As a last update to MercerConservatives.com,
I’ve given up on all attempts to “fit in” politically.
I will no longer try to fit my square peg into any round holes that
have been created in Mercer County. Instead, I will open up the flood
gates and talk about EVERY ISSUE without any need to hold back or stifle
my more controversial opinions. Everyone is an open target, and I will
direct my comments (both good and bad) equally in all directions.
So there you have it. Our goals of providing the Mercer County electorate
with information about good government, fiscal responsibility, and worthy
public servants are back on track and ready to roll. Our comments and
commentary will be unfiltered . . . non-partisan . . . and honest. We
will share our opinions and we invite you to join in the conversation.
Welcome to the official unveiling of Mercer County Conservatives
2.0!
.
 Written
by Roberta Biros
There was a very short but compelling news brief published in The
Herald on Friday (02/12/2010). Just in case you missed it, you may
read it on-line HERE.
The piece is titled “ New
full-time ADA spot for prosecutors office”. If you haven’t
read it, please do so now. Once you’ve read it, please take an
opportunity to read it again. After reading it a second time, are you
left scratching your head? If so, you are not alone. There is a much
bigger story behind this snippet, and The
Herald simply isn’t doing their job if they don’t attempt
to dig deeper. Matt Snyder, WHERE ARE YOU?
Let me break the article down into smaller pieces for you (much in the
way that a mother bird first chews and digests a meal for her young
so that she can later regurgitate it into smaller pieces that are easier
for her chicks to consume). I do this so that we can ALL take pleasure
in the details and potentials of this story . . . every little savory
nugget!
Topic #1:
Mercer County Commissioners (Moe, Larry, and Curly . . . oops . . .
Brian Beader, John Lechner, and Ken Ammann) are holding hands with Mercer
County District Attorney (Bob “let me see your tax returns”
Kochems) as they announce that they will be switching out a part-time
assistant DA for a full-time one. This is, of course, to meet the demands
of the court schedule.
The article further goes on to explain that DA Kochems “is looking
for more full-time employees in part because of their aging prosecutors.
As they retire, new prosecutors have to be trained, and that can sometimes
take time.”
Lastly, the article explains that the Mercer County District Attorney’s
Office currently includes a full-time DA (that would be Kochems), five
(5) full-time assistant district attorneys, a full-time juvenile district
attorney, a full-time management position, and three (3) part-time assistant
district attorneys. In summary . . . 1 DA, 9 ADAs, and 1 manager.
Head Scratch #1:
We should all be reminded that Mercer County doesn’t even require
a full-time District Attorney. The fact is that Mercer County would
only have a part-time District Attorney if we weren’t FORCED to
have a full-time DA by a State Mandate. A currently UNFUNDED STATE MANDATE,
I might add.
When the State decided that we NEEDED a full-time DA, they also promised
to pay the difference in salary for that expanded position. It is my
understanding that those funds are still outstanding from the State
Treasury. We are already paying for a full-time DA that we can’t
afford, but we are ALSO paying for NINE (9) ASSISTANT District Attorneys?
Are you kidding me? Is Mercer County so crime ridden that it requires
a total of 10 DA/ADAs?
Does anyone else see a problem here? Are all of the DA/ADAs being fully
utilized? Is that utilization being documented? What is the total salary
expense for the DAs office?
Topic #2:
The most interesting part of the article is how the District Attorney
has figured out how to fund the upgrade of a part-time ADA to a full-time
ADA. It seems that DA Kochems has decided to fund the next two years
of this new spot with $25,000 “in seized drug money”. According
to The Herald, “Kochems said when the $25,000 runs out in two
years, they will have to look for new ways to fund the position during
tight fiscal years.”
Head Scratch #2:
Okay. How do I say this politely? How do I measure my response so that
it doesn’t come off as “mean-spirted”? How about this
. . .
Since when does seized drug money become the personal “slush fund”
for the District Attorney’s office?
How is that for a “head scratch”? Matt Snyder, are you reading
this?
Head Scratch #3:
Next, what kind of assistant district attorney do you get for $12,500
annually? If that is the only cost of an assistant district attorney,
I think we should FIRE the entire staff of the court house and replace
all employees and row office holders with assistant district attorneys.
It would be the deal of the century.
Something tells me that the math on this “deal” just doesn’t
jive with reality. Does anyone else see a problem here? Matt Snyder,
are you reading this?
Head Scratch #4:
What other “slush fund” money does that District Attorney’s
office have access to? I would love to see some record keeping of “found
money” that the DAs office has rolled into “special projects”.
As a tax payer, I’d rather see “found money” become
part of the general fund rather than a fringe benefit for Mr. Kochems.
After all, the taxpayers DO fund the DAs office too, right?
Topic #3:
As if topics 1 & 2 weren’t enough, the article in The Herald
noted:
“Commissioners, who are doing their own re-arranging
of county employees, applauded the courts for finding a way to fund
the position during tight fiscal years”
Head Scratch
#5:
I can just picture it now . . . . Moe, Larry, and Curly are standing
side-by-side applauding our fine District Attorney. Afterwards, “the
stooges” sat down to determine how THEY can “find”
themselves a little extra spending money. They wonder where they can
find themselves a great drug dealer to take down in order to fill their
piggy banks.
Maybe I’m over thinking this just a bit, but is this how you would
describe “prudent fiscal management”?
All I can say is, “This is county government at its finest!”
(Yes, that was intended to be a "tongue in cheek" comment . . . in case
you weren't sure.)
My job here with Mercer County Conservatives is just too easy. This
stuff simply writes itself.
As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives
 Written
by Roberta Biros
I’ve been watching a story unfold for a little while now, and
I’ve managed to hold my tongue patiently. I realize that might
be hard for some of you to believe, but it IS possible. I’ve been
known to hold my tongue once or twice in my lifetime, and this was one
of those few instances.
There are several story lines that are all twisted together, and I’ve
been following the individual threads for months. The general issue
is the Borough of Greenville. The independent threads are the change
of power in Greenville Borough government and the future of GALSA (Greenville
Area Leisure Services Association).
Thread One: Greenville Borough Mayor: Miller is Out and Candela
is In
First, allow me to talk in generalities about the change of power in
Greenville Borough. Former Mayor Dick Miller (a Democrat) is an intelligent
individual. Unfortunately, he wasn’t on top of his game when it
came to last year’s election cycle. The Republicans found a willing
participant last year in Pete Candela when he stepped forward to take
on Miller, the incumbent. Miller decided to take the high road and NOT
campaign . . . deciding instead to simply trust that the people of Greenville
would re-elect him on his record. It was a nice concept, but the results
weren’t quite what Miller had hoped. Dick Miller not only lost
his post as Mayor of Greenville, but his lack of support for others
in his own Party also resulted in loss for Dems in favor of Republican
replacements.
Whether you agreed with Dick Miller’s politics or not, you had
to give him credit for having testicular fortitude . . . something that
can’t be said for most people in elected office. Whether Candela
is a positive change for Greenville or not has yet to be seen, but I
wish him well and hope that he provides some positive change for a struggling
area.
Thread Two: Greenville Borough Council President Brian Shipley
With the change of power in Greenville’s Mayoral office also came
many changes in Greenville Borough Council. In early January, Brian
Shipley was selected to serve as Greenville Council President. ANY political
change that mentions the name of “Brian Shipley” isn’t
a good one. The irony of the selection was only touched on slightly
by The Herald in their January 6th article [read HERE]
as follows:
“Shipley’s selection as council president this
week marks a political comeback of sorts. Shipley was picking up the
pieces of a broken political career when he ran for borough council
in 2007. A former Mercer County commissioner, Shipley resigned after
a scandal in fall 2001 involving his use of a county-issued credit
card and computer.”
The Herald is VERY generous when they used the term “broken political
career”. The truth is that Brian Shipley should not have ANY kind
of political career or "comeback" after his escapades of 2001. Based
on the details that have come across my desk over the past year or so,
Brian Shipley was lucky to find himself walking around a free man after
his troubles in the courthouse. He was fortunate to walk away without
handcuffs and leg irons, and his ‘friends’ in the courthouse
and GOP were equally lucky to have escaped prosecution for their efforts
toward aiding and abetting the then ‘commissioner Shipley’.
The fact that Brian Shipley found himself in ANY elected position is
amazing, but the idea of putting him IN CHARGE of anything within any
level of government is frightening. The people of Greenville should
be afraid . . . very, very afraid.
The people of Mercer County seem to have very short memories, and it
makes me sad. It is my opinion that once an elected official is involved
in a “scandal”, they should be banished from politics and
public service once and for all . . . but I guess I’m just old
fashioned that way.
Thread Three: GALSA
This brings me to the final topic related to the Borough of Greenville
. . . GALSA.
The Greenville Area Leisure Services Association has had issues for
quite sometime. Financial problems, a lack of interest, and a lack of
adequate leadership have left GALSA floating around directionless for
too long. On November 10, 2009, The Record-Argus had a front page article
that announced that GALSA would potentially be hiring a part-time fundraiser,
grant writer and program director. While they weren’t sure ‘if’
or ‘how’ they could pay for the much needed staff member,
all parties involved agreed that someone was needed . . . and desperately.
After reading the article I drafted a letter to David Henderson (the
then GALSA President). In my letter I explained that I would be willing
to offer my time and effort to GALSA ‘free of charge’ in
an effort to get fundraising and programming services underway. I would
donate my time as a ‘public servant’ to the organization
until such time that they were “over the hump” and could
establish a long-term plan.
The day that David Henderson received my letter he called me. He left
a message on my voice mail stating that they would accept my offer and
that he wanted me to start as soon as possible. Unfortunately, Mr. Henderson
spoke out of turn. My attempts to get in touch with Mr. Henderson were
useless as he never bothered to return my numerous calls. While I’ll
never know exactly what happened, I suspect that Mr. Shipley put an
end to the discussion at the point he heard my name. Why? Because I
dared to run a race against his “political friend” and accomplice,
Ginny Steese-Richardson. That makes ME the enemy regardless of what
assistance I could offer the people of Greenville.
So GALSA turns down free help to do what? Well, that is a great question.
Recent articles in The Herald [read HERE
and HERE]
explain that Greenville Borough Council would LOVE to take over GALSA,
but doing so would cut off their main source of income . . . funding
from the United Way. Brian Shipley has made numerous statements to the
press, but mark my words that whatever decisions are made regarding
GALSA will be politically driven. If Brian Shipley’s hands are
in it, it will be because he is looking for some way to “prop
himself up” politically. While there may be others within the
GALSA organization that have nothing but the best of intentions in mind,
“one bad apple” in this bushel will mean bad things for
the people of Greenville.
In Closing . . .
The people of Greenville have a difficult battle ahead. As a financially
distressed community under Act 47, the Borough has its own set of special
problems. To make matters worse, new leadership may take a little while
to get a firm handle on exactly how to handle those problems. The final
nail in the coffin is the burden of a Council President that is looking
to make a ‘new name’ for himself in Mercer County politics
(since the ‘old name’ was too badly soiled). Unfortunately,
it is my opinion that this complex combination of problems will make
Greenville “front page news” for the next few years . .
. and Brian Shipley will be right in the middle of every single bit
of it.
As always, just my opinion.
.
 Written
by Roberta Biros
The news was official on December 31st. The former County Nursing home,
Woodland Place, has officially been sold and is off the County’s
books. The story was worthy of a multi-page write up in The
Herald, and the current County Commissioners were reportedly celebratory.
I hate to be the party pooper, but I’d like to step back and put
the news story into perspective.
First, I’d like to thank Matt Snyder for a well-written and well-rounded
article that appeared in the December 30, 2009, issue of The
Herald (read the full story HERE).
Matt did a great job of talking to all of the parties involved and organizing
a neat little historical review. I’ve written many articles about
Woodland Place and I know how difficult it is to pull the facts together
(read my Woodland Place articles HERE).
I only have one complaint about the article, and that is that Matt Snyder
is just too darn nice sometimes. I, on the other hand, am not afraid
of being a little more critical where I think it is deserved. That is,
of course, the purpose of today’s blog post.
In the case of the article in The
Herald, there seemed to be lots of back patting of the current Commissioners
(or perhaps that was them patting their own backs . . . I’m not
absolutely sure), but in my opinion Woodland Place was sold despite
the efforts (or lack thereof) of the County Commissioners. My own experiences
gave me the impression that the County Commissioners weren’t losing
any sleep over finding a buyer for the failed nursing home. Instead,
my perception (and the perception of others) has been that the Commissioners
were sitting by waiting for someone to find a solution to the problem
in hopes that they could take credit for it. Allow me to explain . .
.
The article in The Herald
stated that the current commissioners all ran for office in 2007 on
the platform of cleaning up the mess that was Woodland Place. That part
of the story is absolutely true. It was then implied that “once
the commissioners were all on the same page”, they were able to
work hard together to find a new buyer. This is the portion of the story
that I have issues with (and I’ll come back to those issues in
just a minute).
The Herald also mentions that the buyer of Woodland Place was brought
to the commissioners by State Representative Michele Brooks. That tidbit
of information is also factual. What the article doesn’t mention,
however, is that the Commissioners weren’t falling over themselves
to look for or court the potential manager / buyer. My sources within
the Mercer County political scene tell me that the commissioners were
somewhat unresponsive and actually ignored the original queries posed
by John Hughes of South Western Alpha. It was only through contact with
the office of Representative Michele Brooks that Hughes was able to
get the attention of the Commissioners office. So I ask, should the
commissioners get credit for the deal or were they simply taken along
for the ride (kicking and screaming, perhaps)?
Some people might find the suggestion odd, but I do not. I was contacted
by an interested party just last January under similar circumstances.
An organization from eastern Pennsylvania contacted me by email asking
if I could put them in touch with the people responsible for a possible
deal regarding Woodland Place. They were interested in discussing the
possible purchase of Woodland Place but their queries were going unanswered.
I provided names, email addresses, and phone numbers of the three County
Commissioners. Several weeks later I was contacted again by the same
individual. This time the complaint was that none of the commissioners
were returning calls or email messages. The contact asked if I could
get involved to assist. I contacted the commissioners again by email
but I never received a response.
How many other “potential buyers” were out there? How many
“interested parties” were turned away or discouraged because
Commissioners Ken Ammann, John Lechner, and Brian Beader weren’t
doing their job? How many “opportunities” knocked but received
no answer because Ammann, Lechner, and Beader ignored calls, letters,
and email messages?
At that time, the ‘story’ was that the commissioners were
already attempting to strike a deal with Hughes, and they weren’t
interested in pursuing new offers. As a taxpayer in Mercer County I
found the lack of interest from the Commissioners’ Office to be
insulting. Even if a deal was in the works, it would have been to the
benefit of Mercer County taxpayers for ALL offers to be put on the table.
After all, a little competition could have gone a long way to sweeten
the deal for taxpayers. Unfortunately, that never happened.
Based on my experiences and those reported to me by others, it seems
that the commissioners were simply waiting for the right deal to “fall
into their lap”. It gives the appearance that the commissioners
wanted a solution with as little effort as possible . . . and that is
exactly what they got. Unfortunately, that is also what Mercer County
taxpayers have been asked to settle for. Why? . . . because Commissioners
Ken Ammann, John Lechner, and Brian Beader were only willing to do the
absolute minimum.
Was the final deal for Woodland Place the best deal for Mercer Countians?
We will really never know. The people of Mercer County were simply treated
like mushrooms . . . kept in the dark and fed “manure” (yes,
I just edited myself there). If there was a better deal out there, none
of us will ever know about it, and I would expect that the Commissioners
weren’t looking for it either.
On another stream of consciousness, I’d like to discuss a different
issue and concern. Commissioners make quite a deal of them “all
being on the same page” and “presenting a united front”.
I guess this is supposed to be a way to criticize past Commissioners,
but I find the argument silly (at best) and misleading (at worst).
I’m of the opinion that maybe our three commissioners all being
on the same page isn’t the best for us, the taxpayers. Government
was originally established with a set of checks and balances in place.
This prevented corruption and protected “we, the people”.
Diversity promotes discussion, argument, and new ideas. The “three
commissioners” (a.k.a., Moe, Larry, and Curly) all want to just
sit comfortably in the courthouse and share in chuckles and back patting
(nyuck, nyuck, nyuck). They figure that discord makes waves and waves
make for difficult (and expensive) re-elections. Unfortunately, while
they are celebrating the “Mercer County Good Ol’ Boys Club”
the taxpayers of Mercer County will continue to be handed tax increases
and excuses from “the team”.
I’d love to see one of the “three commissioners” stand
up for something . . . anything! Rather than rubber stamping each other,
the “three commissioners” should be double checking each
other.
So I say to Ammann, Lechner, and Beader (Moe, Larry, and Curly)
. . . “grow a pair (or 'find a pair') . . . if you can’t,
let me know and I’ll lend you mine."
As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer County Conservatives
.
 Written
by Roberta Biros
On July 4th, proud Americans celebrate their independence. We
have picnics and cookouts and fireworks. As we celebrate, however,
our independence and freedoms are slowly being stolen. Our government
is taking away our liberty through higher taxes as they force us,
the taxpayers, to pay for their pet projects and bad decisions.
Budget battles are going on in Washington DC as well as in every
state capitol across this country. Lawmakers at every level are
making decisions . . . important decisions . . . “Should we
tax more or spend less?” Taxpayers are beginning to organize
and speak out as a group. The message in every case is the same
. . . “Government needs to stop the tax increases, stop overspending,
and begin to live within its means”. In order to be heard,
we must speak up and get involved. Whether you attend a protest
-or- contact your legislator -or- run for office -or- write a letter
to the editor -or- “all of the above”, it is important
that you voice your opinion while you still have a chance.
Mercer County Budget Woes
I’ve drafted and sent the following letter to the Editor of
The Herald, and I’d
like to share it with all of you. The letter is in response to an
on-going issue involving Mercer County Commissioners and the unions
representing county workers (read the full story HERE
and HERE
and HERE).
There was also a letter to the editor of the Herald from the three
Commissioners, but it was not available for on-line viewing at the
time of this posting. In that letter, Commissioner Lechner stated:
“Lastly, you questioned whether the union vote
would be different if commissioners and row officers had first
made some personal sacrifices. We made it abundantly clear to
your reporter when he visited our office immediately after the
meeting with labor that the commissioners had informed labor that
we were going to participate in the pay reduction and that several
row officers had already indicated that they would as well.”
Here is my response to the issue and to the letter from the Commissioners:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
In Harrisburg this week, our legislators are battling over the
state budget. The key question is whether to increase taxes
or cut costs. While it is an understandably difficult decision,
it is one that we all make in our own households everyday. The
main difference is that when we balance our personal budgets,
we don’t have the luxury of simply increasing our income
with the swipe of a pen. Instead, we are forced to live within
our means in order to make ends meet. This usually means giving
up luxuries, but it often requires giving up necessities.
As the Commonwealth struggles with its financial difficulties,
necessary budget cuts will ultimately affect us locally. Mercer
County Commissioners are already considering how our own county
budget will be affected by cuts at the state level. Our County
Commissioners are, of course, already considering tax increases;
but they are also looking at ways to cut costs. They recently
met with union representatives regarding possible cut backs
in the courthouse during this difficult time. Union representatives
rejected the county’s proposal, and they were absolutely
right to do so. Our County Commissioners asked union workers
to take a cut, but the Commissioners didn’t bother to
demonstrate a level of fiscal responsibility and commitment
before entering discussions.
Rather than blaming The Herald and its reporters in a recent
letter to the Editor, the Commissioners should have walked into
negotiations with the union well prepared. Perhaps a signed
pledge from elected officials and row officers volunteering
to give back a percentage of their paychecks if the union agreed
to similar cuts . . . or, better yet, a pledge stating that
they would donate a portion of their salaries back to the County’s
general fund regardless of the outcome of negotiations with
the union.
Our County leaders need to realize that as elected officials
they are expected to be both leaders and public servants . .
. in this case, they have not demonstrated either. Rather than
asking others to sacrifice, they should have lead by example
by being the first to give back to the taxpayers.
Roberta Biros
Delaware Township
In Closing
This is just another example of elected officials taking us, the
taxpayers, for granted. It is time that we pressure lawmakers to
be accountable and responsible. We need to let them know exactly
how we feel our taxes should be spent (or not), and we must be persistent.
It is our right . . . it is our priviledge . . . and it is our duty.
.
 Written
by Roberta Biros
Everyone is in a budget crisis nowadays. Our Nation’s lawmakers
are trying to figure out how to pay for everything we want at the Federal
Level. Pennsylvania State lawmakers are battling over how the State’s
finances should be handled. Counties are obviously going to feel economic
woes too. Last week I published an article titled “ Pennsylvania
Budget Cuts Trickle Down to Counties”. I explained that if
State lawmakers hold firm to balancing the State’s books, the
Counties may suffer in the end. In preparation for tough times, it is
my opinion that our County leaders should start planning in advance.
I suggested voluntary pay cuts for elected officials as a crucial first
step [read the full story HERE].
A few days later, I published another article titled “ State
Budget 101: Cut Costs or Increase Taxes”. In it I explained
that Democratic leaders in the State House of Representatives hinted
at the fact that they may need to increase state income tax in order
to make up the budget shortfall. Rather than signing on to spending
cuts (as proposed by the State Senate), House Democrats might be considering
just raising taxes instead.
Late last week, Mercer County Commissioners showed their hand regarding
their plans for balancing the Counties expenses too, and they seem to
be following in the footsteps of House Democrats. In an article published
in the Sharon Herald [ READ
HERE], plans from County Commissioners (Beader, Ammann, and Lechner)
were laid out regarding the County’s finances. If anticipated
funds are not received from the state (referred to as “pass-through
money”), the County will fall short of their financial responsibilities.
The Herald stated:
“The main problem with passing a budget
that cuts pass-through money, said Commissioner Brian Beader, is the
county’s only way of making that cash up is to raise property
taxes”.
Hmmm. Perhaps the Commissioners need to simply read the TITLE of my
article “ State
Budget 101: Cut Costs or Increase Taxes” to get at least ONE
other way to balance a budget. Doesn’t anyone consider cutting
costs FIRST? Instead, political leaders like to threaten tax increases
as an ONLY solution. I would like to see County leaders demonstrate
a little more effort before pushing the “raising taxes panic button”.
The concept of raising taxes shouldn’t be discussed until all
other options have been addressed. It shows a lack of originality, and
it illustrates that our County Commissioners aren’t willing to
look for solutions that are “outside of the box”.
For additional details regarding the problems with the Mercer County
budget, see the article titled “ Unfunded
Mandates Hit Counties in the Pocket”.
.
 Written
by Roberta Biros
If you live in a closet, perhaps you don’t realize that this Country
is in financial dire straits. Spending is out of control, and the madness
needs to stop at some point. Everyone realizes it, but no one can come
to an agreement on how to fix it.
In Pennsylvania, our Legislature is currently struggling with its own
budget issues. In February, the Governor proposed a budget filled with
unaffordable spending. The Pennsylvania State Senate took the Governor’s
proposed budget and chopped it up with Senate Bill 850. SB850 passed
the Senate and has been handed to the PA House [ READ
HERE]. Lawmakers in the Legislature realize that there is a serious
problem, but thoughts on fixing the problem are split along Party lines.
In general, Democrats support higher spending with more money for Education
and other key projects. Conservatives feel that spending cuts are in
order, and no projects are protected or off the table. There are many
Legislators that are standing somewhere in the middle with more concerns
about special interests (and re-election) than responsible leadership.
When the PA House of Representatives returns to Harrisburg at the beginning
of June, they will be hard pressed to get a budget passed before the
July 1st deadline. If the budget is not passed on-time, payroll for
State Employees may shut down until a budget is agreed upon.
The struggles at the State level are now beginning to trickle down to
the Counties and School Districts in Pennsylvania. Counties that ‘counted
their chickens before they hatched’ have based their budgets on
monies that were expected to come from the State. Those same Counties
are now just realizing that some of those funds may not show up after
all. GrassrootsPA.com referenced
a great article from TheMorningCall.com
today [read the full story HERE].
In the story we are told that County Commissioners from Lehigh, Chester,
Dauphin, Monroe, and Somerset Counties have warned State Lawmakers that
they will be forced to cut services or raise taxes in their respective
Counties if they do not receive help through the State Budget. Mercer
County Commissioners made similar statements in an article that was
published in The Herald [ READ
HERE]. Mercer County is considering layoffs and temporary shut downs
of the courthouse in order to save money.
My response is . . . NO KIDDING!
Have these County Commissioners had their heads buried in the sand?
Have they not seen the State’s fiscal crisis build? Have they
just figured that the money was going to appear from a magic hat? Did
they not realize that the cash from the State was due to dry up at some
point? Have they not considered that cutting spending would need to
happen at the County level too?
If this is the case, every single County Commissioner needs to be booted
to the curb. County spending is their responsibility, and they should
have seen this coming. To moan and cry about the lack of State funding
now is ridiculous.
I can’t begin to address the fiscal issues of Lehigh, Chester,
Dauphin, Monroe, or Somerset Counties, but I am in a position to comment
on the fiscal issues of Mercer County. Mercer County Commissioners are
threatening that they might need to consider layoffs and temporary shutdowns
of the courthouse, as well as cuts to benefits packages and the potential
reopening of union contracts. Does anyone else agree that “it
is about time”?
If Mercer County Commissioners are really serious, they should lead
by example. I propose that the elected officials in Mercer County should
take an immediate and voluntary 10% pay cut. Just like many State Legislators
voluntarily returned their pay raises to the State, County Officials
should voluntarily return 10% of their salary to the County through
a give-back to the County’s general fund. If it is necessary to
implement layoffs or shutdowns in the courthouse, perhaps the Commissioners
should suggest a Countywide four-day work week for County employees.
The County Officials could again lead by example by refunding an additional
20% of their salaries too. I’m talking about all County Elected
Officials here . . . Commissioners, Controller, Recorder of Deeds, Prothonotary,
and . . . yes . . . Treasurer.
The financial problems of the state and counties are serious. Serious
problems call for serious measures. County leaders shouldn’t just
sit back and blame their problems on the State Legislature. Instead,
they should control their own ‘houses’ by operating within
their own budgets. There are no cuts that should be off the table, and
every opportunity for saving should be considered. Cut backs in benefits
and labor contracts should be ‘on the table’, but it is
important for elected officials to suck it up too. Self imposed cuts
from County leaders would serve as a good-will gesture to labor unions
(not to mention to the taxpayers of Mercer County).
No one ever said that cutting cost is easy, and sometimes you have to
‘give until it hurts’. Now may be one of those times.
As always, just my opinion.
.
 Written
by Roberta Biros
It has been some time since I last posted content regarding Mercer County’s
own “pebble in its shoe”, Woodland Place. I’ve noticed
that much has been mentioned in the Sharon
Herald recently, but unfortunately it isn’t really anything
“new”.
I’ve written extensively on the topic of Woodland Place in the
past, and you can read some of my previous blog posts HERE
(I apologize, but many of my older articles have been archived for the
sake of drive space and bandwidth). I also read a great summary of the
financial crisis at Woodland Place at another Blog/On-Line Newspaper
HERE. The article titled
“ County
Commissioners Find New Ways To Lose Another $3 To $7 Million On Already
Sold Nursing Home” puts the financial figures regarding the
nursing home into prospective in a very simple way, and it is worth
a quick read.
My research regarding Woodland Place originally began by scanning the
archives of local news papers. I then started gathering information
from individuals who had some level of involvement in the issue. In
December, I had a long meeting with Commissioner John Lechner, and I’ve
had extensive email conversations with former Commissioners regarding
other historical details. I’ve tried to be fair in my coverage
of Woodland Place, but I’ve also been clear that I think it is
a problem that needs to be resolved . . . quickly!
At one point I wrote so much about the topic that I was contacted by
a party in eastern PA that was interested in the possible purchase of
Woodland Place. They felt that I was a key contact, and asked for my
assistance in contacting the nursing home and the County Commissioners.
I’m not sure how I became the “authority” on the failed
nursing home, but I was happy to field the request. I provided the individual
with contact information for the Mercer County Commissioners Offices
so that he could talk with them personally. That contact and response
was on January 21, 2009.
Several weeks later, I was contacted again by the same eastern PA party.
This time his email message read as follows:
“Just wanted to follow-up and let you know that we
have been trying repeatedly to get both Councilmen on the phone, we
heard today that they were not interested in talking to us about selling
the home. "
It seems that the County Commissioners refused to speak to the out of
town firm. At that point, I sent an email message to all three County
Commissioners as follows (some details have been “X”ed out
for the sake of privacty of the parties involved):
Subject: Woodland Place Inquiry -- Please Respond
TO: Mercer County Commissioner Brian Beader
Mercer County Commissioner John Lechner
Mercer County Commissioner Kenneth Ammann
Dear Sirs,
I am writing as a concerned citizen of Mercer County.
At the end of December I had a meeting with Commissioner John Lechner
regarding the status of Woodland Place as it pertains to the citizens
and taxpayers of Mercer County. During that meeting I was told that
the best case scenario for Woodland Place (as far as the County is
concerned) is to sell the home to a “good buyer”. At that
time, I understand there were on-going negotiations with the individual
who is currently managing the home, and the Commissioners’ Office
was hopeful that a “deal” might be signed by the end of
January.
Question #1:
I’d like to know the status of that “deal”. I’d
like to know if negotiations have moved forward and if we are closer
to closing a deal on the Home.
Question #2:
If there is no pending agreement, I’d like to know the new time-line
that has been established based on your latest data.
Question #3:
If there is not yet a deal, I’d like to know why repeated attempts
by an outside firm to discuss the possible purchase of Woodland Place
have been ignored. Mr. “X” of “X
Company” in “X”, PA contacted me several weeks ago
to request contact information for the Commissioners’ Office,
and I obliged. Mr. “X” has contacted me again today and
has asked if I had any insight into why there is currently “no
interest” from the Commissioners’ Office in discussing
the potential sale of Woodland Place.
As a concerned citizen and a taxpayer in our fine County, I’d
appreciate a candid response.
You may respond by email to Roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com,
or you may call me at my home office at X. If it is necessary for
me to come to your office to discuss the matter, please let me know
and I will make an appointment to do so.
Thank you in advance for your prompt reply.
That email message was sent to the Commissioners Office on February
9, 2009. Unfortunately, a response was never received by mail, email,
or phone.
Just last week, there were several articles published in the Sharon
Herald regarding Woodland Place. Those articles are listed below for
reference:
3/12/2009 -- County
near deal to sell Woodland Place nursing home
3/13/2009 -- Woodland
Place owes big sewer bill
3/16/2009 -- UPDATE:
Woodland Place suitor owns New Castle nursing home
The first article (3/12/2009) simply stated that a plan to sell the
home was “imminent”, but once again the County Commissioners
were ducking questions and holding details very tight to their vests.
The second article (3/13/2009) reports an interesting problem with the
nursing home. It seems that after announcing the potential sale of the
home, creditors started to get a little scared. The announcement prompted
Coolspring Township to file a lien against the nursing home in the amount
of $29,936 in unpaid sewer fees. This is a smart move on the part of
Coolspring Township to get in line to get paid should a sale take place.
In response, County Commissioner Brian Beader told the Herald “that
all sewer bills accrued under the new board at Woodland Place are paid
up”. He went on to say that “the nearly $30,000 deliquency
accrued under a prior board between Jan 22 2007 and Nov 18, 2008, according
to the lien.” This is all interesting and a funny stand for the
Commissioner to take. I’ll be curious to see if the $30,000 delinquency
will be forgiven because a new “board” was in place. Last
I checked, this isn’t a reason for debt forgiveness, but perhaps
Commissioner Beader has some sort of inside information. This story
is worth a follow-up.
Lastly, the third article (3/16/2009) announced “who” is
attempting to purchase the nursing home. This information has been available
since my December conversation with Commissioner John Lechner, so it
was not a surprise to me. Although, I must admit that I’d like
to know if my contact from Eastern PA was ever given an opportunity
to enter into the negotiations. We all know that competition and multiple
interests would be good for the County.
Three articles written within a week’s time, but nothing really
new to report . . . other than the fact that the nursing home continues
to rack up more debt that it appears to have no intention of paying.
It seems that the Commissioners office has found it necessary to gather
some “free” press for themselves, but they haven’t
actually provided the tax payers with any new “free” information.
The lack of transparency here is concerning. I realize that a business
deal can require a certain amount of privacy, but this particular business
deal is costing each and every tax payer in this county money every
single day, and we deserve more. The Commissioners’ Office did
not hesitate to burden the tax payers with a 2 mil increase this year
to cover the failed nursing home, so they should not hesitate to burden
us with details either. The closed door policies of the County Commissioners
Office just doesn’t “smell right”, and I think some
outrage might be in order.
Woodland Place is a very expensive “pebble in the shoe”
of Mercer County Pennsylvania taxpayers. It is the responsibility of
the County Commissioners Office to address this issue on behalf of the
taxpayers. It concerns me that two of the Commissioners, who are also
members of the Board at Woodland Place, seem a bit confused on exactly
who it is that they work for. Regardless of their Board positions, it
is important for the County Commissioners Office to realize that they
work FOR the taxpapers of Mercer County, and they, therefore, owe the
taxpayers a certain amount of respect . . . not to mention accountability
and transparency . . . characteristics that seem to be lacking in some
offices of the Mercer County Courthouse lately.
As always, just my opinion.
~ Roberta
Biros, Mercer County Conservatives
 Written
by Roberta Biros (a.k.a. "Roberta in Mercer")
The local press coverage regarding Woodland Place in Mercer County
has been lacking details and specifics, which I find frustrating.
So, on Tuesday, December 23, 2008, I stopped into the Mercer County
PA Commissioners office to see if I could do a bit more investigating
on my own regarding the dirty details of Woodland Place. It was an
enlightening visit, and I left the Mercer County Courthouse about
an hour later feeling satisfied with some of my findings.
I had the pleasure of sitting down with John Lechner (the sole Republican
in the County Commissioners office) for an informative visit. Mr.
Lechner was kind enough to sit down and discuss the situation at Woodland
Place openly and honestly (at least I was left with the impression
that the conversation was open and honest . . . only time will tell
if my assumption was truthful). I learned quite a bit, and I’d
like to share my findings and attempt to correct some of the errors
that I (and others) have passed along in the past according to Mr.
Lechner.
Issue #1 – Details Regarding the Original Sale of Woodland
Place
The deal for Woodland Place took place in 1998. Unfortunately, popular
belief is apparently incorrect regarding the handling of the money
at that time. I’m told that the County actually received NO
money in 1998. It seems that the County did not receive the $3.5 million
from the proceeds of the sale of Woodland Place until 2002 when the
bond was issued. The bond of $8.8 million was to cover $3.5 million
for the County and $5.3 million for upgrades and improvements.
This issue leads me to ask “who in their right mind closes a
real estate/business deal without getting ANY money”? Apparently,
the past Mercer County Commissioners found this to be acceptable business
practices.
Issue #2 – Details Regarding the Infamous $8.8 Million
Bond
In 2002, the owners of Woodland Place sought a loan to cover the $3.5
million debt to the County (for the original purchase of the nursing
home) and to cover the costs of improvements. As I’ve already
outlined, Woodland Placed needed the County in order to get the funding,
and the County was foolish enough to buy in. This is an issue that
I have a great deal of difficulty with. Woodland Place came forward
and said “we need $8.8 million”. However, even WITH the
improvements, the nursing home would only have a $5 million appraised
value. Who in their right mind would lend $8.8 million to a business
that will only end up valued at $5 million after the loan? Apparently
(again), the answer is past Mercer County Commissioners (specifically,
Ken Seamans, Gene Brenneman and Olivia Lazor).
During the conversation with Mr. Lechner regarding this topic, I asked
the reasonable question “what safeguards were put into the original
contract for the $8.8 million bond that protected the County and the
Tax Payers should Woodland Place default?” Mr. Lechner’s
answer was “none”.
Huh? Are you kidding me? Who in their right mind would enter into
a real estate/ business transaction and not cover themselves in case
of default of the other party? Apparently (again), the answer is the
past Mercer County Commissioners. Do you all see the recurring theme
here?
After further discussion and probing, Mr. Lechner mentioned that the
County Solicitor (representing the County in the transaction) and
the Attorney for Woodland Place (representing, of course, Woodland
Place) were one and the same. Again, Huh? Are you kidding me? I thought
for a minute and I inquired, “Lew McEwen”? Mr. Lechner
answered “yes”.
Wow. What a disaster. I’m only into my first 10 minutes of discussion
with John Lechner and I’m absolutely overwhelmed with disgust
over the situation. But, wait . . . there’s more . . . our conversation
continued.
Issue #3 – What Debts are the County Currently Paying
on Behalf of Woodland Place?
After the 2002 loan went on the books, Woodland Place started out
OK and initially made the bond payments. In about two years time,
that ended and the responsibility of paying the bond payments fell
to the lap of the County. I asked specifically what percentage of
the bond payments Woodland Place had been making during that time
(assuming that they were able to make some portion of the payments,
right?). The answer? . . . from that point, the County made every
bond payment in full. John Lechner was clear to point out, however,
that the County has not been paying operating expenses of Woodland
Place. He stated that the County has been ONLY making bond payments
(for which they are financially responsible if Woodland Place does
not make the payments), and Woodland Place has been on the hook for
their other debts.
Issue #4 – What are Mercer County’s Options with
Woodland Place?
Bankruptcy of Woodland Place
I discussed the option of bankruptcy for Woodland Place. Unfortunately,
if Woodland Place filed for bankruptcy, the assets of Woodland Place
would be sold off to the highest bidder and the County would be left
“holding the bag”. In this case, the County would simply
be responsible for the entire bond and they could not regain any of
the funds owed to them. The losses for the County in this option would
be huge.
Foreclosure on Woodland Place
John Lechner and I also discussed the option of the County foreclosing
on Woodland Place. Unfortunately, foreclosure offers many of the same
problems and headaches as bankruptcy. In the end, the County is again
left “holding the bag”, and they would be back in the
“nursing home business” . . . not a good direction for
the County. They would be left with all of the financial problems
of the failing nursing home, they would be left with the responsibility
of running the home, and they would be left with the balance of the
bond. In looking for a "win, win" scenario, this one is a "lose, lose,
lose" scenario.
Bankruptcy of Mercer County
The only way for the financial responsibility of Woodland Place to
disappear from the County’s books is to either pay it off OR
for the County to go into bankruptcy. As you can see, finding a way
to pay the bond is the only REAL option here.
Private sale to a “Good Buyer”
In a best case scenario, the County needs to find a “good buyer”
for Woodland Place. They need to find a buyer that can step up and
buy out Woodland Place so that some of the debt can be repaid to the
County. That buyer could then turn Woodland Place around and transform
it into an asset for the area. The County will still end up with the
short end of the stick, but at this point it is a matter of how can
we “lose the least”. This is the only option that will
provide the County with some reimbursement from the original bad bond
loan of 2002.
Issue #5 – Is the Same Old Management Still in Place
at Woodland Place?
New management was brought into Woodland Place twice since 2004. The
most recent change in management occurred this past summer. As I understand
it, that new management is quickly beginning to turn things around.
The total debt for the failing nursing home has dropped, and the total
income is increasing . . . they are actually beginning to be run like
a “real business”. They are collecting their receivables,
they are increasing their income, and they are paying down their debt
. . . these are all good signs.
Issue #6 – Is There an End in Sight . . . Ever?
Perhaps. If things continue on their present course, Woodland Place
will actually begin to look attractive to prospective buyers, and
it may be able to be sold to reclaim some of the debt that is owed
the County? In my conversation with John Lechner, I heard a sound
of cautious optimism for the current direction of the home. Unfortunately,
all of this is based on my ability to believe all that I was told.
I will handle my conversation with John Lechner the way that I handle
all encounters . . . I’ll trust him until he gives me a reason
not to. I’m trusting what I was told, but I’ll also be
“cautiously optimistic” until I see concrete proof to
substantiate what I was told.
Issue #7 – Will Mercer County Ultimately Still Lose
Money?
Unfortunately, yes, but we will loose much less if we can “sell
and get out” rather than try to continue to hang on to the sinking
ship. Again, it is a matter of getting out with the least loss.
Issue #8 -- The Necessity of the 2 Mill Increase . . . and
Will it Last Forever?
I ran through some quick numbers with John Lechner regarding the 2
mill increase that was put through in Mid-December. If everything
goes perfectly with Woodland Place, it appears that the County could
have sufficient funds to “cover the balance of the bond”
after a 2 mill increase for only 2 years. I asked why the County couldn’t
just limit the increase to 2 years (and extend it later if it is "absolutely
necessary"). In typical political form, John Lechner answered (in
general terms) “if we don’t need the increase in 2 years,
we can just rescind the tax increase in 2011”. I couldn’t
control myself and I laughed out loud. Perhaps that answer goes over
with some people, but my response was “no one ever rescinds
back a tax increase . . . once a tax increase is on the books it stays
there forever”. At that point, John Lechner did admit that in
two years time (after the funds are put aside for the Woodland Place
bond), the County will be in need of additional money for the general
fund anyway, and eventually the increase will be earmarked for general
cost increases for the County budget. The 2 mill increase of last
week is divided into 1.5mill for Woodland Place and .5mill for increased
operating expenses for the County. Although all of the cash needed
for Woodland Place would be collected by the end of 2011, the 2 mill
increase will, in all likelihood, remain in order to put the County
back on its feet after this whole episode is done and gone. Woodland
Place has placed us in a deep ditch, and the County will need the
2 mill increase for years to come just to get back on solid ground.
Issue #9 – What Exactly Happened to the $5.3 million
from the Bond Loan for "Improvements"?
I’m sorry, but I have one final question that will, perhaps,
remain unanswered for all eternity. What ever happened to the $5.3
million from the original bond loan that was earmarked for improvements?
Supposedly, the funds were used to make Woodland Place “very
nice” . . . but can you tell me that it is $5.3 million dollars
"nicer"? I don’t know about all of you, but $5.3 million is
still a lot of money to me, and it makes me uncomfortable that the
books of Woodland Place were never made available to the people of
the County (seeing that we are the ones paying for it). I would love
to see a dollar by dollar accounting of all 5.3 million of those dollars,
but I realize that will never happen. It just seems like someone really
pulled a quick one on the people of the County, and now we have no
other option but to pick up the pieces and move on. It would be nice
to know who ended up with a fatter wallet after the $5.3 million was
"spent".
In summary, perhaps things aren’t as bad as the local press
makes it look. Don’t get me wrong, the situation is still pretty
darn BAD, but it is something that looks like it is finally beginning
to work itself out. If the County can assist in getting Woodland Place
in the hands of a “good company”, they will eventually
get out from under this relentless financial burden on the tax payers.
Hopefully, in the future, the once failed nursing home will be an
asset to the community by giving back in many ways.
Am I more optimistic about the situation? Yes.
Am I overly hopeful or trusting? No.
There are lots of things that need to happen in order for everything
to work out perfectly for the County, but I’ll remain hopeful
that the County Commissioners will push to close the door on this
issue. I’m sure that they don’t want to hear about it
any more than we want to remind them about it.
As it stands, I’m going to give the current County Commissioners
a pass for a little while. I’m going to see if things pan out
in the way that they were explained to me. If things don’t begin
to go in a positive direction for the County, I’ll probably
end up at the Courthouse again for another long and friendly conversation.
Until then, we should all keep our fingers crossed for the “best
case scenario” for the County and for the future of Woodland
Place.
I'd like to stress, however, I’m still sickened by the fact
that the County was able to get itself in this situation in the first
place. Let this serve as a long lasting reminder to the people of
Mercer County that “even a few bad apples will quickly ruin
the whole barrel”. The horrendous mistakes of a few County Commissioners
back in 1998 and 2002 will eventually cost the tax payers of this
County MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in the long run. If that
doesn’t make you want to get out and vote, I don’t know
what will!
As always, just my opinion.
-
 Written
by Roberta Biros (a.k.a. "Roberta in Mercer")
Before the idea of government bailouts was even in vogue, former Mercer
County Commissioners Ken Seamans, Gene Brenneman and Olivia Lazor were
way ahead of the curve when in 2002 when they decided to guarantee a
bond for the poorly managed Woodland Place Nursing facility. A County
guaranteed bond was issued with no apparent strings attached, and now
Mercer County residents are being forced to pay for it.
First, let us review the facts . . .
- Mercer County sold the county owned home to a private firm in
1998 for $3.5 million. At that time, the proceeds from the sale
were put into an escrow account.
- In 2002, the company running the home found themselves in need
of money for upgrades to the facility, and they went to the county
to back the loan. An $8.8 million county guaranteed bond was issued.
- In 2004, the nursing home started to have problems and they were
unable to make the bond payments without the assistance of the County.
Mercer County started pulling money from the original escrow account
to cover the bond payments.
- In 2008, the County has spent most of the original proceeds from
the sale and they are close to having to dip into the general fund
to continue to make payments on behalf of the home. There is still
a $6.2 million balance that will carry through until 2013.
- In March of 2008, independent consultants accessed Woodland Place
and stated “the home is unable to stand alone in supporting
its outstanding debts”.
- This week, County Commissioners announced a 2-mill property tax
hike. 1.5-mill of the increased is earmarked for future bond payments
for Woodland Place (with the remaining .5-mill for increased County
costs).
Now, let’s talk about the real story behind the facts . . .
In much the same fashion as "unqualified buyers" attempting to get a
home mortgage, Woodland Place needed the County to guarantee the loan
in 2002 because they were not qualified for the loan on their own merit.
That was the first sign that the loan shouldn't have been guaranteed
in the first place. Unfortunately, the nursing home got what they asked
for regardless of their inability to repay the loan, and County residents
have been on the hook ever since.
To the apparent surprise of County Commissioners, the nursing home failed
to hold up its end of the bargain, and County tax payers are ultimately
responsible for the bailout. The county has made numerous payments on
behalf of the home, but the company running the home seems to get off
scot free each time a bond payment comes due.
-----REALITY CHECK-----
In an attempt to apply some common sense
to a nonsensical problem, I have a hypothetical question for anyone
out there with a home mortgage (so this probably applies to many of
you) . . .
If you knew that if you failed to make your mortgage payment someone
would make it for you with no penalty / repayment / or additional cost
whatsoever, would you EVER make your mortgage payment?
Your answer? Yea, me neither.
That is the sweet deal that they folks at Woodland place have for themselves,
and they aren’t complaining or trying to get away from the situation.
-----END REALITY
CHECK-----
First, I'm curious as to why there weren't a “million and one”
strings attached by the County when the bond was first approved, but
I'm amazed that in six years nothing more has been done. Even more unfortunate
is the fact that County Commissioners have failed to come up with any
type of plan to deal with this obvious financial disaster. Instead,
they have chosen to sit back and make payments for the nursing home
from the County's dwindling coffers.
Most interesting to me is the obvious sign of confidence shown by the
current County Commissioners when the announced the most recent 2-mill
tax increase on its own merit . . . with no other plan in place for
the future of Woodland Place or any future repayment of the funds. The
Commissioners have failed to put together ANY form of presentable plan
for Woodland Place since 2002. To give the County taxpayers a tax increase
with no plan to back it up in 2008 is unforgivable. It seems like the
ONLY plan on the table at present is to allow things to go on as "business
as usual" for Woodland Place, and the County will simply plan on making
every single payment until the bond is repaid in 2013.
In October of 2007 the three current County Commissioners, Brian Beader,
Ken Ammann, and John Lechner ran on the platform of addressing Woodland
Place. During a debate at Penn State Shenango in Sharon the three Commissioners
made the following statements:
Brian Beader:
“I want to bring closure to Woodland Place because
it bothers me.”
Ken Amman:
“We should look into eliminated the last 2-mill (tax)
increase or at least lowering it.”
John Lechner (stated that if the nursing home couldn’t be turned
around, he’d):
“Bite the $5 million bullet” and sell the home.
It is obvious that there are big problems here that need to be addressed.
The Commissioners had big ideas during their campaign, and now is the
time to address the problems head on.
A year after the election, this is their opportunity to address Woodland
Place, and the only solution that they can come up with is a tax hike?
No mention of discussions with Woodland Place administrators to step
down, no push to find a buyer or new management team for the failed
business, no plan to move in and take over the books to find out where
all the money went, no talks of foreclosure, no deal to lease the nursing
home to another company, no scrubbing of the budget to cut costs and
get back on track? The residents of Mercer County have a right to know
where there money is going, and the County Commissioners have a responsibility
to safeguard that money. There is no transparency here (by the County
Commissioners or by Woodland Place), and the efforts that have been
displayed by the Commissioners seem weak at best.
I've said it before, and it is worth repeating . . . if Mercer County
Commissioners are in over their heads, they need to step up and publicly
admit it. Perhaps this tax increase and lack of a publicly presented
plan is their way of saying "we have no idea what to do".
To read my other blog posts regarding Woodland Place, go to:
http://mercerconservatives.blogspot.com/search/label/Woodland%20Place
As always, just my opinion.
-
Written by Roberta Biros (a.k.a., “Roberta
in Mercer”)
This has been quite a week. Within three days time, I’ve been
accused of being Michele Brooks’ “Gal Pal” and now
I’ve been called out for “Brooks Bashing”. What’s
next . . . is someone going to refer to me as the “liberal media”?
As usual, allow me to explain further . . .
As my previous post outlines ("Woodland
Place: A Real “Pickle” for Mercer County -- Will there ever
be a real solution?"), I posted a comment to the Sharon
Herald Forum regarding Woodland Place. The point that I “tried”
to make was that the current County Commissioners need to take “ownership”
of this issue and the Commissioners and residents of this great County
need to stop blaming past administrations for current problems.
Initially, in the Herald Forum, Michele was referred to as my “gal”
. . . implying that I am somehow in Michele’s back pocket. Now,
last night, I received a comment through a mirror blog stating that
I had been unfair to Michele Brooks due to misstatements of facts. The
comment is repeated here for your review:
Anonymous December
4, 2008 at 1:31 am
I feel I must correct some statements in this blog, Michele was
not one of the commissioners responsible for obligating the county
for Woodland Place, it was the prior board. Michele did not want
to pay the bond payments any more than Brian did, but was obligated
by law to do so. She fought with the Ounties Controller to insist
that the money being paid in behalf of Woodland Place only be a
loan from the county and that by paying their obligation would require
oversight on their board from a proffessional of the counties choice.
Like many of the media one must understand the problem before suggesting
a solution.
First, I cannot apologize enough for my error. “Anonymous”
is completely correct in that I did misunderstand the dates of Michele’s
involvement in the Commissioners office. I stated that Michele was involved
in the original bond issue in 2002. This was a misunderstanding on my
part based on dozens of articles that I compiled from the Herald archives
(one actually stated Michele being in the Commissioners Office in 2001).
“My Bad” . . . Further fact checking shows that Michele
was a member of the Jamestown Borough Council until December 2002, and
did not take office as County Commissioner until 2003. I obviously failed
in my fact checking and I apologize for any problems or confusion that
this has created. Believe me, it was not my intention to “damage”
Michele Brooks’ name in this blog. I appreciate the correction
by “Anonymous”, but I’m a little upset at the statement
“Like many of the media one must understand the problem before
suggestion a solution.” Gosh, my solution was that we move forward
in an attempt to fix Woodland Place and, therefore, stop blaming Michele
. . . an angle that most “local media” does not support.
Being lumped in with “the others” goes against the whole
purpose of this blog.
That said, I’d like to clear up something. Since I’ve been
accused of being both “with” Michele Brooks and “against”
Michele Brooks, I’d like to set the records straight.
Myth #1: I’m a “Michele Brooks Basher”
(just like the rest of the media)
Wow. Where do I begin. For anyone to imply that I’ve attempted
to negatively impact Michele Brooks name illustrates that they are new
to this blog. I hope that they take time to really read the things that
I’ve written here. I’ve made every attempt to be fair and
polite in all of my comments about everyone. I attempt to state facts,
although it is clear that I’ve made honest errors at times. I
apologize for my misstating of facts in this case, but to diminish my
reputation for the error seems unfair.
Myth #2: I’m Michele Brooks “Gal Pal”
Unless you are all aware of something that I don’t know about,
I wouldn’t classify myself as Michele’s “Pal”.
I’ve met Michele only a handful of times . . . in total, I’ve
probably spoken to her for less than 30 minutes. I’m a pretty
good judge of character, and she immediately impressed me as honest,
straight forward, intelligent, and very likeable. I’ve sensed
numerous similarities between her political philosophies and my own,
and I feel compelled to "protect her good name" for some reason. Most
of what I know about her political past comes from second hand stories
(from new friends), blog posts, and the Sharon Herald archives. I’ve
never had the opportunity to discuss any of these issues with Michele
Brooks personally, although I wish I could. Unfortunately, I don’t
have that level of “access”. If I ever had the chance to
sit down and talk with Michele, I’d value her opinion on local
issues, and I’d ask for details about her past experiences with
the Commissioners Office. I’d ask her questions to help me understand
the best direction for the County in the future . . . not to make accusations
about the past. Lastly, if I had the opportunity to sit down and talk
to Michele Brooks, I’d probably devote a large portion of that
time to “non-political issues”. Why? Because I get a sense
that she is a “really nice person to know”. Yes . . . “a
person” . . . not just “a politician”. Sometimes it
isn’t just about facts, figures, and dates. The people that represent
us locally, in Harrisburg, and in Washington DC are “people”
too. They have families and lives outside of the public venue, and I
think that that we all need to be reminded of that from time to time.
In closing, I will triple check my facts from this point forward, and
I expect that my readers will correct me when I’m wrong. I "slipped
and fell" on this one, but I'll work to see that it doesn't happen again.
Thank you to all of my readers that "keep me on my toes".
BLOG POST ADDENDUM
On the evening of 12/4/2008, I received another comment from "Anonymous"
regarding this post. The comment was received through a mirror site
(and, therefore, cannot be included here in any automated fashion).
In an effort to be complete, I'm posting the comment and my response
here. The conversation speaks for itself . . . maybe I'm not a "Brooks
Basher" afterall.
Comment by "Anonymous"
December
5, 2008 at 1:30 am
In no way was I trying to imply that the originator of this
blog was Brooks bashing. My comments were meant to be directed specificly
to the media at the time of the Brooks bashing which was taking place
when she was a Commissioner. The media at that time had no concern
for the truth. I am glad that some of the facts are beginning to come
out now that the current Commissioners have to deal with the reality
of the situation. My applogies for the implications that I may have
made falsely.
Comment by "Roberta in Mercer"
December
5, 2008 at 2:33 am
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for the clarification. I’ve been accused of lots
of things, but “Brooks Bashing” was the LAST thing that
I expected to hear from one of my readers. I’m glad to know
that my comments were not REALLY taken that way.
I’d like to also thank you for pointing out my error. While
I painstakingly review my facts before on-line publication, I admit
that I dropped the ball on this one. Please keep an eye on my facts
in the future, and let me know if I mess up . . . I’ll take
any help that I can get.
I originally started this blog in an effort to combat bad press
that was being fabricated about Michele Brooks by “less responsible
bloggers”. I knew very little about Michele, so I was researching
information about her and other candidates that were on the ballot
for the 2008 General Election. When I “Googled” the
term “Michele Brooks”, I was appalled by the “trash
talk” that was out there . . . much of it quite offensive.
I decided to educate myself, and I sought the real truth. Out of
a sense of fairness, I decided to publish a conservative blog that
would offer truthful statements to combat the lies . . . positive
comments to combat the negative . . . and conservative views to
combat the liberal garbage. My first blog post is an example of
this:
In Defense of Michele Brooks, a Conservative Candidate
( go to http://mercerconservatives.blogspot.com/2008/10/in-defense-of-conservative-candidate.html
to read the post)
Once I laid the groundwork for the blog, I decided to run with it.
I’ve always enjoyed writing, and the blog has offered me an
outlet for my political opinions and commentary. I’m glad
to see that my message is finally getting out . . . and that the
effort is appreciated by fellow conservatives. The majority of the
feedback that I’ve received has been positive, but I still
take a great deal of heat for “taking a stand” and sharing
my opinions. It seems crazy, but it seems that liberals are offended
by “Conservative Women”. The work that I’ve done
makes them even more aggravated . . . I’m a Conservative Woman
openly defending another Conservative Woman . . . it is like a double
whammy . . . It really ticks liberals off, and I’ve received
some backlash for it. I don’t mind, though. It always gives
me something to talk about!
-
 Written
by Roberta Biros, a.k.a. “Roberta in Mercer”
As part of my daily political research I review the on-line content
of the Sharon Herald.
Yesterday, I found an interesting Letter to the Editor that was titled
“ Woodland
Place finances should be made public”.
As usual, I couldn’t keep my opinions to myself . . . I HAD
to leave a comment in the forum. I’ve found the conversations
since my post interesting, so I’ve decided to post a portion
of them here. It is a reminder of what the GOP is up against in Mercer
County. It is my opinion that the GOP had best get its “ducks
in a row” soon so that we can put out a united message regarding
the future of the finances in this County. The Republican Party needs
to grasp this issue and make it “its own”. This is our
opportunity to put fiscal conservatism into real use and make a lasting
impact on the County and its residents.
Here are the first several posts from the Sharon Herald Forum:
POSTED BY “ROBERTA IN MERCER”:
I made note of this particular topic in my blog today. I'll repeat
my comments here:
"It is true that the County is in a real “pickle” with
the financial problems involving Woodland Place, but the answer
is not to simply throw money at it to make it go away. Instead,
our elected officials need to work towards a long-term solution
for Woodland Place that will protect the residents of the County
from further financial losses. The application of a fiscally conservative
plan could get us out of Woodland Place and other financial problems
in the County WITHOUT raising taxes. Would it be easy? No, but tightening
your belt never is. However, if we had County Commissioners that
were willing to push up their sleeves to “work out the details”
we could get through this without throwing money out the window."
I agree that the details of Woodland Place need to be made public.
I do not agree, however, with the comments that there is NO blame
for the current Commissioners. The County Commissioners need to
begin to put together a long-term plan for Woodland Place. Instead,
they want to raise taxes so that they can make the problem disappear
for a while. THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION.
During their campaigns, all three Commissioners did a great deal
of finger pointing regarding Woodland Place, but at what point does
the problem become their responsibility? At what point do they take
"ownership" of the problem and begin to try to solve it.
When they ran for office, they ran on the issue of "fixing" Woodland
Place. Now that they are in office, they want to just pass it off
as "not their problem". You can't have it both ways. Woodland Place
is now THEIR issue, and they have to find a solution for it. If
they can't, maybe they should admit that they are in over their
heads.
POSTED BY “JAYHAWK1”:
Too bad your gal michele found a convenient exit after helping start
the problem of picking up the tab but equally failing to propose
a solution.
POSTED “ROBERTA IN MERCER”:
It is interesting that your response is exactly the same one that
the current County Commissioners continue to use every time the
issue is discussed. It is true that Michele Brooks was involved
in the initial bond issue in 2002, but it is also true that she
has been out of the picture in the Commissioners Office since December
of 2006. Brian Beader has been involved with the issue since 2003,
and doesn’t seem to have any type of plan to move forward.
Beader, Ammann, and Lechner need to step up to the plate and come
up with some sort of long term plan. The sooner people quit blaming
“the old leadership”, the sooner we can move forward.
If the problem is that Beader, Ammann, and Lechner are at a loss
as to what should be done, then they need to seek help from other
sources . . . or maybe the voters in the County should look for
solutions elsewhere in 2011. One thing is certain . . . continuing
to point fingers at Michele Brooks won’t solve anything. At
some point, the current Commissioners need to take the “bull
by the horns” and make this issue their own.
POSTED BY “JAYHAWK1”:
Was she not, however, involved in both the county co-signing for
the bond issue in the first place AND being the 2nd vote authorizing
the beginning of what has since become $2 million in county funds
paying toward that obligation? She may not be responsible now, but
she contributed to the problem existing in the first place.
POSTED BY “BULLSEYEBABY”:
She sure was.......how soon people forget. Blame it on Beader..........how
convienant!
Didn't Beader put up a fight against this in the first place?
POSTED BY “ROBERTA IN MERCER”:
It is that mentality that has this County stuck in the past and
treading water to stay afloat. I know that “Brooks Bashing”
is a favorite pastime on this forum, but can’t you see past
your preconceived notions to try to understand the real issues.
At some point someone has to quit complaining about the past and
stop arguing about who was to blame.
There are three commissioners in office right now that have the
"power" to change the future of Woodland Place. They wrote a letter
to the editor of the Herald back in August of 2008 stating that
the letter was their first step in explaining the issues involving
Woodland Place to the residents . . . they called it “part
of the education process”.
http://www.sharon-herald.com/archivesearch/local_story_242150509.html
There were no follow up letters, and they simply decided to raise
taxes instead. They put their heads together and the ONLY solution
that they put on the table is a tax increase?
If you agree with the tax increase, then admit it . . . but don’t
somehow try to reach back in time and blame Michele Brooks for it.
Make sure that you understand that this new tax increase has Beader/Ammann/Lechner
written all over it. Mark my words . . . if this is the only solution
that they have to offer, we will be discussing their political careers
in the past tense four years from now. In 2011, the candidates running
for the Commissioners’ seats will be running on a platform
to cut the tax increases that are going into effect in this administration.
Unfortunately, they will also still be looking for a solution for
Woodland Place . . . as it seems apparent that NOTHING will happen
between now and then to fix this “pickle”.
My point is that discussing what happened in 2002, 2004, and 2006
will get us no where. If the three commissioners don't come up with
a plan for 2008/2009, what did we "hire" them for?
For the complete Forum Contents and follow-up postings (if any),
go to:
http://community.cnhi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/813104191/m/2301072661
In closing, Woodland Place is an issue that someone needs to take
ownership of . . . someone needs to step up and devote themselves
to researching every possibility for change. From what I have seen
so far, the current County Commissioners have not done that yet, and
the idea of a tax hike so that Woodland Place can be put on a back
burner is sickening to me.
In their own words, the County Commissioners stated (in their Letter
to the Editor of the Herald, as stated above)
"The current county commissioners are working diligently
with the Woodland Place board to craft a solution and inaction or
indecision has not been the approach."
Unfortunately, it seems that simply raising taxes is, in a way, inaction
or indecision. In the same letter,
they stated
"We are all in this together, you elected us to get the
county out of this problem as inexpensively as possible, we are moving
as quickly as reason and financial prudence will allow and we will
not shirk this responsibility."
Hmmm. It seems wrong to use the terms "inexpensively" and "financial
prudence" when describing a plan to raise taxes, doesn't it?
-
Written by Roberta Biros, a.k.a. “Roberta
in Mercer”
I’m a fan of the Fox News Channel. A new show on
Fox News is “ Huckabee”, a talk show
hosted by former Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee.
I like Mike Huckabee (I admit that I liked him much more than John
McCain, but that is another issue for another day), and I very much
enjoy his new show.
This week, Mike Huckabee interviewed Sonny Perdue, the Republican
Governor of Georgia. While the interview covered various topics, it
was the portion regarding the future of the GOP that I found most
interesting. Please allow me to quote the brief conversation.
Huckabee – Fox News Channel -- November 29, 2008
Mike Huckabee asked:
“The Republican Party . . . will it have a comeback
and if so, what will be the fulcrum that pushes it.”
Sonny Perdue responded:
“Yes, (the Republican Party) will have a comeback.
I know that we get in these times as though the sky is falling,
but look at 1992 and what happened in 1994. History is replete with
examples of parties coming back.
We’ve got to make the brand work. The brand has not been tarnished;
the execution of the brand regarding fiscal discipline (has been
tarnished). When more Americans say that we trust Democrats to control
our spending rather than Republicans then we have an issue with
the execution of the brand.”
First, I find it interesting that this quote pretty much agrees with
my comments of several weeks ago (see my post titled "Where
Does the Road Lead for the Conservative Wing of the Republican Party?"
). It is my opinion that the party will comeback . . . and in a big
way.
Second, I find it most intriguing that someone else agrees that Fiscal
Conservatism needs to be central to the GOP’s comeback. I find
this to be true on the national political stage as well as on the
local stage.
The GOP in Washington has lost their understanding of Fiscal Conservatism.
George Bush is a conservative regarding some issues, but
he is not (and never was) a fiscal conservative. The bail outs of
the past few months prove that there are NO fiscal conservatives in
power in Washington, DC. As Sonny Perdue pointed out, “the Americans
trust Democrats to control spending more than Republicans” .
. . the American People illustrated that when they voted the Republicans
OUT in November.
Before Republicans can have a comeback, we need to re-discover Fiscal
Conservatism . . . “Our Brand”.
Locally, I think the Mercer County PA GOP can learn a thing or two
in this lesson too. GOP candidates in Mercer County will NEED to be
fiscal conservatives if they want to regain the trust of the people
of Mercer County. Michele Brooks, Pennsylvania State Representative
(17th District), managed to prove herself as a fiscal conservative
during her first term in Harrisburg. For that, she was rewarded with
re-election to a second term. Unfortunately, Michele Brooks appears
to be the ONLY candidate representing Mercer County that has realized
the importance of fiscal conservatism. Allow me to state a few examples:
Example #1: Bob Robbins, Pennsylvania State Senator
(50th District), broke the number one rule for fiscal conservatives
. . . NEVER vote to give yourself a pay raise. I can’t even
begin to defend it. I can say with absolute certainty, however, that
he was lucky to slide through on the last election. He may not be
so lucky next time.
Example #2: John Lechner, Mercer County Commissioner,
has teamed up with his two Democratic “partners in crime”
in the Mercer County Commissioners office (Brian Beader & Kenneth
Ammann) and planned a tax hike for the county to “get out from
under” Woodland Place. Although they “promised”
fiscal conservatism during the campaign, the two democrats and one
republican in the Commissioners office have opted for a tax hike as
an easy way to fix a problem. In a campaign debate in September of
2007, Brian Beader (Democrat) even went as far as to state that he
and Ammann would be “far more frugal” than the two Republican
Candidates (Lechner & McEwen). In case they didn’t get the
memo, TAX INCREASES ARE NOT FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE. It is true that
the County is in a real “pickle” with the financial problems
involving Woodland Place, but the answer is not to simply throw money
at it to make it go away. Instead, our elected officials need to work
towards a long-term solution for Woodland Place that will protect
the residents of the County from further financial losses. The application
of a fiscally conservative plan could get us out of Woodland Place
and other financial problems in the County WITHOUT raising taxes.
Would it be easy? No, but tightening your belt never is. However,
if we had County Commissioners that were willing to push up their
sleeves to “work out the details” we could get through
this without throwing money out the window.
Fiscal Conservatism can save our Party. The few "rules" for elected
officials are simple:
- Lead by example . . . never vote to give yourself a pay raise
- Just like a household, don’t spend more than you earn and
always live within your means
- There is a difference between luxury and necessity
- When in doubt, do without
- Decrease spending rather than increasing taxes
- Lower taxes stimulate the economy
- Tax money isn’t “my money” . . . it belongs
to the people that elected me
- The only good reason to spend money is to make money
- If the question starts with “do you agree to a new tax to
. . .” -or- “do you agree to an increase in spending
to . . .” -or- “do you agree to incur debt to . . .”,
the answer is always NO.
THIS needs to be the direction of the Mercer GOP.
THIS is the only future for the GOP in Mercer County
. . . in Harrisburg . . . in Washington DC. THIS
needs to be our BRAND.
-
Written by "Roberta in Mercer"
It has been an interesting week. Interesting in the things that
HAVE happened . . . as well as interesting in the things that HAVE
NOT happened.
Last week I published my blog post titled “ Mercer
County PA GOP: A House of Cards”. In it I stated some facts
regarding my recent unsuccessful attempts to interject myself into
local Republican affairs. After putting the post up live, I received
a number of responses (both private and public) regarding my remarks.
The surprising thing was that the comments were all positive and supportive.
Having dabbled in on-line forums recently, I know that this is unusual.
Usually, the people that comment want to argue with your statements.
Instead, the comments provided additional facts and commentary that
supported my original statements. Also absent were any opinions defending
the past actions of the Mercer GOP and their self-centered shenanigans.
In my previous post, I stated that I was not privy to the details
of the past history of the Mercer GOP. Well, I suppose that is no
longer true. With some direction and input from current Party members,
I’ve been able to patch together a rather complete background
of what is now a “Party Divided”. With an outline of the
key players at hand, I have managed to piece together a hierarchical
outline of the problems with the Party (I know, it seems a little
obsessive compulsive, but that is just how I am). A little additional
research has filled in all of the other blanks that were originally
present. In the end, I find myself saying “who in their right
mind would WANT to be involved in this debacle?”.
I spent a full day (probably more) researching some “past history”
through the Sharon Herald on-line archives. Now I realize
that all content retrieved from the Sharon Herald is laden
with biases, but I’m pretty good at “filtering”
everything that I read. I actually found The Herald to be
a valuable source of missing details . . . you just needed to put
the pieces together on your own.
With my research completed, I’m prepared to walk all of you
through some of the more interesting issues that I’ve concentrated
on. The details that I’m going to provide are my opinions based
on information gathered from a number of sources. I’m putting
this information in one place to make the issues easier for all of
us to understand and to reference in the future. I realize that some
of you might consider this “airing of the GOP’s dirty
laundry” . . . I, on the other hand, consider it “being
honest about the issues”.
The three most polarizing issues that I researched so far are explained
in detail in each of the individual posts below. Please feel to read
one or all. Enjoy!
A Mercer County Conservatives Three-Part Series—
Mercer County GOP Myths, Misconceptions, and Mysteries:
PART I:
A
Myth: The Rod Wilt / Michele Brooks Hand Off of 2006
PART II:
A
Misconception: A United GOP Put Their Best Foot Forward in the 2007
Election of Mercer County Commissioners
PART III:
A
Mystery: The 2007 Election of Republican State Committee Candidates—A
Party Divided
So, I’ve done my research (including a few long days of home
work). I’ve tried to look at all sides of this issue, and I
still come up with the same conclusions. At this rate, The Mercer
County PA GOP is doomed for extinction. As one of the many “outsiders”,
the organization seems self-centered, self-preserving, self-serving,
and self-ish. If the intention (and responsibility) of the GOP is
to find “public servants”, shouldn’t it demonstrate
that by being more public oriented. Shouldn’t it open its doors
to anyone that is willing to work for the common good of Mercer County
residents and businesses? Perhaps GOP Leaders should be more concerned
about the “public good” rather than their “personal
good”.
(As usual, if I’ve misstated facts, or if you feel my interpretations
are incorrect, please let me know)
As a final point of reference, I’d like to discuss the points
made in a November 2006 commentary from The Herald. The article
was titled “ OUR
VIEW: County seeks Republicans with vision, sense, ideas”.
The article was originally written regarding the search for a Mercer
County Commissioner to replace Michele Brooks. While I hate to reference
The Herald for “words of wisdom” for the Mercer
GOP, I have to admit that many of their points were particularly applicable.
First, to quote The Herald:
“Help Wanted: Looking for a few Republicans. Good
pay and benefits. Requirements: An interest in serving the community
and a willingness to ignore party ties and do what’s right for
the people of Mercer County. Experience not a requisite. Apply at
Mercer County Courthouse.”
If you really read what is stated, you could almost say that this
should be a "Want Ad" listing for the Party in general. The following
individual quotes from the article drive the point home rather nicely:
Quote #1: “If this county is going to advance and
improve, we need new ideas and people who are willing to go against
the “old guard”.”
Quote #2: “It’s hard to imagine that Republicans
haven’t already pressed for new party leadership that can
be trusted.”
Quote #3: “We need people to step up and be counted.
We need Mercer County residents who plan to remain in this county
and help develop policies that are pro-business and pro-industry,
rather than those that overtax and drive businesses as well as residents
away.”
Quote #4: “We need people with common sense.”
Quote #5: “What it all comes down to is: We need
people with vision. We need people who are willing to make tough
decisions that counter what has been done in the past.”
Most important . . .
Quote #6: “If these qualifications fit – we
need you.”
Perhaps the Mercer County GOP should look at this list of comments
as a “job description” for future GOP leaders. If they
fail to recognize their weaknesses, the GOP will fail to win an election
against any “half decent” Democrat that comes along in
the future.
The Mercer County PA GOP may be a “very tough nut to crack”,
but I am willing to give it a try. I am also hoping to gain the support
of other GOP "outsiders" in this fight (see my blog post titled " We
Are Looking For A "Few Good Eggs" for more information). The question is, "Is anyone out there listening"?
Public Comments are welcomed through
the “Comments” link and form associated with this post.
Private Comments are welcomed through the “About Me” link
which provides my personal email address. Please join the conversation
and let me know what you think.
-
 Written
by Roberta Biros, a.k.a. “Roberta in Mercer”
PART II OF A THREE-PART SERIES TITLED
"Mercer County GOP Myths, Misconceptions, and Mysteries"
(originally referenced in the blog post " Mercer
County PA GOP: A Tough Nut to Crack")
I found this topic particularly interesting. It provided me with a little
more understanding of how business is done in this County. Allow me
to explain the "outline" of the election as I see it . . . based on
the numerous articles that I have reviewed at length.
After the 2007 Primary, the election was left to focus on four candidates
for County Commissioner in Mercer County . . . two Democrats and two
Republicans. The Democratic candidates were Brian Beader (incumbent)
and Kenneth Ammann. The Republican candidates were John Lechner and
Lewis McEwen.
As an incumbent, Beader had an easier job while seeking re-election,
but Ammann, Lechner, and McEwen had an uphill battle over the final
two positions.
Ammann was seeking the position despite multiple failed campaigns for
various offices and a history of being fired from his job as Chief Clerk
in 2005. Perhaps he just had an axe or two to grind? Proof of this is
evident in a scathing letter that he posted to the Sharon Herald in
2006 regarding Michele Brooks. His attack was obviously fueled by his
anger for having been fired a year earlier, but I’m sure that
he’d never admit it.
Lewis McEwen had an impressive resume. He even went as far as to describe
himself as the most qualified person to ever run for the office of County
Commissioner. Unfortunately, though, his close ties with Woodland Place
made his battle a difficult one. He seemed to have the financial backing
to go the distance, but he didn't have the complete political backing
of his party.
John Lechner referred to his experience in the Pennsylvania State Police
and the US Air Force as his main strengths, but his most important qualifications
were his support from the Mercer GOP and GOP insiders. He was an “in”
guy that had the exclusive support of the Mercer GOP--a particularly
important qualification in Mercer County politics.
In this election, it seems like the Republicans could have (had they
made a real effort) taken two seats in the Commissioners' Office. Beader
was beatable, and, in my opinion, Ammann was weak (at best).
This particular election is a perfect example of the significant problems
that the GOP has to conquer . . . and soon. If the Republicans had remained
united, they had an opportunity to win the majority in the Commissioner’s
Office. Instead, though, infighting led to a split in the GOP with the
Democrats ending up on top. The election ended with Beader, Ammann,
and Lechner as the chosen team . . . a “team” that now wants
to raise taxes in the County in order to free themselves from the problems
with Woodland Place (rather than putting a concentrated effort into
solving the problems from the inside, they would prefer that the taxpayers
just offer the Commissioners a "buyout plan"). Beader, Amman, and Lechner
. . . the Three Musketeers (or is that “Mouseketeers”).
They all seem VERY comfortable with each other . . . perhaps a little
too comfortable.
This “Misconception” leaves me doubting the solidarity (and
future) of the Party.
-
|
Written
by Roberta Biros
