Mundie's Placating To The Voters Bites Him



Instead of focusing on leadership Jack Mundie's flaccid thinking draws him to digress into his political toolbox and use 1950's style campaigning during this election cycle.  Mr. Mundie ran on the coat tails of Lou Barletta, Joe Yannuzzi, and Evelyn Graham to win his elections.  Now he finds himself floating in the "Ocean of the Unknown" trying to run his first true solo campaign in a changed political environment.

In a veiled attempt to win voter sentiment Mr. Mundie placed a Resolution on the Hazleton City Council agenda to extend the tax deadline for property owners to pay their taxes to the City and still receive a discount.  The Local Tax Collection Law provides this language regarding discount dates.

Section 10. Discounts; Penalties; Notice.--(a) The rates of discounts and penalties on taxes shall be established by the taxing district. All taxpayers subject to the payment of taxes, assessed by any taxing district, shall be entitled to a discount of at least two per centum from the amount of such tax upon making payment of the whole amount thereof within two months after the date of the tax notice. All taxpayers, who shall fail to make payment of any such taxes charged against them for four months after the date of the tax notice, shall be charged a penalty of up to ten per centum which penalty shall be added.

 

The Ordinance passed by Hazleton City Council on January 3, 2013 did not specify the mailing date for property tax bills.  Evidently Council left that discretion to the Mayor who, through the City Administrator, would contact Berkheimer regarding the collection of the tax levy.  It was no secret that Hazleton property taxes were skyrocketing with the elimination of a $600,000 payment from Hazleton Creek Properties, the new MMO's(minimum municipal obligation) payments for its pensions, plus the increased debt service.  For months the public was forewarned in article after article.

 

If Jack Mundie wanted taxpayers to have additional time he had at least six months to express his concern.  Mundie's incessant rivalry has him only thinking of this election.  A true statesman thinks of the next generation.  His demgoguery of this administration serves to detract others from his continued failures as a councilman.  He acts in corners appealing to passions and prejudices rather than to reason and what is right for Hazleton.

Councilman Keith Bast made solid arguments at the March 20th meeting where Mudnie introduced his resolution accodring to this Standard Speaker article.  Bast demonstrated leadership and knowledge of government.

Vice President Keith Bast said that while council should work in the best interest of taxpayers, it must consider costs of borrowing money to cover city expenses if council were to give taxpayers more time to pay bills and qualify for a 2-percent rebate.

Bast contends that Mundie's request is politically motivated.

"We're obligated to taxpayers, but our job isn't not to have people pay taxes," Bast said. "It's a political move to try and get reelected."

Bast also argued that Mundie lobbied for the extension by introducing a resolution. Bast believes council cannot approve a resolution that supersedes regulations set by ordinance.

"I think it was political pandering for votes," Bast said.

Councilman Mundie asked the solicitor for his opinion in this matter after the April 25th vote.

Solicitor Chris Slusser opined "Section 37531 of the Third Class City Code is dispositive of the issue and it requires Council to utilize an Ordinance to “provide for the collection” of these taxes. Therefore the Resolution that passed is of no legal effect." Apparently twelve years on City Council isnt enough time for Mundie to learn the laws of his position.  After all it only took Keith Bast less than one term to be right on the mark.

Mundie's strategy backfired because the foundation on which it was based was flawed fundamentals.  Candidates should know they aren't in control during an election.  Trying to drive the bus because of vested selfishness will not sway the voters.

Louis McHenry Howe stated the following in 1933.  "You can't adopt politics as a profession and remain honest."  Mundie serves as an example.

Mundie's Flip Flop On Solicitors

 



At the last Hazleton City Council meeting Councilman Kevin Schadder introduced a new noise ordinance for consideration.  He made a very professional presentation to fellow council members on the need for the new ordinance.  He invited them to bring their amendments if they were so inclinded to offer one.  Schadder was very clear that he was flexible on the ordinance.

Councilman Jack Mundie said while he didn't think Schadder's ordinance was "bad" he questioned the need to introduce a new ordinance since the last ordinance was passed in 2006.  Mundie asked Schadder why he simply didn't introduce amendments to the existing ordinance.

Mundie questioned Solicitor Chris Slusser on the charge for his time reviewing the ordinance.  He stated "Chris was it two hundred, three hundred. four, five, six, seven?".  Attorney Slusser told Mundie that he "didn't have that much time in the ordinance."  Mundie retorted that he was trying to save money.  He didn't like paying expenses especially for "lawyers."

It was Mr. Mundie who insisted a solicitor attend City Council meetings regardless of whether there was a need for the solicitor or not.

In this article written by Sam Galski of the Standard Speaker Councilman Mundie tried to introduce a resolution to mandate Slusser's attendance at council meetings.  Although the resolution was improper and carried no weight even if passed, Mundie chose to seize the opportunity for political purposes.

 Each council meeting generally lasts about 2 hours.  Attorney Slusser's rate is $125.00 per hour.  There are 21 council meetings a year.  Mr. Mundie doesn't mind spending $5,250.00 of taxpayer money to have the solicitor babysit him during council meetings regardless on whether he is needed or not.

Attorney Slusser attended the March 10, 2013 meeting arriving at 4:30 P.M.  The meeting lasted until 9:30P.M.  Attorney Slusser's bill for that meeting was $625.00.  It is amazing Mr. Mundie had the gall to attack Schadder over at most a $125.00 bill.  Taxpayers paid for Slusser to listen to Mundie's nonsense.

Evidently Mr. Mundie wants to chide his fellow member for allegedly costing the taxpayer's money for doing exactly what a council member should do.  Mr. Schadder ran his legislation past Attorney Slusser so its legality was proper before bringing it before Council.  If Mr. Mundie did the same with his resolution it wouldn't have seen the light of day.  But then again that wasn't Mr. Mundie's intention.  He wanted to banter to the public over a fabricated issue taken from Politics 101.

Councilman Mundie didn't mind when the taxpayers paid for his healthcare for seven years.  I guess his saving money is more important than the taxpayer.

Hazleton's Landlord Inspection Ordinance

Councilman Jack Mundie has voted more than once against an ordinance requiring inspection of rental properties.  His latest "NO" vote came on February 6, 2013.

In today's Standard Speaker article written by Sam Galski he questions the mangerial ability of Chief Frank DeAndrea to oversee the work of the Code Department of the City of Hazleton.  Someone should be questioning Mr. Mundie's "NO" vote in light of the following serious matters involving the health and saftety of the citizens of Hazleton.

In 2011 a sleeping toddler was injured when a plaster ceiling fell on him in an apartment building that was evenutally condemned.   The details contained in this article written by Standard Speaker reporter Kent Jackson.

A plaster ceiling collapsed on a 2-year-old Hazleton boy while he slept Friday morning in an apartment building that authorities later condemned.

Medics placed Zaire Johnson in a neck collar before taking him to Hazleton General Hospital, the boy's father said.

Daniel Johnson, his father, said he came home from cashing a paycheck before 10 a.m. and saw part of the ceiling on Zaire, who slept in a small bed in their first-floor apartment at 417 W. Broad St.
"I started freaking," he said.

The boy's mother woke and telephoned for help.

Hazleton Deputy Fire Chief Brian Mandak said the boy appeared to be bruised, but more startled than hurt.

A plaster ceiling, a drop ceiling and its grid fell in most of the boy's bedroom, and some of the pieces fell on him.

Mandak said the building had other problems: there were no smoke detectors or heat. Tenants used an oven to keep warm, Mandak said.

In January, 2012 Amanda Christman wrote this article about an apartment building that was condemned by City Health Inspector Mark Thompson for numerous violations.

Hazleton officials condemned an apartment building this afternoon after finding health and code violations inside.

A man and a woman occupied the building at 528-530 W. Seventh St., and were told they could no longer live there.

City Health Inspector Mark Thompson said the building has no electricity or heat. Because there was no heat, water pipes inside burst. The occupants ran extension cords through the walls to a neighboring dwelling to run two space heaters, Thompson said.

The owner of this building located on East Broad Street in Hazleton ran out of time to make repairs on his condemned, burned out building according to this article written by Amanda Christman.

 

A Hazleton bar with apartments was condemened on Sunday March 24, 2013 by City Code Enforcement Officer Rich Wech along with Deputy Fire Chief Brian Mandak.  Amanda Christman of the Standard Speaker covered this story which further illustrates the need for inspections.

The problems inside the building at Third and Alter streets were discovered after Hazleton firefighters received a call from one of the tenants Saturday night asking what the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning are.

Based on that call, Deputy Fire Chief Brian Mandak said firefighters went to the home around 9:55 p.m. for the possibility of a carbon monoxide problem and found a malfunctioning coal furnace and an odor of sulfur at the front door. Mandak said with the front door wide open, ventilating some of the CO outside, firefighters found 26 parts per million of CO.

They also found 48 ppm at the top of the basement steps and over 110 ppm in the basement, where 25 ppm is what OSHA states is the "time weighed average" for an eight hour day, Mandak said.

In addition to the malfunctioning boiler, he said, the basement was cluttered with ashes and combustible items posing a fire and health hazard.

Back in 2009 Mundie tried to stake the claim that he is a "watchdog" on Hazleton City Council claiming he's always voted what is best for the residents of the city. 

 "I've always been a watch dog," Mundie said. "I have agreed with the mayor on issues and I have disagreed with the mayor on issues. But I've always voted the way I thought was best for Hazleton."

The voters should question whether Jack Mundie lives up to that claim.  Who is watching Jack Mundie?  After all he is the government he claims to be watching.   It like the fox watching the hen house.



Jack Mundie's Attempt To Financially Cripple Hazleton



As last night's Hazleton City Council meeting Sam Galski reports that Councilman Jack Mundie proposed extending the rebate period for Hazleton property owners to pay their tax bill to the City. Despite his twelve year tenure as a councilman Mr. Mundie tried to replace the taxing ordinance with a resolution, something not allowed under the law.  His obvious pandering to the property owners of Hazleton met with credible resistance.  His fellow council members exposed his "playing up to the public" for political gain.

Most property owners have their tax money placed in escrow waiting to be dispersed to the proper taxing bodies. His suggestion would only injure the City of Hazleton who saved taxpayers by not seeking a tax anticipation note for 2012 or 2013.  The City also saved taxpayers money on mailing costs by incorporating the city tax bill with Luzerne County.  Mr. Mundie's proposal would negate those savings thereby necessitating another tax increase on the people.

Mr. Mundie's political vendetta against Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi and other City Council members is reaching new lows. Mr. Mundie voted "NO" on paying Hazleton's debt at the beginning of the year. He voted "NO" on the property tax increase necessary to replace lost revenue from the mine reclammation project. He voted "NO" on collecting the correct earned income taxes from out of town employees working in the City that would fund the City's pension obligations. He told residents to fight parking tickets at the Magistrate level to deprive Hazleton of its income.

Mr. Mundie opined that Hazleton should hire someone to negotiate union contracts for the City.

"I just want to know, shouldn't we have somebody with experience negotiate with the unions," Mundie asked. "If they thought they did a good job negotiating, health insurance (contributions are) $20 per month and we're getting a 24-percent (overall cost) increase."

From the Minutes of 1-25-2012

Resolution 2012-19 Authorizing the City of Hazleton to Utilize the Services of Special Legal Labor Counsel on an As-Needed Basis Presented by Perry. Seconded by Cabell.

On the Question:

Mundie asked Lieb if she knows what the hourly rate is for this service. Lieb said all the rates are listed in the letter from Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn, which was given to Council. Lieb said a partner of the firm charges $250.00 per hour, with a 10% courtesy discount, and half of the travel time involved. Lieb commented that this firm is located in Kingston. Mayor Yannuzzi said we are able to go to Attorney Goldberg with questions, personnel issues, to negotiate contracts, etc., because this is his specialty. Lieb said he is a labor attorney.

Roll Call: Bast-yes; Cabell-yes; Mope-no; Mundie-no; Perry-yes

His policitally motivated attacks and votes are part of Mr. Mundie's orchestrated campaign to financially cripple the City of Hazleton just as he did to the Hazleton City Authority in the 90's.

Despite proclammations that he would put together a budget for the City he contributed nothing in the process.  He told City Council to pass the budget so he could make amendments.  That never happened.

During the budget debate of 2009 then Mayor Barletta had this to say about Mr. Mundie's "NO" votes. 

Speaking in the general direction of council, Barletta said, "Anybody can vote 'no.' That's easy. Why vote 'no' if you have no better ideas. Everyone who voted 'no' is being very irresponsible. I hope you're satisfied. Good job."

Councilman Mundie Proves He Isn't Doing His Job

Photo Standard Speaker According to the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plan Law and the Third Class City Code the Council of a Third Class City is charged with legislative powers.

§ 3006. Legislative power vested in council.

The legislative power of the municipality as provided by laws applicable to that class of municipality shall be exercised by the municipal council, except as may otherwise be provided for under this subpart.

In today's Standard Speaker article by Sam Galski Councilman Jack Mundie is questioning "why the city hasn't moved forward with plans for levying the $50 storm water fee....Mundie said the city should at least take steps to develop an ordinance that establishes the fee and gives the city the authority to levy and collect the funds." 

Essentially Mr. Mundie is asking why he isn't doing his job as councilman.  He IS the legislator.  It is his duty and responsiblity by law to formulate and present legislation before the rest of City Council for consideration and vote.  For that duty he is paid $180.00 per city council meeting which last about 2 hours and equates to $90.00 per hour.

The worst part is the fact he is a veteran legislator.  He should be guiding his fellow councilman as a leader rather than acting like a freshman.  Instead of working with other members of council to solve the problems of Hazleton he is constantly making negative appraisals that serve no legislative purpose. 

When citizens were issued parking tickets Councilman Mundie told the public to fight them.  He wasn't concerned about the revenue to the City.  He wanted to pander to the public because he knew he would be up for re-election.

Now despite people facing the burden of the increase in property taxes he wants to slam them with another $50.00 bill.  The fee could be collected later in the year so people have time to financially recover from paying their taxes.

Of course this is the same councilman who voted against paying the debt of the city even though the debt, by law, MUST be paid before any other bills.   His vote earned him the nickname "Debtbeat Jack".

Ordinance 2012-41 An Ordinance of the City of Hazleton Fixing the Tax Rate of Real Estate Located in the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, for All City Purposes for the Fiscal Year 2013, Beginning January 1, 2013 and Ending December 31, 2013 (3rd Reading)
Presented by Perry. Seconded by Bast.
Roll Call (as amended): Bast-yes; Mope-no; Mundie-no; Schadder-yes; Perry-yes

Ordinance 2012-42 An Ordinance Providing for the Appropriation of Specific Amounts Estimated as Required for the Various Departments of the Government of the City of Hazleton, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania for and during the Fiscal Year, Dating from January 1, 2013 and Ending December 31, 2013 (BUDGET) Roll Call (as amended): Bast-yes; Mope-no; Mundie-no; Schadder-yes; Perry-yes

He voted against the storm water maintenance fee but now asks when are the people going to pay it.  He is proving he has been a councilman for too long.  Time for a fresh start from fresh faces. 

Jack Mundie Wrong For Hazleton City Council

Jack Mundie, Hazleton City Councilman, is going to seek another term to represent the citizens of Hazleton. In an effort to inform the electorate this column will expose his true character, or lack thereof, in the performance of his duties.

Mr. Mundie enjoyed an obscure tenure on Hazleton City Council.  He aligned himself with former mayor and now Congressman Lou Barletta, former City Councilwoman Evelyn Graham, and former councilman and present Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi for years. He remained silent until 2009 when Hazleton City Council stripped him of his fully paid healthcare benefit for attending just 21 meetings a year.

His healthcare insurance tab, paid by Hazleton taxpayers despite owning and operating his own business in Hazle Township, amounted to a total of $40,992.00.

Ordinance 97-9 granted newly elected council members for the year 1998 the right to paid healthcare and life insurance benefits.

The Ordinance states "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City of Hazleton, by and through Hazleton City Council that newly elected members of Council of the City of Hazleton for the year 1998 will be provided health and life insurance benefits from the City of Hazleton, comparable to those benefits given to employees of the City of Hazleton."

It makes no mention of members elected in any other year. It appears Mr. Mundie had no legal authorization to have the City of Hazleton pay for his healthcare. Despite owning his own business for years, Mr. Mundie forced Hazletonians to pay for his healthcare by voting for the expenditure with each budget authorization.

The State Ethics Law is quite clear.

"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated.

§ 1103. Restricted activities (a) Conflict of interest.--No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest

(j) Voting conflict.--Where voting conflicts are not otherwise addressed by the Constitution of Pennsylvania or by any law, rule, regulation, order or ordinance, the following procedure shall be employed. Any public official or public employee who in the discharge of his official duties would be required to vote on a matter that would result in a conflict of interest shall abstain from voting and, prior to the vote being taken, publicly announce and disclose the nature of his interest as a public record in a written memorandum filed with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting at which the vote is taken, provided that whenever a governing body would be unable to take any action on a matter before it because the number of members of the body required to abstain from voting under the provisions of this section makes the majority or other legally required vote of approval unattainable, then such members shall be permitted to vote if disclosures are made as otherwise provided herein. In the case of a three-member governing body of a political subdivision, where one member has abstained from voting as a result of a conflict of interest and the remaining two members of the governing body have cast opposing votes, the member who has abstained shall be permitted to vote to break the tie vote if disclosure is made as otherwise provided herein. Mr. Mundie has to explain to the Hazleton voters why he collected benefits without the legal authorization to do so.

This isn't the only instance where Mr. Mundie may have run afoul of the Ethics laws. 

Hazleton City Councilwoman Fighting For Political Life

In a letter to the editor today appearing in the Standard Speaker Hazleton City Councilwoman, Jean Mope, appears to be struggling in her attempt to explain her way out of a mess she solely created.

When Civil Service Rules were presented to Hazleton City Council for adoption Ms. Mope had some questions. According to sources Ms. Mope first approached the City Solicitor, Chris Slusser, with a set of questions. Taking his answers with an incredulous stance she unilaterally proceeded to contact the labor attorney designated during the Barletta administration to handle Civil Service Commission matters concerning the police.

Ms. Mope failed to have the knowledge that the Civil Service Rules were not a Hazleton City Council matter. Due to her lack of knowledge, not only in this matter but most city matters, she proceeded to demand answers from the labor attorney relative to Civil Service procedures and rules.

Here is the list of questions she posed to the labor attorney.

From: Jean Mope (redacted email address for privacy reasons)
Sent: June 08, 2012 4:10 PM
To: David E.
Mitchell
Subject: Hazleton City Civil Service
Dear Mr. Mitchell,
Let me introduce myself, I am Jean Mope, Hazleton City
Council Woman.
I have just received your rewritten Hazleton City Police
Civil Service Regulations. I have a few questions and they are as
follows.
Page 2- Definitions, (g), Hazleton is Optional Plan B, not
Home Rule Charter. I was under the impression when Optional Plan B fails to
address a situation we then follow Third Class City Code. Please explain your
definition as to why you state "conflict with Home Rule Charter that the Charter
shall control."
Page 3- (n), your contention is the mayor appoints to the
CSC, what are you basing this determination on?
Page 4-(t) it appears your rules may conflict
here.
Page 5-(y) based on this definition Hazleton City Council
Does hire new employees. Am I correct?
It goes on to say specific comments concerning Veterans, does
this apply only to (New) Veteran Hires?
Page 6-Article 2-201- Since this Board's power is vested by
Third Class City Code, and we are under Home Rule Optional Plan B, the Mayor
merely makes a recommendation to council, not an appointment, for this board.
Please see P.S. law. Or provide me with the documentation showing
otherwise.
Page 7-208- Does not Council have to approve any changes? I
cite the fact we have just gotten your rewritten regulations, as a Resolution to
be placed on our upcoming agendas? Doesn't make any sense to me, either the
board approves their own rules with the solicitor reviewing them or council
does, which one?
Page8-302- Cost incorrect
Council should also be given a copy of applicants immediately
following testing.
Page8- I would like to see these notices also posted in City
Hall per Hazleton City Code.
Section 505- Written Examination- I would like it noted here
that a CSC board member not act as proctor.
Page8- Article 3- 301- The cost for processing (testing) is
incorrect, please see Resolution 2010-63
Section 507- Why place a limit on candidates, as long the
have passed to this point.
Section 511- Legality of toss of a coin?
Section 603- In violation of state law I believe. Third Class
City Code 4406?
Section 606- Again I question using the Police Chief to make
, in essence the final decision. (Considering the chief of police is to come
from within the ranks and we fail to do this.)
Article VII- Does this not violate Section 2001 of the Third
Class City Code?
Section 701- Why are certain positions taken out of Civil
Service procedures? See Section 2002 of Third Class City
Code.
Section 702 should include all positions within the police
force, what laws are you using to take out specific
positions?
Section 708- You are reviewing scores here yet in new hires
you are tossing a coin? I have problems with something like this, from a legal
stand point.
Section 710- What section of state law grants the police
chief the right to select an employee rather than the CSC board?
Section 713- Council should be included in receiving lists
promotional eligibility.
Section805- The city solicitor acts as legal representative
for the CSC, which would place him in a conflict. The problem here is our CSC is
budgeted no funds. The fees for testing covers that and the board is not paid. I
am sure the city solicitor bills under the city as a whole for any action he
does for the CSC. So who represents the board and where do funds for the legal
representation come from? Are these board members covered by E&O insurance?
Who pays for this and where is it budgeted?
Section 810- This should be more definitive of who hears
grievances? The CSC has done its job, the city council is the ones who should
have hear these complaints, not CSC.
Section 10.4- Is the press allowed to record, both visual and
audio?
Article XI-For the record Hazleton is governed under THIRD
CLASS CITY CODE/OPTIONAL PLAN B.
One last question, last year Mayor Yannuzzi made some
promotions, but the problem is some of these positions do not exist. So maybe
you can tell me the status of these promotions?
Sincerely,
Jean Mope

It is unbelievable, no make that preposterous, that Ms. Mope makes the assertion in her editorial that "Most of my questions could have been answered by one or two words, but it appears someone wanted the cost for the answers to be expensive." Ms. Mope challenges the attorney to prove what he is saying is correct with questions like "what are you basing this determination on?,   "it appears your rules may conflict here.", "I have problems with something like this, from a legal stand point." "Or provide me with the documentation showing otherwise."  She goes in Section 805 and asks for a detailed explanation.  The person who wanted the cost to be expensive was Ms. Mope herself.   Instead of asking the City Solicitor her questions who told her he would answer her question for free she went outside to seek her answers.  She didn't like the answers to the questions she originally asked the City Solicitor so she created a whole new set of questions for the labor attorney. 

According to the City Government in Pennsylvania Handbook it is clear that under Third Class City government majority rules.  Earlier this year Ms. Mope had a problem with the majority of Hazleton City Council adopting new rules. 

The Third Class City Code, Optional Third Class City Charter Law and the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law do not set forth rules of conduct or procedure for municipal meetings. Each city is free to establish its own order of business and rules for conduct and procedures.

Most cities have procedures for their meetings set by ordinance, resolution or perhaps tradition. Rules of procedure are always within the control of the majority and may be changed at any time by majority vote.

In her editorial Ms. Mope states "I did the only smart thing I could do. I wrote the law firm that composed the policy and asked my questions."  She forgot one thing.  She needed the approval of the majority of Hazleton City Council in order to unilaterally create a bill for which no line item was approved in the budget.  Without it her move wasn't smart at all. 

Ms. Mope goes on to state " per Third Class City Code."  If she knows the code so well she should know that the majority must approve first.  But Ms. Mope appears to be a renegade who only wants the majority to abide by the rules.

Ms. Mope should have owned up to her mistake instead of trying to blame everyone else but herself.  She wants to blame the City Administrator and the City Solicitor but they didn't decide to write the labor attorney. The bill attributed to her was around $1800.00.  Yet the title says $11,000.  Evidently math isn't her strong point either.

Gangs and Graffiti- A Wakeup Call For Hazleton City Council

On July 11,2012 Hazleton Police Chief Frank DeAndrea introduced Ordinance 2012-19 defining and prohibiting graffiti and providing for removal and penalties for violations in the City of Hazleton. The top crime fighter in the City asked the legislative body for a tool to deal with graffiti which signals gang territory and was put on HOLD.

In this Standard Speaker article written by Sam Galski Councilwoman Jean Mope questioned the chief on provisions in the ordinance.  She wanted to know by penalizing the property owner for non-removal of graffiti would he be "fining the victim." 

"I don't think it's right to victimize the victim over and over again," Mope said, adding that the written proposal would create an additional expense for owners of multiple properties.

What Ms. Mope is missing is who is the real victim here.  Is it the property owner who fails to remove the graffiti or the children who are enticed by the gangs for recruitment day after day?  This law will preven the victim from becoming the victim again by forcing removal of the graffiti according to experts.

Do a Goggle search for "graffiti removal 72 hours"?

The town of Burlington, Vermont has a paper titled "Graffiti Coordination/Community Outreach Worker Mission".  One of its statistics states "Research shows that graffiti removed within 72 hours has a 90% chance of not returning."  That fact is all the more reason to insist on graffiti removal in our community.

Robert Walker's internet site "Gangs Or Us" talks about gang graffiti and graffiti taggers. 
Gang graffito, the singular of graffiti, is often the first indication that street gangs are active in your community. Graffiti is the newspaper, the billboard, the Internet of the world of street gangs and serves to mark the gang's power and status. Graffiti marks territorial boundaries and serves, as a warning to other gangs that the area marked with unique signs and symbols is the territory or "turf" of a particular gang. Graffiti warns intruders or trespassers from rival gangs and even policemen, that they are not welcome. It may also be an advertisement for the sale of drugs or a memorial to a fallen fellow gang member.




Graffiti should not be tolerated in ANY community. It frequently, if left in tact, leads to the degradation of a neighborhood and the devaluation of property. Studies have shown in many cases that if graffiti is left unchecked and not removed, more and more graffiti will appear. The removal of graffiti is extremely costly and some cities, that have developed graffiti removal programs, have spent huge sums of money to reclaim and beautify the neighborhood or community.

Most municipalities have codes or laws that deal with the defacing of property. Many have seen the need to pass laws that deal directly with graffiti perpetrators and many of these laws have severe penalties to deal with violators who are convicted. You can learn about some of these laws and ordinances by clicking here.

In this New York Time article Kathleen Gunn of the White Plains Business Improvement District discusses graffiti removal.

''Graffiti is a quality-of-life issue that needs to be addressed immediately,'' said Kathleen Gunn, the organization's executive director. ''Fortunately, we don't have that big a problem, partly because we have a lot of police presence here, but it's like the broken-window theory: when it does appear, it needs to be controlled.''


Gang graffiti is a weapon to put our community and police officers in harms way, no question about it.  Now is not the time to be playing politics with our children.  When the top crime fighter asks for help the community and council people should be supporting him, not placing their "political agenda" first.

Multiple property owners are usually in the business of renting.  Ms. Mope voted against a landlord/rental registration law in January, even after amendments were made to it.  It appears she supports landlords instead of the City she represents.  There are unanticipated costs in any business. 

Gangs put drugs in the hands of our youth.  She should be more concerned with the needle in a chid's arm or the baby born to a heroin using mother than a $50.00 fine.

.

Of course obstructionism has no bounds.  There was no need to table an ordinance when it needs two more readings before passing.  It seems that tabling ordinances is the new game at further delaying the needed laws to protect Hazleton citizens.

Hazleton City Council Meeting 6-20-2012

At the last Hazleton City Council meeting on 6-20-2012 there was an exchange between Hazleton Council persons over the duties of the Hazleton City Clerk.  In this video you can hear Councilwoman Karin Cabell trying to desparately explain the difference between requests of Hazleton City information and requests of non-city information to Councilwoman Jean Mope and Councilman Jack Mundie.  Mope and Mundie are of the belief that the City Clerk is a council employee.  In fact that is not the case.  Mistakenly the position is called the Council Clerk. 



Nowhere in the Third Class City Code of Pennsylvania or the Home Rule and Optional Plan Government Law will one find the position of Council Clerk.  The position is named the "City Clerk."

Home Rule Optional Plan A language(Hazleton chose Option Plan B but the language found in A applies to B except that the Department of Administration is optional under A but mandatory under B).
§ 3009. Appointment and duties of municipal clerk or secretary.A municipal clerk or secretary shall be appointed in the manner set forth in the administrative ordinance as provided pursuant to section 3146 (relating to passage of administrative ordinance). The municipal clerk or secretary shall serve as clerk of the council, keep its minutes and records of its proceedings, maintain and compile its ordinances and resolutions as this subpart requires and perform such functions as may be required by law or by local ordinance. The municipal clerk shall, prior to the appointment, have been qualified by training or experience to perform the duties of the office.

Third Class City Code

ARTICLE XIII
CITY CLERK
Section 1301. Appointment; Compensation; Removal.--The council of each city shall appoint a city clerk on the first Monday of May, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, and on the first Monday of May every fourth year thereafter, and fix his compensation by ordinance. He shall serve for a term of four years and until his successor is duly appointed and qualified.

Section 1302. Power to Administer Oaths; Duties.--The city clerk shall have the power of a notary public to administer oaths in any matter pertaining to the business of said city, or in any legal proceeding in which it is interested. He shall also perform such other duties as shall be prescribed for his office by law, ordinance or resolution of council.

Section 1303. Records Open to Inspection.--The records and
documents of city council of every city shall be kept in the
office of the city clerk and shall be open to the inspection of
any taxpayer thereof, his, her, or its agent, upon demand
therefor during office hours.

It appears Councilwoman Mope forgets that Hazleton operates under Option Plan B as she constantly refers to the Third Class City Code which only applies if there is no direction under Option Plan B law.


The City Clerk is the clerk of council but not the Council Clerk.  How can a part time council have daily control over a full time employee?  Further Mope and Mundie believe they can unilaterally direct the City Clerk to perform research for their personal use not directly related to Hazleton City records.  With the convictions in Bonusgate, Computergate, and former Senator Jane Orie one would think both Mr. Mundie and Ms. Mope would be more careful about instructing city employees to perform personal work on city time.


Ms. Mope erroneously states "It's her job" referring to the clerk. As the law states, and it is quite clear, it would take an ordinance to mandate such a practice.  Even then the state Ethics Act would come into play.  Using one's position for private pecuniary gain, in this case using taxpayer resources to pay for private work to avoid paying another, could come under ethics review.

§ 1103. Restricted activities

(a) Conflict of interest.--No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.

"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated.

The job description of the City Clerk, obtained by SOP dated 06/89, states that the person's "Work is generally supervised by administrative superiors."  Therefore it appears their assumption that the City Clerk works at the beckon call of council is preposterous.  Nowhere in the job description does it mandate that the clerk is under the direct control of any Hazleton City Council member.  It appears the clerk position falls under the daily control of the administration, not City Council.

Council members should read the job description before stating "It's her job..What part don't you understand?"  It is clearly Mope who doesn't understand the law and appears to be learning on the job.  In previous meetings Ms. Mope said that council must follow the law but it appears that is only a one-way street.

Mope makes the assertion that directing the clerk to make personal Right To Know requests doesn't cost council money.  Evidently Ms. Mope never was an employer otherwise she would know that the salary, benefits, heat, light, electricity, telephone line charges, etc. all cost the Hazleton taxpayer money.

Mundie also makes the claim it is her job "to get information to help us do our job."  That would be correct if it was Hazleton City information but not NON-CITY information that must be researched then printed out using city equipment.  It should be noted that the request Mr. Mundie made required 1,000 pages of printing. He supplied the paper but forgot the cost of the printer, the electricity to run it, and the ink cartridge costs as well as wear and tear.

Neither understands the need to take employment matters into executive session.  The Sunshine Act specifically makes provisions for executive sessions to discuss personnel matters.  Discussing personnel matters in public can, in many instances, violate the privacy of the employee. 

Both feign that the majority on Hazleton City Council are trying to restrict the public and their access to information.  Pennsylvania law prevents that from being even a remote possibility.  They are using the council chambers as their stage for theatrics designed to inflame the publc because they have no real agenda but obstruction. Their indecorous display rings loudly through the obstreperousness of their comments. Hopefully with time the taxpayers will get what they paid for, not a theatre production.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Hazleton

The Times Leader is reporting the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the City of Hazleton in a case with its insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, over the payment of legal bills involving its Illegal Immigration Relief Act lawsuit.

In this very inaccurate statement Terri Morgan-Besecker writes:

A federal appellate court on Friday ruled an insurance company does not have to pay attorneys’ fees associated with Hazleton City’s battle over its illegal immigration ordinance, leaving the city on the hook for at least $2.4 million, and likely much more.

What is true is that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals relieved Scottsdale Insurance Company from any financial obligation in this court issue. What is totally untrue is that the city is "on the hook for at least $2.4 million, and likely much more."

No court has awarded any attorney fees in this case. Judge Munley ruled against the City of Hazleton with regards to the Illegal Immigration Relief Act which can be found a this link.

The Plaintiffs filed a separate action to recover attorney fees and cost titled Plaintiffs Petition for Fees and Costs . Since the appelate process has not concluded the actual award has not been established.

Let's look at one of the firms involved in the litigation and mentioned in the Plaintiffs Petition for Fees and Costs, Cozen O'Connor. The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel interviewed the Douglas B. Fox, Member of Cozen O'Connor and Chair of the firm's Pro Bono Committee on August 08. 2008 about its role in the case.

Fox: We are currently handling a high-profile case, Lozano v. Hazleton , involving a challenge to the Hazleton, PA., illegal immigration ordinances. Our team of six attorneys has dedicated thousands of hours to this case - our single largest pro bono matter to date. Lost in the rancorous debate over immigration policy is the fact that the Hazleton case does not seek to vindicate illegal immigration. Our clients simply sought to restore immigration enforcement to the federal government - where it belongs. We were successful after a two-week trial in striking down key elements of the ordinances, and currently, the case is on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. A ruling is probably several months away.


The case has made national headlines and was highlighted by the National Law Journal as one of the most significant pro bono matters of 2007, with the tagline for their article being "What Lawyering is All About." And, that really says it all. Firm management deserves a great deal of credit for having the courage to take on an unpopular cause, one that many law firms would have shied away from. We have received many honors for our pro bono work, including in the Hazleton case. This kind of recognition for the quality of our pro bono lawyering is what makes me the most proud.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association gave Cozen O"Connor one such award in 2007.

Cozen O’Connor: Philadelphia, Philadelphia County (Nominated by H. Robert Fiebach, Esquire) Cozen O’Connor law firm is recognized as a “go to” firm in handling complex pro bono matters, particularly in the field’s Immigration/ Asylum Law and post conviction remedies. Pro bono service is an integral part of the firm’s culture. Cozen encourages all of its attorneys to devote at least 60-hours annually, allowing 50 of those hours to be treated as full production credits. In 2006, Cozen O’Connor’s Pennsylvania attorneys and paralegals devoted over 9,900 hours to pro bono matters. Firm attorneys also take leadership roles in public service and charitable organizations and sit on the Boards of Directors of pro bono services organizations. Additionally, the firm has developed its own charitable programs that serve the greater Philadelphia region.

If their work was pro bono why would they be entitled to a court award of their fees?

Look at the Plaintiffs Petition for Fees and Costs. There are five firms applying for attorneys fees. Cozen O'Connor has twenty one attorneys billing for fees.

Witold Walczak, attorney for the ACLU, filed for $324,400 worth of fees at a rate of $400.00 per hour. Lest we not forget that the ACLU has also represented the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam. According to their website this is how they fund themselves. Member dues and contributions and grants from private foundations and individuals pay for the work we do. If that is the case why is their attorney billing Hazleton at a rate of $400.00 per hour?

Fifteen attorneys besides the 21 from Cozen O'Connor have filed for fees. The total listed on the Petition is $2,333,551.50 in attorneys’ fees and $45,492.70 in costs.

Clearly the size of the bill is intended to send a message to any government entity that wants to take action against the cost of illegal immigration to its community. It is funny that the American Civil Liberties Union will protect your right to free speech but punish the citizens of Hazleton for protecting its community. The elected officials will not be stuck with their bill. It is the taxpayers that will fund their burden should an award be given to the Plaintiffs. But, as stated, until that happens the news media should not be as reckless with its articles to the public.

Hazleton's Financial Needs And The Case To Sell The HCA Water Department

When Hazleton's Mayor Lou Barletta announced his plan to lay the foundation for a long term solution to the City of Hazleton's financial crunch many of the taxpayers of the City actually did not see the presentation at City Hall. Due to the impact on low income working families and seniors of the City SOP has obtained the file for the presentation from the City's website.

Taxpayers in the City who sign the petition opposing the sale of the HCA Water Department are really signing a petition for higher taxes. As you are about to see the fixed cost expenses are outpacing revenue despite the opponent claims that the City was mismanaged.

The first slide(not in the presentation but presented here) shows the one time revenue sources by year from 2004 that have postponed the financial crunch from occuring sooner.

The next slide demonstrates how adjusted income failed to keep pace with adjusted expenses.

This next image shows how real estate tax revenue actually declined over the period from 2004-2008.

There was a slight increase in Earned Income Tax Revenue but considering the time frame one could argue that it was essentially flat.

Likewise the Mercantile and Business Privilege Taxes were essentially flat to only very slightly down.

Emergency Municipal Services Tax revenue took a dramatic drop due to Harrisurg and Todd Eachus's messing with the way the revenue is collected. Municipalities across the state suffered, not only Hazleton, because our legislators lack the acumen to understand their mistake.

Employee insurance costs are up over $417,000 for the period 2004-2008. Every municipal employer, as well as most private entities, in the state is facing the same exhorbitant rise in those costs.

Employee salaries really demonstrate one of the biggest reasons for Hazleton's financial crunch. Unfortunately one of the only solutions to this problem is to decrease the size of the police department which in SOP's opinion is not an option given the current crime element trying to take a foothold on Hazleton's streets.

This graph showing overtime costs illustrates another uncontrollable problem for Hazleton that is tied to the last chart. Police investigations into crimes in Hazleton, just like the Derrick Kichline murder, are the biggest reasons for these overtime costs. Snowplowing in the winter time is another factor contributing to this area. If someone can figure out how to control crime and the weather, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, move over another billionaire will be joining the crowd.

Just these three budget areas demonstrate the devastating impact on the budget of the City of Hazleton and to its taxpayers.

That presentation in a nutshell sums up the reason the sale of the Water Department of the HCA is even being considered. The Mayor and City Council weighed different options before coming to this conclusion. SOP has of yet to see any other viable plan put forward. If Hazleton taxpayers sign the petitions to oppose the sale of the Water Department someone should explain the dire consequences beforehand. Expect a dramatic increase in property taxes due to the reassessment dropping the millage so drastically.

Hazleton Residents- The Why As To The Need To Look at The HCA Sale

Mayor Lou Barletta's Plan To Secure Hazleton's Future

What happened to Hazleton City's revenue vs. expenses since 2004 and how did the City arrive at its financial position? The slide presentation will prove it wasn't mismanagement as some detractors state. Adjusted Revenue vs. Expenses tells the whole story. Real estate tax down by over $250,000.00- how does one mismanage real estate tax? No growth in Mercantile Tax- how does one mismanage what is paid? Emergency Municipal Services Tax revenue down $225,758.00- again how does one mismanage what is paid in? Employee Insurance up over $417,401.00- every employer is facing the same challenge Salaries- Up over $1,255,372.00- one item, overtime, was over $254,000 in one year, mostly gang related investigations.

Get educated on the real story. The Standard Speaker should be reporting this story; the real question is why are they withholding it from its readers.

Legality of Using The Ordinance Feature Of A Referendum In Question

By definition ordinances are laws enacted by a municipal body that are not already covered by state or federal laws.

Since the Municipal Authorities Act of 2001 provides for the right of a municipality to takeover an authority's assets it would appear that a referendum to create a law that would prevent the sale of the assets of the water department of the Hazleton City Authority would contravene that law. Keep in mind that Hazleton City Council has yet to adopt a resolution or ordinance authorizing the sale of those assets therefore a referendum even if applicable would, at this point, seem premature. Any law enacted by referendum to supercede those powers granted by state law may end up being invalid.

In the case of Erie cited in the Referendum Handbook the voters stopped Erie from selling its water company to an authority. If one looks closely that sale is not covered under any state law per se. Therefore its application in this case is slightly different. Takeover of authority assets are covered by the Municipal Authorities Act, therefore, a signifcant legal question remains whether the referendum mechanism is a viable remedy for those opposed to the sale.

The bigger probelm comes from the opposition itself. Certain persons are self-proclaimed governement watchdogs, yet they want to use the Authority's solicitor as their own private attorney. Those in opposition need to seek outside counsel and prove that they are on legal ground, not just copy and paste something from the referendum handbook to validate their claims.

Petitioners Efforts At Ratepayers Expense

In today's Standard Speaker Mia Light writes about a request by Grace Cuozzo to have the Authority's solicitor pen a petition that would be legally correct so that signatures on it would constitute a referendum question allowed under the Third Class city code.

Cuozzo asked the HCA board to take the petition idea a step further by authorizing its solicitor to write an ordinance proposal - prohibiting the sale of the authority's assets - that could be placed at City Hall for citizens to sign, similar to a petition.

Cuozzo was referring to the "initiative and referendum" power that state law affords to citizens of a third-class city.

According to the Governor's Center for Local Government Services, the state's Third Class City Code gives voters a limited initiative and referendum power over ordinances, which allows them to propose ordinances to city council by petition.

The petition must be placed in the city clerk's office for 15 days and must be signed by a number of registered voters that equals at least 20 percent of all votes cast for the office of mayor at the preceding mayoral municipal election.

What is missing from this article is her additional request for advertising money so she could place an ad in the local newspaper to ask people to sign HER petition.

After Cuozzo presented the initiative and referendum idea to the HCA board, chairman Phil Andras asked her to put her proposal in writing and present it at the HCA board's Jan.. 14 meeting.

So to be clear Grace Cuozzo asks the Authority Board to loan her their solicitor so he could author a petition that contains legal language for her petition that she wants to place in City Hall to collect signatures. Then she wants the authority to foot the bill for her advertisement in the newspaper.

The question SOP has for the Authority Board, its solicitor, Grace Cuozzo, and Dee Deakos is where such authorization is contained in the Municipality Authorities Act to allow the board to fund an expenditure for a private person. What if those who want the sale to proceed approach the Board for the same help? Would the Board fund that endeavour? No matter how the Board felt on the sale it should have denied the request due to the nature of the funding it.

Under the Third Class City Code, the Board does not have the right to petition the voters about this issue. It is not the electorate. Therefore it is hard to rationalize the basis for it to fund a private initiative to petition Hazleton City Council and/or its voters.

From the Municipal Authorities Act of 2001:

§ 5607. PURPOSES AND POWERS.
(A) SCOPE OF PROJECTS PERMITTED.--EVERY AUTHORITY
INCORPORATED UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC AND SHALL BE FOR THE PURPOSES OF: FINANCING WORKING CAPITAL; ACQUIRING, HOLDING, CONSTRUCTING, IMPROVING, MAINTAINING AND OPERATING, OWNING OR LEASING, EITHER IN THE CAPACITY OF LESSOR OR LESSEE, PROJECTS OF THE FOLLOWING KIND AND CHARACTER; AND PROVIDING FINANCING FOR INSURANCE RESERVES:


From the Governor's Center For Local Government Services Municipal Authorities In Pennsylvania

Powers of the Authority


The Municipality Authorities Act specifies the rights and powers of the authority and vests them in the authority board. The board exercises these powers through its officers, employees and consultants. They include the following.
1. To exist for 50 years as a corporation.
2. To sue and be sued.
3. To adopt a corporate seal.
4. To acquire, hold, lease and use any property or franchise necessary or desirable for carrying out its
purpose, and to sell, lease or dispose of its property at any time.
5. To acquire projects by purchase, lease or otherwise and to construct, improve, maintain, repair and
operate projects.
6. To adopt bylaws for the management and regulation of its affairs.
7. To appoint officers, agents and employes, prescribe their duties and fix compensation.
8. To fix, alter, charge and collect reasonable and uniform rates and other charges in its service area and
to exclusively determine the services and improvements, including extensions, required to assure
adequate, safe and reasonable service.
9. To borrow money and issue notes, bonds and other evidences of indebtedness or obligations of the
authority.
10. To make contracts and execute all instruments necessary or convenient for carrying out its business.
11. To borrow money, accept grants from and enter into contracts, leases or other transactions with any
federal or state agency, any municipality, school district, corporation or authority.
12. To exercise the power of eminent domain.
13. To pledge or otherwise encumber the revenues or receipts of the authority as security for its
obligations.
14. To do anything necessary or convenient for promoting its business and the general welfare of the
authority and to carry out its legal powers.
15. To contract with any municipality, corporation or public authority of Pennsylvania or any adjoining
state for projects crossing state lines.
16. To enter into contracts to supply water and other services to municipalities not members of the
authority and to fix the amount to be paid.
17. To make assessments for sewer or water main construction and to charge tapping fees.
18. To make assessments for business improvements and administrative services.
19. To provide financing for insurance reserves.
20. To finance projects by making loans to nonprofit institutions and local government units.
17
21. To provide hospital, medical, disability and life insurance benefits and establish pension plans for its
employees.
22. To appoint police officers who have the same power as other peace officers within the property of the
authority, and to regulate vehicular traffic at airports

There is nothing in the purposes and powers permitting the Authority to finance a private person's legal expenses.

If Cuozzo and Deakos are so pationate about this issue they should either put up their own funds for legal advice and advertising money or try to raise it within the community. Authority money has no place to fund their private intiative even if it is to oppose the sale of the water department of the Hazleton City Authority.

Hazleton City Authority Board Members, why do you talk about reviving the Industrial Division when it was part of your duties as members of the board in the first place?

Ordinance 97-9 City of Hazleton

Here is the wording of the City of Hazleton's Ordinance pertaining to health insurance for City Council passed March 13, 1997 but returned unsigned by Michael P. Marsicano, Mayor.

WHEREAS, pursuant to existing labor contracts, the City of Hazleton provides health and life insurance benefits to employees of the City of Hazleton; and

WHEREAS, in the past, the City of Hazleton has provided members of City Council with health and life insurance benefits comparable to those benefits provided for employees of the City of Hazleton, pursuant to Budget Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, in 1996, the Administration of the City of Hazleton, discontinued providing health and life insurance benefits to members of City Council;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City of Hazleton, by and through Hazleton City Council that newly elected members of the Council of the City of Hazleton for the year 1998 will be provided health and life insurance benefits from the City of Hazleton, comparable to those benefits given to employees of the City of Hazleton.

ADOPTED BY COUNCIL this 13th day of March, 1997

It is signed by Phil Andras, Council President and attested to by the City Clerk. Nowhere in that document does it state hereinafter or similar wording.

Why Council Members would try to complain to the community that they had their health benefits taken from them is beyond comprehension. According to this document they should not have received any benefit in the first place. The question remains on whether they will be required to pay the City back.

Tom Gabos Please Explain Your Income And Residency

According to documents on file at Hazleton City Hall Gabos Electric aka succesful businessman Tom Gabos and Peach Entrprises aka succesful businessman Tom Gabos have remitted a total of $3.00 to the City of Hazleton as mercantile tax since 2003.

In Gort's interview with Mayor Barletta last December the Mayor indicated a need to go after businesses that do not pay their mercantile tax.

In a search of the Luzerne County Courthouse Recorder of Deeds Office records indicate that Tom Gabos and his wife, Gale Zelenack, filed a deed for the purchase of their building located 105-107 East Broad Street. The deed was prepared by John P. Rodgers, Esquire and dated May 14, 2008.

The records also show a mortgage for the same property between Gabos and his wife, Gale, with the First National Bank of Pennsylvania with an address of One FNB Blvd, Hermitage, PA. 16148. The date of the mortgage is May 14, 2008. Interestingly, Tom Gabos and his wife, Gale M. Zelenack list their mailing address as 14 Airport Road Hazleton, PA. 18202. In the body of the mortgage Thomas S. Gabos lists his address as 14 Airport Road, Hazleton, PA. 18202 which is actually located in Sugarloaf Township and Gale M. Zelenack lists her address as 107 Fox Hollow Drive, Drums, Pa. 18222. According to other records Gale M. Zelenack sold her home located at the Drums address on February 9, 2007.

The amount of the mortgage was $90,000.00.

There is an Assignment of Rents document dated May 14, 2008 between Gabos, Zelenack, and FNBP listing the same addresses of 14 Airport Road Hazleton, PA. 18202 and 107 Fox Hollow Drive, Drums, Pa. 18222.

On the deed Thomas S. Gabos and Gale M. Zelenack list their address as 907 Lincoln Street, Hazleton, PA. 18201.

On July 6, 2006 Grantor Thomas Gabos deeded his property located in Sugarloaf Township to Grantees Thomas Gabos and Gale Rae M. Zelenack for the sum of One dollar. In Book 3006 on page 177642 located in the Recorder of Deeds office the following is noted for Certificate of Residence. I hereby certify the the precise address of the Grantee(s) herein is: 14 Airport Road, Hazleton, PA. 18202. It is notarized by Ann Fagan, Sugarloaf Township, Luzerne County. The Grantees are Thomas Gabos and Gale Rae M. Zelenack.

Here's the questions for you Thomas. Did you live outside of Hazleton for a period of time where you may have been required to resign your City Council seat over the residency requirement? Since you only paid $3.00 in mercantile tax what income did you produce to secure a mortgage for $90,000.00? Are you maintaining three properties, 907 Lincoln Street, Hazleton, 14 Airport Road, Hazleton, and 105-107 East Broad Street, Hazleton with that income? 

The voters deserve an explanation in light of the fact that the Greater Hazleton Historical Society claims it paid Gabos Electrical, Inc. $3,371.00 for the year ended April 30, 2006.

For legal reasons it should also be noted that Thomas Gabos and Gale Rae Margaret Zelenack were issued a marriage license on November 23, 2008 and were married before District Magistrate Joseph Zola on December 10, 2008. References to Gale being his wife in this post indicate the present status not the status at the time of the deeds. The documents are attached to the deeds.

Note: There has been a correction made to this post.

Tom Gabos- If You Are Really Concerned About Police, Give Up Health Insurance

According to documents in Hazleton City Hall Councilman Tom Gabos has been receiving health insurance paid by the City of Hazleton despite owning two businesses, Peach Enterprises(aka Gabos Electric according to a media report) and Classic-Cade. His recent political commercial states he voted NO on the budget for Hazleton because it didn't fund enough for the police force. Forget that the budget DID fund a police force; that wasn't enough motivation for him despite his "reports" of prostitution.

Gabos should take a lesson from the Kansas City police force. In this KMBC.com report police in Kansas City, Kansas have agreed to take a pay cut to save jobs.

Tom Gabos, why didn't you agree to forgo health insurance paid by the citizens of Hazleton to help pay for more police? Don't tell us that the council pay is not enough; don't tell us that your electrician business is not enough; don't tell us that the part time work for the Greater Hazleton Historical Society is not enough; don' t tell us that Classic-Cade does not make enough; don't tell us that the full time job with the Hazleton Area School District is not enough. That is just plain wrong.

Tom, a lesson about business. There is a risk.. Are you asking the citizens of Hazleton to help in your risk of business by paying for your health insurance when others who start a business accept full risk?

Only you and one other council person receive health insurance paid by the citizens of Hazleton. Yet your political commercial chides two other council persons who DO NOT receive health insurance paid by the taxpayers. Wagging the dog won't fool everyone.

Are you double dipping when you ask the same set of taxpayers to fund your job on City Council and pay for your wages as a a maintenance person for the Hazleton Area School District? How many times are you going to reach into their pocket?