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. 

Ransom Young Needs To Address Possible Ethics Problems

In this Kent Jackson article written March 7, 2012 in the Standard Speaker Ranson Young, candidate for the House seat in the 116th Pennsylvania district and presently Butler Township Supervisor, it is reported that Young is "suing the other two supervisors and the township to regain a job as road foreman from which they fired him in January."

In the federal lawsuit, Young says Supervisors Brian Kisenwether and Charles Altmiller fired him because he campaigned against them.

Young, a Democrat now running for state representative, defeated Kisenwether, a Republican, in an election for township supervisor in 1995. Young campaigned against Kisenwether in 2009 when Kisenwether defeated Democrat James Caffray to become a supervisor. In 2011, Young campaigned against Republican Altmiller, who also defeated Caffray to become a supervisor.

When Altmiller took office in January, he and Kisenwether formed a Republican majority. They fired Young and Caffray, who was zoning officer, at a meeting on Jan. 3.

Young says in the lawsuit that he received no notice that he would be fired before the meeting and was told no reason for his dismissal. In the lawsuit, he says he was fired in retaliation for exercising his right of free speech by campaigning.

The caption to this photo reads "Asphalt from a shovel held by Luis Ocasio, who works for the Butler Township Road Department, falls to the surface of Mill Mountain Road, Butler Township. Behind him, Freeland Street Foreman Bob Babenko and Butler Township Roadmaster Ransom Young operate a spreader, while Terry Webster, of the Black Creek Township road crew, uses a rake to smooth asphalt from the side of the road. All three municipalities, including West Hazleton, work together on road maintenance and repairs to cut costs."

Back in 2010 this Standard Speaker article highlighted salary questions regarding Ransom Young's employment with Butler Township as a supervisor and a road worker. 

Young was scheduled to receive $2,000 for his job as roadmaster, which is a supervisor position and was up for a 4 percent wage increase for being road foreman. Last year the roadmaster position paid $4,000. Young's salary, including the 2010 raise, would have been $49,429.38. Additionally, any supervisor that works on roads in the township receives $24.69 per hour."

According to these three Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission rulings it appears Ransom Young has a significant ethical issue regarding his dual employment by Butler Township.

In the matter of Richard Hessinger, supervisor for Summit Township, from 1994 the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission ruled

Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 in 1988 and 1989 when he received double payment as a salaried roadmaster and as a laborer at an hourly rate for performing road related duties.

In another case before the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission from the same year Thomas Wasiela, another supervisor in Summit Township, received a similar verdict. 

Wasiela violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he received double payment as a salaried roadmaster and as a paid laborer at an hourly rate for attending the PSATS's convention in 1988 and 1989.

Wasiela violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 for receiving payment, at the hourly rate set by the township board of auditors for a working township employee, as to duties which were encompassed within the functions of elected township supervisors for the calendar year 1989.

In this matter involving Robert Noel, supervisor for Reade Township, the Ethics Commission found he committed a similar violation from 2004 through 2009. 

Robert T. Noel ( "Noel "), a public official in his capacity as a Supervisor for Reade Township ( T"ownship ")f rom January 2004 to the present, violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( E" thics Act "), 65 PSa.C.. 1 103§(a) , in relation to his actions as a Township Supervisor to approve and issue payment for hours claimed as a Township road worker at the same time he was serving asTownship Roadmaster.

Mr. Young should explain to the public in explicit terms whether the findings in these three cases applies to his role as Butler Township Supervisor, Butler Township Roadmaster, and Butler Township supervisor working on roads.  Did he approve payments to himself in all three of these roles?

 

.

Kanjorski Cuts Children Education In Nanticoke To Campaign

A developing story coming out of the Barletta campaign.

On Friday afternoon the Nanticoke Area School District sent a paid robo-call
from their Superintendent into the homes of parents with children in the district.

The call alerted them of a political rally for Paul Kanjorski that is to be held at the Nanticoke Jr. Sr. High School on Tuesday afternoon. It also said that the children's education day would be cut short due to Kanjorski's political rally and they would need to make accommodations to get their children.

Here is information that can be found on the Allentown Morning Call website.


I would like very much too attend this rally and see President Clinton. At what time does this event start, and do I nee tickets? Thank you,George Mizzer
Posted By: George Mizzer | Oct 22, 2010 3:48:59 PM

George, here are the details:

The public is invited to attend the rally in Nanticoke. More details are available below and at www.paulkanjorski.com.

• Address: Greater Nanticoke Area High School gymnasium
427 Kosciuszko Street
Nanticoke, PA 18634
• Doors open at 4:00 p.m., line to attend starts at 1:00 p.m.
• No tickets needed for the free event.


Posted By: Colby | Oct 22, 2010 11:21:38 PM



Questions:

1. Why were taxpayer resources used to make this call?

2. Why did the call (paid for by the taxpayers) alert the recipients of a
political rally and not just an early dismissal?

3. Does Paul Kanjorski think it is right to cut a student's education day
short for his own political ambitions?

4. Did Kanjorski think about the inconvenience and hardship his rally would
cause to parents who have to leave work early or pay for extra child care so
he can have his campaign rally?

Guess this proves one point. Bill Clinton never campaigned on family values.  You can't have prayer at a school but you can campaign.  Go figure.

Someone should remind Anthony Perrone, the Superintendent, about the Hatch Act. The Act forbids employees of the federal government, as well as employees of state and municipal governmental bodies and agencies that receive federal funds, from running for office in partisan elections or participating in political campaigning while working.

From the Missouri Attorney General website:

In Fort v. Civil Service Commission of the County of Alameda, 392 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1964) the California Supreme Court ruled invalid a county charter provision that prohibited civil servants taking any part in the political management or affairs of any political campaign or election. The court said at page 389:


"No one can reasonably deny the need to limit some political activities such as the use of official influence to coerce political action, the solicitation of political contributions from fellow employees, and the pursuit of political purposes during those hours that the employee should be discharging the duties of his position.



It is unfair in this case for the Nanticoke School District to force opponents of Paul Kanjorski to lend financial support to the his campaign by use of their Jr./Sr. High School building. I believe it is also illegal for school personnel to release public employees from ordinary duties during the paid working day in order to allow a campaign to be conducted on school property.

The following information was provided to school personnel in California.

District staff and Board members should always bear in mind the potentially serious civil and criminal liability that may result from seemingly harmless actions. There is no “de minimus” level of public spending on a partisan campaign that would be acceptable under the applicable laws and rules. School districts should take steps to make clear to employees that they are not permitted to use any publicly funded, District-owned equipment for any political purposes in connection with the election, including District-issued cell phones, the District e-mail system, District-owned computers (including laptops issued to staff and used outside the office), phones, fax machines, etc. There are rare instances where the line is less than bright. However, a good guide may be that if the District prohibits or even discourages use of such resources for private purposes or conversations, it should definitely forbid any use for partisan campaigning.


The Commonwealth Procurement Code Contains Some General Ethics Guidelines in Commonwealth Agency Procurements.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act similarly generally prohibits the use of government staff, time, equipment, facilities or property for non-governmental purposes -- including business, personal or political purposes. Confidential Opinion, 05-001. See, e.g. Neff, Order 1498; Maduka, Order 1273, Heck, Order 1251, Holt, Order 1153 (business purposes); Moore, Order 1317, Meduka, Order 1277, Sullivan, Order 1245, Dividio, Order 1202 (personal purposes); Habay, Order 1313,Version: August 2010 Pt I Ch 60 – Pg 3 of 17, Order 1030, Rockefeller, Order 1004, Freind, Order 800 (political purposes).

Isn't that what Bonusgate was all about? Look at this Order by the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission against Stephen Freind relative to conducting campaign activity using his state office.