The TimesTribune wrote an editorial about the cost of government elections. You can read the contents at that link.
What I found intriguing is that phrase what a small world it is. From that opinion piece.
Meanwhile, on Dec. 18 the Allegheny County district attorney's office raided a district office of state Sen. Jane Orie, Judge Orie Melvin's sister and the third-ranking Republican in the Senate. They seized computers and records in furtherance of an Allegheny County grand jury investigation that began Nov. 2, one day before the general election. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, an intern in Ms. Orie's district office complained to prosecutors that the legislative office had engaged in campaign work for Judge Orie Melvin.
Use of publicly paid legislative staffers and resources for political work is the basis of a statewide investigation being conducted by the state attorney general's office. The Allegheny County inquiry is separate.
Ms. Orie's lawyer cried foul, noting that the Allegheny County district attorney is Stephen Zappalla Jr. Mr. Zappalla is a Democrat and the son of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Zappalla, who has gone to work for the casino industry since his retirement as a judge. Ms. Orie, in the Senate, has been a vocal opponent of gambling expansion.
Stephen Zappalla is brother of Gregory Zappalla, former partner with Robert Powell and current owner of Gladstone Partners and PA ChildCare. Imagine if Stephen was District Attorney for Luzerne County? I guess the millions paid to the judges came only out of Powell's half of the profits.
Showing posts with label Greg Zappala. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greg Zappala. Show all posts
Monday, December 28, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Vonderheid- Just A Couple Of Questions
Over at Gort42 the Gortmeister tears into Todd Vonderheid over his interview before the Luzerne County Government Study Commission.
When Vonderheid was asked the question about the lease concerning PA Child Care and whether he would do it again his response was "I'd sign that lease tomorrow, with only two alterations,"
He goes on further to say As for the two differences, the first change would have been to pre-negotiate the price, and the second would have been to tie the rent the county paid for the facility to the governmental reimbursement rate so there wouldn't have been a significant fluctuation, Vonderheid said.
Todd, I think you have some explaining to do. Let's take a look at the facts and see if your statements hold up.
1st issue: On the price pre-negotiation statement. Todd, you must have a significant lapse in memory.
"02/07/2003
New juvenile facility ready for business
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Pennsylvania Child Care, a new multi-million dollar juvenile detention and residential treatment center, opened Thursday in Pittston Township amid expectations that the facility will forge working relationships with many Pennsylvania county court systems, especially Luzerne's.
The county commissioners Wednesday passed several motions creating contracts with seven different juvenile detention facilities in the state, including Pennsylvania Child Care. Commissioner Makowski stressed that the county has decided to build its own juvenile detention facility.
Detention is 100-percent reimbursable by the federal government and costs vary from $160 to $288 per day.
PCC charges $268 per day.
Vonderheid tries to cover his tracks by asking for the results of the audit being conducted by the State Department of Public Welfare when he already voted for the lease. Once you enter a lease it is very difficult to break. Vonderheid justifies the lease cost based on prices paid for the last three years. Again, if they are doing it for the last three years where was the emergency?
Vonderheid states if the audit comes back and is unfavorable to PA ChildCare he will do what is right for the taxpayers. What were his actions when he found out about the results of the audit? Nothing.
"12/31/2004
County declares emergency, OKs pact with juvenile care center
By James Conmy , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Luzerne County Commissioners Greg Skrepenak and Todd Vonderheid declared a state-of-emergency Thursday to ratify four short-term contracts with service providers for a Pittston Township juvenile care center. The county will begin a 20-year, $58 million lease for the facility with Pennsylvania Child Care on Jan. 1. All contracts with service providers at the facility expire Dec. 31.
An emergency was declared to bypass normal advertising requirements for services, Vonderheid said.
Commissioner Stephen Urban did not support any of the contracts. He said declaring the emergency was unnecessary and proves Vonderheid and Skrepenak acted on the lease too quickly.
Vonderheid's letter to Estelle Richman, secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, asking to expedite an audit, which allegedly warns the lease is a bad deal for taxpayers, is too late, Urban said.
"He didn't do his due diligence on this," Urban said of Vonderheid. "His letter is nothing more than back tracking. He is asking questions that should have been asked before he signed the lease."
"The lease was based on rates approved for three straight years, by two different administrations," Vonderheid said.
So Todd, you were telling us that the rates were approved for three straight years but there was no pre-negotiating??? You're free to comment and explain that rationale.
2nd issue. Declaring an emergency. He admits in the last sentence above that the rates were approved for at least three years. What necessitated an emergency? Was the emergency declared to purposely bypass bidding requirements or contract requirements of public officials? Can someone explain to me how you declare a 20 year emergency, 20 years being the amount of time entered into by Luzerne County to lease PA Child Care?
Further, at the same meeting support services for the PA ChildCare facility are authorized for only 30 or 120 day periods. How can you have an emergency for the main facility but not the services that support it?
"Other contracts approved were for food service, custodial and maintenance service, and health insurance. They were all for 120 days, except the custodial and maintenance contract, which is for 30 days.
Greg Zappala claims he was unaware of Ciavarella's and Conahan's escapades. Greg, you are in finance. Let's ask you a question. Your father is a former judge. Your brother is a District Attorney. You own a business and watch a motion pass declaring an emergency when the county has been leasing your facility for three years and it doesn't catch your eye? I guess it's possible......
When Vonderheid was asked the question about the lease concerning PA Child Care and whether he would do it again his response was "I'd sign that lease tomorrow, with only two alterations,"
He goes on further to say As for the two differences, the first change would have been to pre-negotiate the price, and the second would have been to tie the rent the county paid for the facility to the governmental reimbursement rate so there wouldn't have been a significant fluctuation, Vonderheid said.
Todd, I think you have some explaining to do. Let's take a look at the facts and see if your statements hold up.
1st issue: On the price pre-negotiation statement. Todd, you must have a significant lapse in memory.
"02/07/2003
New juvenile facility ready for business
By Fred Ney , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Pennsylvania Child Care, a new multi-million dollar juvenile detention and residential treatment center, opened Thursday in Pittston Township amid expectations that the facility will forge working relationships with many Pennsylvania county court systems, especially Luzerne's.
The county commissioners Wednesday passed several motions creating contracts with seven different juvenile detention facilities in the state, including Pennsylvania Child Care. Commissioner Makowski stressed that the county has decided to build its own juvenile detention facility.
Detention is 100-percent reimbursable by the federal government and costs vary from $160 to $288 per day.
PCC charges $268 per day.
Vonderheid tries to cover his tracks by asking for the results of the audit being conducted by the State Department of Public Welfare when he already voted for the lease. Once you enter a lease it is very difficult to break. Vonderheid justifies the lease cost based on prices paid for the last three years. Again, if they are doing it for the last three years where was the emergency?
Vonderheid states if the audit comes back and is unfavorable to PA ChildCare he will do what is right for the taxpayers. What were his actions when he found out about the results of the audit? Nothing.
"12/31/2004
County declares emergency, OKs pact with juvenile care center
By James Conmy , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer
Luzerne County Commissioners Greg Skrepenak and Todd Vonderheid declared a state-of-emergency Thursday to ratify four short-term contracts with service providers for a Pittston Township juvenile care center. The county will begin a 20-year, $58 million lease for the facility with Pennsylvania Child Care on Jan. 1. All contracts with service providers at the facility expire Dec. 31.
An emergency was declared to bypass normal advertising requirements for services, Vonderheid said.
Commissioner Stephen Urban did not support any of the contracts. He said declaring the emergency was unnecessary and proves Vonderheid and Skrepenak acted on the lease too quickly.
Vonderheid's letter to Estelle Richman, secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, asking to expedite an audit, which allegedly warns the lease is a bad deal for taxpayers, is too late, Urban said.
"He didn't do his due diligence on this," Urban said of Vonderheid. "His letter is nothing more than back tracking. He is asking questions that should have been asked before he signed the lease."
"The lease was based on rates approved for three straight years, by two different administrations," Vonderheid said.
So Todd, you were telling us that the rates were approved for three straight years but there was no pre-negotiating??? You're free to comment and explain that rationale.
2nd issue. Declaring an emergency. He admits in the last sentence above that the rates were approved for at least three years. What necessitated an emergency? Was the emergency declared to purposely bypass bidding requirements or contract requirements of public officials? Can someone explain to me how you declare a 20 year emergency, 20 years being the amount of time entered into by Luzerne County to lease PA Child Care?
Further, at the same meeting support services for the PA ChildCare facility are authorized for only 30 or 120 day periods. How can you have an emergency for the main facility but not the services that support it?
"Other contracts approved were for food service, custodial and maintenance service, and health insurance. They were all for 120 days, except the custodial and maintenance contract, which is for 30 days.
Greg Zappala claims he was unaware of Ciavarella's and Conahan's escapades. Greg, you are in finance. Let's ask you a question. Your father is a former judge. Your brother is a District Attorney. You own a business and watch a motion pass declaring an emergency when the county has been leasing your facility for three years and it doesn't catch your eye? I guess it's possible......
Monday, July 13, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Lack Of Oversight of The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Why does Pa. Supreme Court tread so lightly around juvenile-rights tangle? And so asks John Baer of the Philadelphia Daily News.
I ask Chief Justice Ron Castille what took so long. "We had to wait for everybody else to answer," he says.
That would be the county court, the local D.A., and so on. Plus, Castille argues, Judge Ciavarella, within weeks of the April filing, pulled himself off juvenile cases and issued new written notices to charged kids and their parents about right-to-counsel.
Since nothing was alleged about kickbacks at that point (the judges were charged Jan. 26), Castille felt that the right-to-counsel issue was resolved and saw no need for Supreme Court intervention. What about the statistics, I ask? Didn't they cause you concern?
"Well, you know statistics. . . . There are lies, damn lies and statistics," he says.
(I hope he's kidding; government policy is built on statistics.)
Questioned further, he says, "We are not an investigative agency."
When I ask if he'd considered referring the statistics to an investigative agency, he says: "They weren't our statistics."
I start to sense a circular argument. What about possible public perception that since detention facilities in question are owned by Greg Zappala, son of former Chief Justice Stephen Zappala, the court might be, uh, slowed or swayed?
He laughs, calls me a cynic and says:
"No, Greg Zappala is a legitimate businessman, as far as I know."
Zappala is not charged, and reportedly is not a target of the probe.
Lack of judicial oversight allows such smugness in the answers to this reporter's questions. It almost legitimizes the label of ruling elite. Judge Castille, should not your judiciary be held to a higher standard than what we would accept in the private world? Why have judicial cannons if suspected behavior isn't reported to the proper investigative agencies?
We cannot let Jackie Musto-Carroll off the hook in this matter. She was co-operating with the FBI in their investigation of the corruption at the Luzerne County Courthouse. In the face of that co-operation she wrote a brief to the court containing the following statement "The Petitioners have not shown that the issue is of such immediate public importance that extraordinary jurisdiction is required. Nor have the Petitioners clearly demonstrate that their rights have been violated. In addition the Petitioners allegations regarding other juveniles who may be similarly situated have not shown that such individuals even exist."
From the press release of U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson dated January 26, 2009 "Mr. Carlson further noted that Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Carroll worked closely with federal investigators and the United States Attorney's Office in assisting in the investigation." It is hard to comprehend how DA Carroll could write a brief in opposition knowing the facts she must have known given that statement.
I ask Chief Justice Ron Castille what took so long. "We had to wait for everybody else to answer," he says.
That would be the county court, the local D.A., and so on. Plus, Castille argues, Judge Ciavarella, within weeks of the April filing, pulled himself off juvenile cases and issued new written notices to charged kids and their parents about right-to-counsel.
Since nothing was alleged about kickbacks at that point (the judges were charged Jan. 26), Castille felt that the right-to-counsel issue was resolved and saw no need for Supreme Court intervention. What about the statistics, I ask? Didn't they cause you concern?
"Well, you know statistics. . . . There are lies, damn lies and statistics," he says.
(I hope he's kidding; government policy is built on statistics.)
Questioned further, he says, "We are not an investigative agency."
When I ask if he'd considered referring the statistics to an investigative agency, he says: "They weren't our statistics."
I start to sense a circular argument. What about possible public perception that since detention facilities in question are owned by Greg Zappala, son of former Chief Justice Stephen Zappala, the court might be, uh, slowed or swayed?
He laughs, calls me a cynic and says:
"No, Greg Zappala is a legitimate businessman, as far as I know."
Zappala is not charged, and reportedly is not a target of the probe.
Lack of judicial oversight allows such smugness in the answers to this reporter's questions. It almost legitimizes the label of ruling elite. Judge Castille, should not your judiciary be held to a higher standard than what we would accept in the private world? Why have judicial cannons if suspected behavior isn't reported to the proper investigative agencies?
We cannot let Jackie Musto-Carroll off the hook in this matter. She was co-operating with the FBI in their investigation of the corruption at the Luzerne County Courthouse. In the face of that co-operation she wrote a brief to the court containing the following statement "The Petitioners have not shown that the issue is of such immediate public importance that extraordinary jurisdiction is required. Nor have the Petitioners clearly demonstrate that their rights have been violated. In addition the Petitioners allegations regarding other juveniles who may be similarly situated have not shown that such individuals even exist."
From the press release of U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson dated January 26, 2009 "Mr. Carlson further noted that Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Carroll worked closely with federal investigators and the United States Attorney's Office in assisting in the investigation." It is hard to comprehend how DA Carroll could write a brief in opposition knowing the facts she must have known given that statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)