Senator Mellow Pays Himself Rent With Taxpayer Money

Philadelphia Inquirer reporters John Sullivan and Mario F. Cattabiani are reporting that Senator Bob Mellow from Lackawanna County has been the recipient of $200,000.00 of Pennsylvania taxpayer money for rent on a building owned by him and/or his then wife, now former wife.

Mellow appears to have some ethical questions to answer concerning this deal according to the details laid out in the article.

When the General Assembly passed the Ethics Act in 1978, it created the State Ethics Commission to interpret the law. Public officials frequently ask the commission about possible conflicts.

In 1989, a state representative from Erie named Italo S. Cappabianca asked the commission if the law would allow him to rent a district office, using taxpayer money, in a building he owned. He would pay the prevailing rates.

The commission said no.

Mellow said he saw no ethics problems when his wife was an owner. Once he acquired a stake in the property after the divorce, he said, he realized he had a "problem," reported it, and began taking steps to sell the property.

"If I thought I had done something inappropriate back in 2000, I never would have made the declaration in 2006, to expose myself," he said.

Though Mellow acquired his interest in the building in 2007, he did not report the Brad Inc. acquisition until the spring of 2008. That was the deadline to report financial activity from the previous year.

In his defense of the rental agreement with a company his wife partly owned, Mellow cited a Senate resolution - routinely passed by the chamber dating back to the early 1980s - that appears to contradict the state ethics law.

The resolution says that if a senator rents an office from himself or a family member, the Senate clerk must obtain an appraisal.

The State Ethics Commission has never considered whether the resolution, passed only by the Senate, somehow allows senators to do something banned under a state law.

Bruce Ledewitz, a professor of constitutional law at Duquesne University, said the resolution is irrelevant to the rental question.

"I can't say if this is a violation. I can just tell you that if it is, the resolution has nothing to do with it," he said.

I just added one more Democrat to my list at the right. And another reason to support newspapers by buying one or two or three. I do.

Rendell's Political Speech Coming To Hazleton

Evening Sun Photo by Meghan Gauriloff

It was reported by Sam Galski last week in the Standard Speaker that Fast Eddy Rendell was turned away on two occassions by the Hazleton Area School District when his office tried to arrange Rendell to speak at a Hazleton Area School.

Superintendent Sam Marolo and school board President Brian Earley insisted that the governor's visit is politically motivated and violates district policy pertaining to political activities on school property. Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me.

The word on the street is that eight out of nine Hazleton Area School Board members have signed a letter asking Rendell to come to Hazleton to speak.

You be the judge. Here is what PRN/USNewswire is reporting on Rendell's visits across the state.

Pennsylvania's next state budget must adequately invest in education in order to avoid local property tax increases, Governor Edward G. Rendell said today during a visit to the Fort Cherry School District in Washington County.

The Governor cautioned that a budget plan offered and approved by Senate Republicans would force school districts to hike property taxes and cut programs.

"I am not willing to accept their budget -- which is already $1.5 billion out of balance, as the economy has continued to slip -- because it is counter-productive to turning around our economy," Governor Rendell said. "In addition, a failure at the state level to fund essential programs and services simply shifts the tax burden to the local level."

He visited Adams and Cumberland County school districts with this message according to HEATHER FAULHEFER at the Evening Sun.

At the press briefing at Bermudian Springs High School, the governor defended his proposal to raise the state's personal income tax from 3.07 to 3.57 percent for three years, saying that the increase would, in part, provide funding for education and prevent local taxes from increasing.

Rendell has proposed an increase in education funding by $418 million, while the Republican-supported Senate Bill 850 would keep basic education funding the same as last year, providing $5.3 billion in basic education funding.

Rendell argued that Senate Bill 850 would hurt school districts like Bermudian Springs, which would receive $1 million less in the budget put forth by the Senate than in his budget.

Bermudian Springs School District Superintendent Paul Healey noted that the loss could not be absorbed by cutting pens and pencils - programs and people would be affected, he said.

"We need a state budget that does not pass the burden onto school boards to raise additional taxes," he said. "We need a state budget that recognizes that our most important resources are our children, and they do not deserve to be a pawn in a budget battle."

Local Republican legislators argue that, when combined with federal stimulus money, Senate Bill 850 does provide increases to school districts, just not as large an increase as the governor's proposal.

State Reps. Will Tallman, R-Reading Township, and Dan Moul, R-Conewago Township, attended Rendell's briefing and later said the governor was using scare tactics to gain approval of his tax increase.

Rendell is singling out the Republicans, not just the Senate as an institution that passed Senate Bill 850. If that isn't partisan and political nothing is.

Superintendent Paul Healey is another buffoon. Uhh Paul what difference does it make whether the state hikes taxes or the school district? Sounds like you want to make sure your school directors don't take the blame, let's blame state lawmakers. Why would you want to do that? Because your directors already raised taxes in June by 5.4%. What did you say Paul? That was the fourth consecutive hike in taxes. Mr. Healey what is your salary? $120,120.00. Ain't that a hoot. How many people in this state make $120,000 per year?

Brad Bumsted over at PittsburghLive calls Rendell's propaganda tour for what it is.

Rendell's propaganda campaign lays the groundwork for an income tax boost by pointing out all of the "devastating" consequences of spending less.

Receipt of Gifts, Transportation, etc. From The Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission

1 | P a g e

RECEIPT OF GIFTS, TRANSPORTATION, LODGING OR
HOSPITALITY BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

With the holidays approaching, it is useful to review the restrictions and requirements of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. (“Ethics Act”), regarding the receipt of gifts, transportation, lodging or hospitality by public officials and public employees. Particularly during the holidays, public officials and public employees may find themselves in the position of being offered gifts, transportation, lodging or hospitality (also generically referred to herein as “items”) by individuals or entities they regulate, vendors, or professional service providers. Such items may have minimal value or significant value. Although the Ethics Act does not prohibit the receipt of “no-strings-attached” items (see, Cooper, Opinion 92-009), public officials and public employees should consider any ramifications under the Ethics Act before receiving them.

First, depending upon the value of the item(s) received, the public official or public employee may be required to disclose his receipt of such item(s) on his Statement of Financial Interests, which is a public record. An important step in determining whether disclosure is required is the proper categorization of
what was received. There are two categories for disclosure, specifically “gifts” and “transportation and lodging or hospitality received in connection with public office or employment” (see, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1105(b)(6)-(7)). Proper categorization is important because the thresholds for disclosure for these categories are different, as detailed below.

The Ethics Act uses the same definitions for the terms “gift” and “hospitality” that are used in Pennsylvania’s Lobbying Disclosure Law (see, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1102, 13A03). The definitions are as follows:

"Gift." Anything which is received without consideration of equal or greater value. The term shall not include a political contribution otherwise reportable as required by law or a commercially reasonable loan made in the ordinary course of business. The term shall not include hospitality, transportation or lodging.

"Hospitality." Includes all of the following:
(1) Meals.
(2) Beverages.
(3) Recreation and entertainment.

The term shall not include gifts, transportation or lodging. 65 Pa.C.S. § 13A03.

The above definitions make the reporting categories mutually exclusive, so that any given item may only be considered to fall within one of the reporting categories.

After properly categorizing the item(s) received, the public official/public employee must determine whether the value of the item(s) received from any given source will require disclosure.

For any given source, gift(s) valued in the aggregate at $250 or more must be disclosed on the Statement of Financial Interests filed by the public official/public employee. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(6). Such disclosure must include the name and address of the source, the amount of the gift or gifts, and the circumstances of each gift. If the gift(s) from a given source do not meet the aggregate threshold of $250 in value, they need not be disclosed. (Also, gift(s) received from a family member or friend need not be disclosed when the circumstances make it clear that the motivation for the action was a personal or family relationship. However, for purposes of this exception, the term “friend” does not include a registered lobbyist or an employee of a registered lobbyist.)

Similarly, for any given source, the name and address of the source and the amount of any payment for or reimbursement of actual expenses for transportation, lodging or hospitality received in connection with public office or employment must be disclosed on the Statement of Financial Interests if such expenses exceed $650 in an aggregate amount per year. (The disclosure requirement does not apply to expenses reimbursed by a governmental body or by an organization or association of public officials or employees of political subdivisions which the public official or employee serves in an official capacity.)

In addition to considering the financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee should also consider whether the receipt of item(s) may result in a conflict of interest. Item(s) received by a public official/public employee may form the basis for a violation of Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act (pertaining to conflicts of interest) if the public official/public employee takes action in furtherance of the interests of the donor. While the receipt of an item of de minimis (insignificant) value would not, in and of itself, create a conflict of interest as to action involving the donor (see, e.g., Stieh,
Advice 93-503), the decision as to whether a conflict of interest is presented by the receipt of item(s) is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Generally, when a public official or public employee has received item(s) that would form the basis for a conflict of interest under the Ethics Act, the public official/public employee must abstain from acting in matters pertaining to the donor. In the event of a voting conflict, the public official/public employee
must abstain and satisfy the disclosure requirements of Section 1103(j) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(j).

Item(s) received by a public official/public employee may also form the basis for a violation of Section 1103(b) or Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act (pertaining to improper influence) if there is an understanding that the vote, official action or judgment of the public official/public employee will be influenced thereby. See, e.g., Kasaback, Order 993; Helsel, Order 801; Volpe, Order 579-R; and Smith, Order 578-R.

Finally, it is noted that depending upon the position held, public officials and public employees might need to consider additional sources of ethics restrictions, such as the Governor’s Code of Conduct, municipal ethics restrictions, or agency policies. If another applicable source of ethics restrictions would prohibit the receipt of item(s) by a given public official or public employee, the Ethics Act would not operate to make the receipt of such item(s) permissible.

Public officials/public employees with questions may write to the State Ethics Commission at the following address for an advisory under the Ethics Act as to their own prospective (future) conduct: Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, 309 Finance Building, P.O. Box 11470, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1470.

Powell's Airplane

Let's discuss Robert Powell and the forfeiture of his interest in his jet and boat. I believe most readers didn't catch the operative words "his interest." The 1980 Saberliner owned by 40 Degrees North, LLC was not Bob Powell's jet. It belonged to the limited liability corporation who had at least three owners- Powell, Zappala, and Marsicano.

The plane was moved from Hazleton and is located in Green, South Carolina. It appears to be for sale, well I guess that depends on what day it is. I used a caching feature of the net to find this information.




Here is a description of the interior:

Accessories: Gold-plated fixtures

Air Conditioning: Freon

Cabinetry: Light mahogany woodwork

Carpet: Beige carpeting w/light maroon & green accents

Entertainment Equipment: 8-place wireless entertainment headsets, cabin speakers, dual CD/DVD players w/remote controls, dual integrated video screens

General: Interior is in excellent condition as reported 07/14/08

Headliner: Cream seashell headliner

Lavatory: Flushing potty

Seating: Bucksin leather seating, mid-cabin club, 3-place couch, aft belted lav seat

Sidewalls: Light gray & burgundy sidepanels

Mr. Eachus is it true that you flew in this jet? If so did you report the flights on your campaign filings or your Statements of Financial Interest?

Governor Rendell Helped Pittsburgh's Financial Woes

Todd Eachus stated publicly that he would not pass legislation "specifically" for Hazleton. Governor Rendell and Todd Eachus had no problem passing not just one but a package of bills specifically for the City of Pittsburgh.

November 2004

Governor Edward G. Rendell today signed a package of bills that will help restore Pittsburgh to fiscal health and provide it with stable sources of funding. The bills include reforms to the city’s business taxes, a phased reduction in the city parking tax, an increase in the city’s occupational privilege tax and an increase in the earned-income tax on visiting athletes.

Those bills contained taxation issues while Eachus claims finding a fix for the City's(Hazleton) problem right now is impractical. Evidently it wasn't impractical for Pittsburgh.

IssuesPA has a great article highlighting the problems faced by Pittsburgh. One of the problems detailed. The largest single factor in its rising debt service payments has been the city's bonding of unfunded pension liability. Annual expenditures for pension costs, benefits and debt service are expected to have increased $119 million between 1993 to 2005. Most cities in this Commonwealth are in the same boat defined in a report submitted by James McAneny of the Public Employees Retirement Commission..

It is no secret that Todd Eachus is using unprecedented legislative tactics for inexcusable political retribution. His use of scare tactics with the police and fire unions in Hazleton over unfunded pension liability is wagging the dog. The unfunded pension liability is due to losses in the stock market that every pension faced in the current financial meltdown. It is time Eachus remembers who put him in office. Arrogance that the office will always be his blinds him to the realities of mankind. Be kind and kindness will be a reward. Being arrogant lulls one into a false sense of competence and entitlement.

Eachus-Which Way Is It?

Steve Mocarsky reported in today's Times Leader that Todd Eachus was subpoenaed for a pre-trial hearing in the case against former Beaver County State Rep. Mike Veon.

However, in the report something seems very odd. Mr. Eachus and the House Democratic Caucus spokesman seem to be saying opposite statements.

Eachus wanted to make it clear that the subpoenas were not served by the attorney general or any law enforcement agency, but by the defense. He said he and current HDC staff have “cooperated fully” with the attorney general’s investigation.

HDC spokesman Brett Marcy said Eachus was not among the legislators who testified before the grand jury, nor was he interviewed by any law enforcement officials regarding the Bonusgate case.

If he never talked to law enforcement how can he "fully" cooperate? Maybe its just me, Ollie.

Eachus Subpoenaed In Bonusgate Trial

It was only a matter of time before this would happen. According to Brad Bumsted over at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Todd Eachus, House Majority Leader, has been subpoenaed in the trial of Mike Veon. On the issue of credibility Eachus paid off Veon's campaign debt uniltateralyso it will be interesting to see what impact his testimony may have in this case. Eachus's rhetoric in that matter was simply amazing.

I know PA Pundit has some questions.

State Rep. Todd Eachus, D-Luzerne, is chair of the HDCC and authorized two payments. Three House Democrats who raise money for the HDCC – Rep. Joe Preston, D-Allegheny; Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny; and Rep. Jennifer Mann, D-Lehigh – said they were not consulted, although Eachus says he consulted with unnamed others in Democratic leadership before making the gifts.

Back to our regularly scheduled contributor on Bonusgate, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article,

Last week, Brett Marcy, spokesman for House Democrats, confirmed that DeWeese, of Greene County who is now the majority whip, and House Majority Leader Todd Eachus of Luzerne County, and Majority Caucus Secretary Jennifer Mann of Allentown were among those receiving defense subpoenas.

Mann, does she get around!!!

Eric Epstein over at the Central Penn Business Journal has a question for Mr. Eachus. However, the first order of business for Casey is to ask one question: "Mr. Eachus, when are you going to pay back the money my brother said you took illegally?"

Mr. Eachus- Are You Misleading The Public About Senate Bill 961 That Would Help Hazleton?

Eachus seeks guidance on Hazleton pension fund woes by Mia Light for the Citizen's Voice published June 29,2009.

Here is what Mr. Todd Eachus had to say:

House Majority Leader Todd Eachus, D-Butler Township, reached out to the office of the Pennsylvania auditor general Friday for guidance in correcting Hazleton's $2.5 million debt to its pension fund.

It was reported in the Times Leader by Bill O'Boylethat Eachus has sent a letter to state Auditor General Jack Wagner that condemns Barletta’s action in removing money from the city’s pension fund and asks Wagner for help to resolve the issue.

Mr. Eachus, a simple freedom of information request would find that the Auditor General supported Senate Bill 961 on June 10, 2008 in an email to Sam Monticello, then Hazleton City Administrator. Why do you want people to believe otherwise?? What is your motive?


Click on Image
Email from Robert Teplitz, Chief Counsel/Policy Director, Deparment of the Auditor General

You can read Robert Teplitz's bio here. It seems clear to me that the legal advisor from the Auditor General saw no legal or constitutional problems with Senate Bill 961. It is hard to understand why Mr. Eachus would make claims to the contrary.

James Mcaneny, Executive Director of the Public Employee Retirement Commission gave this conclusion on page 5 in his testimony before the House Finance Committee on August 18, 2008.

We believe that Senate Bill Number 961 provides a better way to provide for Hazleton's financial need than the method currently being employed. PERC supports Senate Bill 961. Mr. Eachus, again why are you misleading the public about support on this issue?

What Does Todd Eachus Really Know About Bonsugate?

From ToddEachus.com:

In addition to his legislative leadership roles, Todd also provides political leadership for Pennsylvania Democrats. In 2006 Todd’s campaign strategies and dedication to help incumbent members and first-time candidates led directly to House Democrats retaking the Majority for the first time since 1994

In 2007, Todd expanded his leadership with the House Democratic Campaign Committee and served as chairman, thus helping to coordinate all Democratic House political activities. In 2008, Todd led the effort to expand the Democratic majority by a crucial two seats, setting the stage for the election fo the first Democratic Speaker of the House since 1994.

From Pennlive.com

'Bonusgate' timeline
Friday, July 11, 2008

2007

January

Democrats take control of the state House for the first time in 12 years. The Patriot-News, responding to tips from House Democratic employees, reports on a secret bonus program for caucus employees. Tipsters alleged that the bonuses were tied to work on 2006 political campaigns. Within a week, all four caucuses disclose similar bonuses exceeding $3.6 million in 2005-06.

February

State Attorney General Tom Corbett says his office will investigate allegations that the staff bonuses were tied to campaign work.

August

After months of meetings with caucus officials on their bonus policies, staff interviews and other work, Corbett's investigators raid the House Democrats' Legislative Research Office, responding to a tip that materials relevant to the probe were about to be destroyed.

September

The first subpoenas go out to Democratic staffers, requiring their appearance before the grand jury. Caucus attorneys seek to block the subpoenas, but are foiled by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. October

Corbett's office issues subpoenas for records of the House Republican Caucus. November The Democratic caucus forces the resignations of or fires seven senior staffers as it turns over a new information to Corbett's agents. House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese said the information uncovered made their continued employment "untenable." December

DeWeese makes a tour of Pennsylvania newspapers, making the case that the caucus's problems were tied to actions of the fired staffers and former Democratic Whip Mike Veon, D- Beaver County. He said he had no knowledge of bonuses for campaign work.

Leaked e-mails implicate Veon and several staffers in tying bonuses to campaign work.

2008

February

Senate Republican leaders issue a statement confirming that Corbett's office has subpoenaed records from them. The news, along with follow- up requests of the House Republicans, fails to quench criticism in some circles that Corbett, a Republican, has staged the probe to hit Democrats first....

From Attorney General Tom Corbett's website:

2006 Bonuses

The election year of 2006 would prove to be the largest effort yet undertaken as part of the incentive scheme. Eric Webb testified that in 2006 the pay raise vote had "changed the whole map." He testified that there were many "more seats in play" requiring more volunteers to do everything from opposition research to campaign work in the field. It was also a unique year because both caucus leaders, Veon and DeWeese, had serious challengers. As a result of these factors, the campaign efforts started in earnest very early in the year.

Whether measured by the effort expended in tracking the campaign work of caucus employees, the number of bonus recipients or the dollar amounts expended on bonuses, 2006 far exceeded the prior years.


It was Eachus's strategies that led to House Democrats retaking the majority by his own admission. Hmmmm..oddly interesting.

Todd Eachus- Define Constitutional

From Steve Mocarksy's article that appeared in the Times Leader on June 25, 2009.

"Something must be done to get the city out of this bind, but I want to make it clear that any solution must be within the confines of the state law and the state Constitution- Todd Eachus on Hazleton's Pension Fund Issue

Here is a link to Senate Bill 961 of 2007 that was introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate as a solution for Hazleton's pension issue.

Here is a link to the Senate Appropriations Committee vote which was unanimous. Note that Senators Musto and Mellow voted YES.

Here is a link to the Senate Finance Committee vote which was unanimous.

Here is a link to the Senate vote on Senate Bill 961. The vote 49-0.

The bill was referred to the House Finance Committee on June 26, 2007. The bill was not considered by the House Finance Committee until 8-18-2008. As you can see it was never reported out of the House Finance Committee.

According to the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants Government Relations Committee Senate Bill 961 would allow the City of Hazelton to increase its earned income taxation rate up to an additional five-tenths percent beyond the maximum rate provided by law, provided that the proceeds are used solely to reduce any taxes assessed and collected under the Municipal Pension Plan Funding Standard and Recovery Act from and after Jan. 1, 2003.

State Representative John Yudichak on the issue in the Times Leader by Bill O'Boyle:

State Rep. John Yudichak, D-Nanticoke, said he remembers Barletta coming to Harrisburg in 2007 to try to work out a legislative solution to the issue.

“I thought we had one,” Yudichak said. “It passed the Senate 49-0. I offered a discharge resolution in the House to get it out of committee and I was told that a solution was being worked on with Mayor Barletta and Rep. Eachus to resolve the issue. Now here we are two years later and the problem continues to threaten the health and welfare of the residents of Hazleton City.”

Todd Eachus wants people to believe Senate Bill 961 was unconstitutional. Forty nine Senators voted Yes. It was considered by the House Finance Committee where it died. Representative Yudichak authored a discharge resolution to get it out of committee but a hissy fit was had by Mr. Eachus. Don't you think those elected officials consulted with legislative attorneys before voting on this bill?

Mr. Eachus, why did it take over a year for a committee to consider a bill for your legislative district? Why didn't the bill move out of the House Finance committee? Why did it take so long to hear from you on this issue? You were elected to represent us.

There is a saying-"Just because you can doesn't mean you should". Just because you can hold Lou Barletta hostage doesn't mean that you should hold all of the residents and businesses of Hazleton hostage. Cut the crap, swallow some pride, reintroduce SB 961 and get it passed.