How Does the County Inform the Public About Gracedale

As you know, I'm both a bottom-feeding blogger and a vocal advocate of Gracedale's sale. Newspapers have done a great job of reporting the twists and turns in this saga, but most people have no time to read every story and blog on this subject, to say nothing of the dozens of meetings. It's one reason why I feel this is a poor topic for a referendum.

One of my readers, who supports keeping Gracedale in County hands, and tea party member John Haligan, who would like to see the nursing home sold, both have expressed some confusion about the facts. Here;s what the Gracedale supporter says.

"I am in favor of keeping Gracedale in county hands, despite any amount of tax increase. I can afford it ... . I am in favor of having a HONEST ASSESSMENT released regarding the cost to maintain the facility. This for the public to read. Maintain the facility only. Not improvements that have not been discussed not additions not changing it what-so-ever. Simply how much will it cost per year to keep it as is. If there is roofing or other maintenance that is scheduled, that should be included. If you say you know in 5 or 6 years we might need a new furnace. That should not be put in. If you say, let's borrow and build assisted living houses or apartments; that, too, should not be included. Another objection I have is spending 1 more red cent of my taxes to do this. You have already spent my money without my approval to fight this case against me. ENOUGH. I would like to see the entire council, NOT RON ONLY, come up with a HONEST FIGURE . Publish it in the local papers without commentary. And allow the people to decide for themselves. That is all I want for the majority to rule, voting based on FACT not FICTION. I am wiped out from this never ending squabble perpetuated for no good reason. Let it be over. Either way. Let it be over."

Although I believe it would be perfectly legal for the County to spend taxpayer money for a mailer that informs them on a nonpartisan matter like this, there is no rush to spend taxpayer dollars to argue against a referendum being pushed by another group of taxpayers. That seems inherently unfair, even if legal. On the other hand, the public has a right to now the facts, and from unbiased sources. Two ideas were discussed at last night's Council meeting.

* Hire an "independent" CPA to prepare a report and present it to the public. This was proposed by Ron Angle last night, but Lamont McClure questioned the County's ability to obtain an independent CPA on such short notice. Angle's idea went nowhere.

* Chairman John Cusick suggested that Council members could express their views in op-eds, but tea party member John Haligan said he wanted facts, not the opinions of Council members.

After these two suggestions, John Cusick decided to move on with the agenda for some reason, despite Angle's insistence that the matter is by no means resolved. Here's a few additional ideas. Please feel free to add constructive suggestions.

* Contact the League of Women Voters and ask them to include a PRO and CON on the topic in their Voter Guide.

* Form a bi-partisan "truth" committee that would simply release a report to the press of the pros and cons of keeping Gracedale in County hands.

* Publicly call on each District Council member to conduct at least one Town Hall in which the Council member can share his or her views with the public. (Two District Council members support Gracedale's sale, while another two District Council members support keeping it. Angle said he is scheduling three town halls in his District.)

Judge Baratta Helps Me Focus

I've been grousing about a Court Order requiring me to tell Judge Baratta why I'm appealing his decision in the Gracedale ballot challenge, which is focused solely on the Election Code. My response is not even due until 3 days after he transmits his record and whatever additional opinion he chooses to file, so it wouldn't do him any good. But if I forget about it, my entire appeal could be dismissed.

Although I was sure I was just spinning my wheels, I decided to work on that statement and filed it yesterday, eight days before it's due and with enough time for the Judge to see the error of his ways, go to Confession and write a second opinion that recants.

I doubt that will happen, but am glad I took the time. The judge was right and I was wrong. It's not exactly a "concise" statement, and even rambles a bit, but it has helped me focus on what is important. What's really wrong with the Judge's decision, with all due respect, is his unwillingness to do his job. Sure, he handled this case quickly, but it was almost too quickly. Unlike the Commonwealth Court, which can and does spend nights and weekends doing line-by-line reviews of election challenges, it strikes me that Judge Baratta was more interested in getting rid of a hot potato. If he thought it was important to sit down and determine whether there was any significant overlap between the Registrar's findings and the signatures that he invalidated, he had all the information he needed, right in front of him.

When the Commonwealth Court was confronted with a ballot challenge to over 90,000 signatures a few years ago during a case in which Gracedale lawyer Larry Otter himself was involved, each judge on the bench worked on portions of the numerous petitions. The Court actually had litigants sit down and check the voter databases, something that was never even considered here.

Judge Baratta has allowed an initiative even though it is undisputed that of 23,391 raw signatures, 1,166 are from people who are not even registered voters, and another 1,173 people signed their name more than once. With the 2,722 signatures that he himself rejected, the Court has to know that this petition fails to meet the 19,631 threshold. There could be an overlap of 1,000 and it would still fail to meet the threshold.
Gracedale Rule 1925(b) Statement

A Reader Reacts To Judge Baratta's Latest Gracedale Decision

Brenda, a new reader, was raked over last night for daring to criticize Judge Baratta's decision. She's anonymous, but I think she's Brenda Song, who's always calling me and asking me for dates.

Brenda has a reaction to Judge Baratta's tortured decision upholding the Gracedale initiative against a claim that it violates a Northampton County Charter prohibition against plebiscites that "extend to the budget." Hizzoner agrees that Gracedale certainly has an impact on the budget, but inexplicable concludes that an initiative concerning its fate does not "extend to the budget."

"The recent decision of Judge Baratta to allow the Gracedale question on the ballot has left a miserable looking scar on the faces of all Northampton County taxpayers. Where else in the world is a flame throwing special interest group allowed to buck their agenda onto an election ballot? The answer is nowhere, Judge Baratta. Allentown State Hospital never appeared on the ballot. Hagedorn State Hospital in NJ, again, not on the ballot. In your decision, you have just literally required a permission slip signed by the voters for a government to sell off an asset. This precedent you have set is not only bothersome, but also frightening. The petition process was flawed and contained upwards of 3,000 invalid signatures. Will you allow me to vote twice on this issue and bring all of my NJ friends to the polling place to have their vote? Regardless of profitability or lack thereof, governments need not compete with the private sector. Excellent patient care exits in privately run nursing homes. We elected a county council to make the decisions that need to be made. That is why they are there. If the county voters are disappointed by council's decisions, they can vote them out of office. When a judge is so fearful as to crawl underneath his bench in his own courtroom to avoid emotional upheaval and bad press, the citizens he serves should be fearful of him. I hope you are appealed and swiftly reversed at the Commonwealth Court. A disgrace!"

If I didn't know any better, I'd say Steve Baratta is doing his best to help Dem candidates. But we all know judges stay away from politics.

Judge Baratta Dismisses NorCo's Home Rule Challenge to Gracedale Initiative

Reading this decision is like reading monks from the Dark Ages, trying to decide how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I'll have more to say later.
Judge Baratta Dismisses NorCo's Home Rule Challenge to Gracedale Initiative

Why I'll Appeal Judge Baratta's Gracedale Ballot Ruling

We all know that the Northampton County Bulldog, Ron Angle, bowed out of the Gracedale signature challenge yesterday. I plan to fight on, regardless whether Judge Baratta rules in favor of or against the County on the Home Rule Charter question.

My decision has nothing to do with Gracedale. Over 500 people signed their name twice and got away with it. Another eleven hundred signatories were not even registered voters. Another thousand signatures from two witnesses who, by their own testimony, filed 38 false affidavits as circulators. Finally, over 1,400 signatures come from a witness who would pass out as many as 15 of them at one time.

I consider this appeal something of a Hail Mary, but Baratta's ruling sets a terrible precedent for elections in Northampton County. He has winked at what amounts to election fraud, and has ignored testimony from the Registrar. I believe Judge Baratta called it as he is saw it, but I also believe he completely ignored his responsibility to preserve the integrity of elections in Northampton County.

Larry Otter, who represents the Gracedale Initiative Committee, is already hitting me u for $21,960.25 in attorney fees, in an attempt to discourage an appeal. He's going to have to wait.

Judge Baratta's Dismissal of Gracedale Initiative Ballot Challenge

I will have more to say about this later.
Judge Baratta's Decision on Gracedale Ballot Challenge

Gracedale Initiative: The Case Against Government by Mob Rule

I've been one busy beaver the past week or so, spending so much time in the Northampton County elections office that the ladies there have threatened to file PFAs against me. I've been reviewing 507 petitions filed to prevent the County from selling nursing home Gracedale, one of its own assets, and one that loses money. After noticing several disturbing patterns in the petitions, as well as a facial inconsistency between the Home Rule Charter and the Elections Code, I decided that a lawsuit had to be filed. What's more, it had to be filed yesterday.

I won't bore you with all the legal gobbledygook, but after discussing this matter with Northampton County Bulldog Ron Angle, we formed an Unholy Alliance to stop government by mob rule.

Yesterday, shortly before the Elections Commission convened, we filed a suit challenging the validity of 23,391 unverified signatures filed by a group led by a fake preacher, who's probably cooking up a batch of Kool Aid for his group right now. I've attached the full Complaint below, but want to summarize the points made to the Elections Commission yesterday, which ultimately ruled against the Initiative, 3 to 2.

1) Ellen Weiss was a petition circulator, i.e a person who watches you sign the petition and later swears that she saw you sign it. She just happens to be the President of AFSCME. She's a VP of the LV Labor Council. Her husband is their Recording Secretary. She's one of the union cadets who used the Gracedale rally as an excuse to campaign for Charles Dertinger and John Callahan. She circulated 37 of the 507 petitions, getting 2,269 signatures. On Election Day alone, she obtained 1,229 signatures between 7 AM and 8 PM in at least 8 different municipalities, and in places as far apart as Hellertown and Pen Argyl. Assuming she spent just one hour driving to different polling places, eating and using the facilities, she would have to have obtained one signature every 35 seconds. That's a physical impossibility. We are asking the Court to strike all 2,269 signatures to preserve the integrity of the election process.

2) Dana Lorin Paisley is another petition circulator whose claims are simply unbelievable. He supposedly obtained 1,188 signatures, and 537 of them were on Election Day alone, from Walnutport to Wilson Borough. That's 41 per hour between 7 AM and 8 PM.

3) Mary Ann Schmoyer is a woman who disrupts nearly every meeting with catcalls ad curses at Angle. She even called him foul names in front of a group of around 40 boy scouts. Well, she was a petition circulator, too, collecting 47 of the 507 total, getting 1,439 signatures. At any given point in time, she had as many as 15 different petitions. She was obviously dropping them off at bars and clubs. Now she claims to have set up tables and laid 15 out at a time, but even then, she is not witnessing each signature.

4) Circulator Jack DAllesander, one of the blog trolls here who incessantly attacks Angle and anyone who supports Gracedale's sale, is physically disabled. He has breathing tubes coming out of his nose, ears and practically every orifice. He can't walk or speak without them, and has claimed that on this very blog. But there he is on Election Day, supposedly obtaining 301 signatures. He is saying his equally disabled wife helped him.

5) Circulator Clayton Creamer is a non-county resident who handed in two petitions, and one of them is all filled out with the same handwriting. That's 53 signatures.

6) Betty Fensetermaker obtained 99 signatures and is not herself a registered voter.

7) Wendy Haggerty obtained 583 signatures. Holly Guzaman got another 97. Their addresses do not match information at the elections office. (This is a curable defect).

8) Petitions were fraudulently circulated in Bethlehem Township and Easton. I have several witnesses, but Bethlehem Township Planning Chair Lee Snover saw it go on all day. Circulators were making the following false statements to voters: "Gracedale not only is closing; they are moving the patients two or three Counties away; their family is never going to see them again.” Approximately 700 signatures come from those 2 districts.

9) Jerry Green and Tim Rehrig are the President and Business Manager of the Steelworkers bargaining unit at Gracedale. They both make over $60,000 per year. Neither are residents of Northampton County, but they both circulated petitions in a matter in which they have a financial interest, getting 300 names.

10) Ladd Siftar notarized his own signature. That's 1.

11) In just half of the 507 petitions on file, there are 1,238 defective signatures (not registered, wrong County, etc.).

If you add it all up, that's 8,267 bad signatures. That means the 15,124 valid signatures are way below the 19,630 threshold need for ballot initiative. So if you forget the Home Rule Charter's express prohibition on initiatives or referenda that interfere with the budget or a capitol program, this effort still falls short.

Gracedale Complaint