Councilman Jack Mundie Wants To Raise Hazleton's Tax Millage

In his ongoing effort to convince Luzerne County officials to conduct a reassessment of properties Councilman Jack Mundie would cause Hazleton's tax millage to increase to make up for lost revenue according to Director of Assessment Anthony Alu. 

In this Standard Speaker article written by Michael Buffer he reports that Alu stated  "A reassessment this year or next year would likely reduce assessment totals, and that could result in increases in property tax rates "to compensate for" losses in tax revenue for the county, municipalities and school districts".

Another reassessment would cost more than $2 million and take two years to complete, Alu said. A reassessment would require additional staff in the assessor's office, Alu said.

It also would to force the county to spend about $300,000 to pay a company to review three years of sales data and devise a mathematical formula to compute new assessed values, Alu explained.

Mr. Mundie's proposal would do nothing to lower property taxes for Hazleton residents.  In addition Mr. Mundie cites research of selling home prices in his presentation that are questionable.  The housing market has been quiet in Hazleton.  To make a broad comparison on the effect to Hazleton's market a sizeable representative sample of sold homes for such a study would be needed to draw an accurate conclusion.  More than likely the homes he is citing include "distressed sales" resulting from tax sales or foreclosures.  Those figures aren't accurate for comparison.

His position is pure theatrics for the upcoming City Council election.  In the end his proposal would cause the millage in Hazleton to increase.  Hazleton is Third Class City.  As such, by current law, it can only tax properties up to 25 mills without going to court. 

Hazleton reached 25 mills in 1972.  In 1977 it was forced to apply for an extra 5 mills to the Luzerne County Court.  That rate was in effect until 2008 which caused all kinds of financial problems for Hazleton, as well as many other third class cities.

His attack on reassessment can have a negative effect on persons interested in purchasing homes in Hazleton.  If they feel the value is going to be depressed, while an attractive buy, it can also deter sales because they may feel other markets have a much better chance for appreciation.

Frank Sorik has it correct.  Quote- "Frank Sorick, president of the Wilkes-Barre City Taxpayers Association, told council to hold off on another reassessment because he expects the state Legislature to outlaw property taxes."

Mr. Mundie's approach is designed to help himself, not the taxpayers.

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.

Hazleton Council Members With No Vision

 

This picture shows the first tenant the City of Hazleton secured due to a new agreement with the Hazleton Airport hangar's owner.  A quick search of the FAA database shows the Learjet belongs to Eagle Rock Air, Inc. located in Dallas, Texas.  The owner is paying $150.00 per night to park the jet in the hangar.

In 2009, then citizen Jean Mope offered comments to Hazleton City Council on how valuable the airport to our community.  She handed out a study she did of the airport.

In an about face as a councilwoman Ms. Mope wanted to give the airport away according to this article that appeared in the Standard Speaker last year. Presented by Councilwoman Jean Mope on Dec. 5: Selling Hazleton Municipal Airport, which would result in the city having to repay all federal funds invested in the facility. If a sale is cost prohibitive, Mope suggested turning the airport over to either Luzerne County or CAN DO.

When the hangar lease came before Hazleton City Council on March 20, 2013 Councilwoman Mope changed her position once more according to this Standard Speaker article.  "I don't like getting rushed into making a decision," Mope said. "My thing is why always rush us into these things? Is it more feasible to look at other avenues, like maybe place a new hangar on there and see what it would have cost?"

The hangar is owned by Koro Aviation on land leased from the City of Hazleton.  Former Councilwoman Evelyn Graham's family are principals in Koro Aviation.  Councilman Jack Mundie, in his election mode, made this ridiculous assessment of the agreement. 

Councilman Jack Mundie called the agreement part of Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi's "family and friends program."

Mundie referred to Russell Graham being listed in the agreement as a contact for Koro Aviation. Russell Graham is son of former city Councilwoman Evelyn Graham, who served as part of a council majority a few years ago that included Joseph Yannuzzi.

The key word was "majority".  It takes three.  Jack Mundie was the third person in that majority.  The pharisaicalness of his comments border on overt deception. 

Neither council member is interested in what is right for Hazleton taxpayers.  In their ground game they are playing politics, pure and simple.  Their thirst for control seems to be quenched with their brazenness to treat their fellow council members with disdane and insults.  They fail to offer a vision for the direction of Hazleton with a long term fiscal strategy.  Rather than conduct meaningful dialogue their values allow them to excoriate the oppostion which is usually reserved for political rhetoric.

Both Mope and Mundie do the taxpayers a disservice through their sophistry.   They pretend they are concerned about issues when in reality that is the distraction to trick people from not seeing their real thirst.

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.

Jack Mundie Ignores The Public During Council Meetings

This picture was taken at the last Hazleton City Council meeting.  Hazleton City Council meetings are the opportunity for council to conduct its business and listen to complaints from the public.  Evidently Jack Mundie doesn't feel either is important enough nor part of his duty as a councilman.

This incident isn't the first time that Mr. Mundie ignored matters at hand during a City Council meeting.  Reporter Sam Galski filed this report February 25, 2012. 

More recently, Ammon sat in the audience at a city council meeting and was observed by some exchanging text messages with Mundie as the councilman, from council's table at the front of the room, inquired about Shoepe's standing on the authority board.

Take a look at this slide. 

 

From 2004-2008 expenses exceeded revenue by almost $1 million dollars.  Mr. Mundie is the only current council member who held office during that period.  If he paid attention he could have prevented this problem, or at least corrected it. Instead he sat idly by until while the debt mushroomed to the point it was necessary for the City to borrow $5.6 million dollars to correct the deficit spending as reported May 25, 2011 in the Hazleton Standard Speaker. 

Some have to wonder did Mr. Mundie bury his head in the sand while taxpayers suffered from the additonal financial burden.  Obviously Mr. Mundie has no solutions.



As a result of Mayor Yannuzzi's $5.6 million dollard borrowing plan it was unnecessary for the City to take out a tax anticipation note in 2013 saving the City about $30,000 in interest and borrowing costs as outlined by Acting City Administrator Steve Hahn in this Standard Speaker article.  It should be noted that Councilman Jack Mundie voted "NO" on the financing deal. 

Some taxpayers are left asking this question of Mr. Mundie-

 









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. 

Sean Donahue and A Hazleton City Councilman

Photo Standard Speaker Jamie Pesotine

 

In today's Standard Speaker veteran writer Mia Light covers the arrest of a nemisis known to many public officials for his plethora of harassing emails written to them with escalating overtones.

A Hazleton man is facing charges after allegedly making terroristic threats against Luzerne County District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis.

Sean Donahue, 43, of 625 Cleveland St., was remanded by Magisterial District Judge Joseph Zola to Luzerne County Correctional Facility in lieu of $100,000 bail following preliminary arraignment Tuesday on charges of terroristic threats and harassment.

According to court documents, Donahue sent an email message to Salavantis on Aug. 17 stating that he would engage in a gun fight with city police if the district attorney did not comply with his demands.

Police said Donahue sent multiple email messages to Salavantis, threatening violence toward government employees and police. One email asked the district attorney to provide him with various assault weapons and bullet-proof clothing.

Going back to 2009 his rants are still on the internet placed by Mr. Donahue in response to articles appearing in the Standard Speaker.  Here is one example.

Dear All,
(1). I am not opposed to an organized Halloween event, similar to what the Freeland Mayor promoted this year. The events should occur on different days in both towns.(2). I agree with using a church picnic environment.(3). I stand adamantly opposed to desensitizing children to the dangers of going near car trunks, especially to get free candy. Please have the FBI tell me that I am wrong in voicing this concern and I will back off of it (but not until after I complain to every FBI office in the country). (4). Finally, all of you seem to be claiming that if you collocate 40 to 100 children in one place with sugar filled candy, the threat of chaos ensuing is minimal. Do you really believe that? To "tire of sean donahue" My job in the Army was to be a threat analyst. It was a natural it. It was a place where pessimism prospered. There are bad people in society. Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

What becomes puzzling and disturbing is the recent contact by one Hazleton City Council member who copied by means of a "cc" to Sean Donahue over  a city matter. 

From: "Jack Mundie" <  email redacted for privacy reasons>
Date: July 30, 2012 2:35:47 PM EDT
To: < editorial@standardspeaker.com >, "richard ammon" < email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Peter O'Donnell" < email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Kent Jackson" < email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Kent Jackson" < email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Elaine M. Curry" <email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Scott   McCarthy" <  email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Sean Donahue" < smd5389@verizon.net >, Steve Hahn < email redacted for privacy reasons >, <  email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Thomas A. Makowski" <email redacted for privacy reasons  >, Sam Galski<  email redacted for privacy reasons>
Subject: FW: billable hour mistakes



From:   Jack Mundie [email redacted for privacy reasons ]
Sent:   Monday, July 30, 2012 2:20 PM
To:   'Jack Mundie'; 'Keith Bast'; 'Karin Cabell'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jean Mope'; Chris Slusser, Esquire; Jack Mundie; MaryEllen
Subject:   billable hour mistakes
Chris,  I know you donated $500.00 to the city because you made a mistake by having us pass  a resolution instead of a required  ordinance for eminent domain on the Greco property.  Now, I know everyone makes mistakes and I make one every day, but, mistakes are not billable hours.  Your invoices show eminent domain research of $1200.00  and I estimate another $800.00 billed expenses for  the eminent domain of the Greco property.  Hazleton taxpayers should not pay for
anyone’s mistakes.   The total comes to $2000.00. If you want to take credit for the $500.00  that you donated  the total that you should refund to the Hazleton taxpayers is $1,500.00.  Please drop a check off at City Hall at your earliest convenience. Cheers, Jack

From:   Jack Mundie [ email redacted for privacy reasons ]
Sent:   Friday, July 27, 2012 3:14 PM
To:   'Keith Bast'; 'Karin Cabell'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jean Mope'
Cc:   'Lisa Barkus'; 'Chris Slusser, Esquire'
Subject:   TRANSFERS
MaryEllen, According to  our monthly report that we received recently, under the special litigation line item we have paid out $16,154.00. We have budgeted $5000.00. So you paid them without coming to council to request a transfer. You said you would be requesting transfers this year. If there is a reason why you are not doing transfers and not following the third class city code please let me known. Chris if you have any thoughts on this I would appreciate a reply.
Cheers, Jack
.
Sean Donahue replied with this email exchange.  He copied the former police chief, the present police chief, a failed candidate who ran for Mayor of the City of Hazleton as well as Wilkes Barre radio hosts.

From: "Sean Donahue" <smd5389@verizon.net>
To: "Steve Corbett" <email redacted for privacy reasons>
Cc: "Robert Ferdinand" <email redacted for privacy reasons>, "DeAndrea Jr." <email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Grace Cuozzo" <email redacted for privacy reasons>, Webster< email redacted for privacy reasons>, Nancy K <email redacted for privacy reasons>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 5:06:31 PM
Subject: Fwd: billable hour mistakes
Dear Steve Corbett,

Now their doing it to me (sending the "I'm pissed off e-mails").  I got something going here.  Its the stuff of democracy.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

Among public officials there exists an undeniable belief that Sean Donahue possesses a threat to them because his out of control behaviors were escalating.  Almost every Hazleton Area government entity was a target of his menacing emails where the brashness climbed to new heights with each click of the mouse.

A question for Jack Mundie is why did he think Sean Donahue needed to be copied on a city matter?   Sean Donahue's minacious demeanor towards public officials was common knowledge. Being a Hazleton City Councilman did he have knowledge of the F.B.I. visit to Hazleton City Hall? What was the motive behind that action to copy Donahue?  If Mr. Donahue's computer was seized how many more public officials and those seeking a public life will have communications found on his computer? Only time will tell.

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.

PNC Loan Default By The HCA

In the last post on the Hazleton City Authority and the Northeastern Building Saga that started in the late 1990's SOP covered the problem with MHT Holdings, Inc and Mark H. Trammel.  An internet check on Mark H. Trammel produced many stories about his development in the Hamburg section of Buffalo called Hickey Farms for senior and low income housing at the same time he was talking to officials at the HCA.  SOP has been trying to track down a relationship between Trammell and an attorney from Hazleton that has been floating around.

The HCA Board secured a  PNC bank loan in the amount of $500,000.00 for the Northeastern Bank Building project on March 26, 1995.  PNC Bank notified the HCA that is was in default on that note on March 27,1997.  A hold was placed on 4 DDA bank accounts of the HCA on April 11, 1997.

On April 16, 1997 PNC bank officials prepared a document that showed the HCA was behind 150 days( 5 months) on payments.  It was prepared John D. Nichols, Unit Manager.  That very same day officials of the HCA including Richard Ammon, Norbert O'Donnell, and John Mundie met with a PNC bank attorney. An agreement was made that funds above $250,000.00 were released so the HCA could pay its bills.  In addition Authority Board member John Mundie agreed to turn over to PNC representatives several items including rent rolls for the building, a listing agreement to sell the property, copies of the loan documents surrounding the loan from the City of Hazleton, and any financial information available.

On May 13, 1997 Attorney Barbara Sedella for PNC Bank wrote a letter that stated in part that as of that date she still was waiting for the information from Mr. Mundie.  “We are at standstill until such information can be viewed.”  Attorney Ferdinand for the HCA responds that the HCA is still waiting for the release of the hold on the remaining account of $250,000.00 despite the fact that HCA Board members previously agreed to the hold.  Attorney Sedella reiterates her request in a letter dated May 19,1997.

Attorney Ferdinand responds to Attorney Sedella May 20, 1997.  In part his letter states, “Recently another matter has surfaced in that Jack Mundie, board member who handles the finances of the Northeastern Building for the board, has advised that he can no longer pay the bills at the building.  He wishes to advise tenants to move in the very near future.

During this time the HCA Board members were also requesting the release of $250,000 Business Development Loan originally made by the City of Hazleton to MHT Holdings.  The HCA’s position was that the funds were needed to continue with the project despite MHT Holdings relinquishing any part in it.

On August 5, 1997 Ron Slusser,  Economic Development Officer, wrote a letter to Richard Ammon, President of the HCA in reference to the Enterprise Zone Loan of $250,000.00.  Slusser tells Ammon that the loan was specifically “to make safety improvements to the physical structure at 8 West Broad Street.  Further he says, “Since receiving the funds over one (June 1996) year ago, the Authority has failed to make the necessary improvements.

Due to the Hazleton City Authority’s failure to meet the conditions required in the Business Development Loan Agreement and Loan Application filed with the City of Hazleton, the City of Hazleton requests immediate payment of the $250,000.00.

It appears the HCA Board severely hurt the financial reputation of its entity with these problems.