Mezzacappa Responsible For Half of OOR's NorCo Caseload

Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records is the state agency deciding appeals of Right-to-Know Law denials. In Northampton County, this office has decided 25 cases this year, as of today. Of these, 13 were brought by Tricia Mezzacappa. She alone is responsible for over half of this state agency's caseload in NorCo. She has challenged decisions by Colonial Regional Police Department, Northampton County, West Easton Borough, Tatamy Volunteer Fire Department, Nancy Run Volunteer Fire Co and Colonial Intermediate Unit 20.

Of Mezzacappa's 13 appeals, she has outright won two and received partial relief in another two. The rest were dismissed 

 

Northampton County Drags Feet in Producing Arbitration Ruling

On October 13, I told you that an arbitrator has upheld a grievance on behalf of AFSCME Local 1435 over healthcare reductions unilaterally imposed by Northampton County Exec John Brown last year. This impacts about 650 Gracedale employees. That day, I also filed a Right-to-Know request, seeking a copy of the order or ruling. It was a perfunctory request for information to which the public is clearly entitled. I did not seek a copy of the underlying opinion, just the order itself. It likely is no more than two pages long.

Yesterday, the County invoked a 30 day extension until November 19, in which to respond to this request.

That's ridiculous, and is obviously intended to delay the public's right to know concerning a matter of vital importance to both employees and taxpayers. The deliberate foot-dragging concerning this information betrays a lack of transparency, which remains a hallmark of the John Brown administration.

NorCo DA: Audio-Visuals of Traffic Stops Might Be Public Records

In response to an open records request, Northampton County DA John Morganelli yesterday ruled that Bethlehem Township police must produce the audio-visual record of a traffic stop made near the Southmont Shopping Center. I made this request last November and appealed a denial by Chief Daniel Pancoast, who claimed the record was part of a criminal investigation, and hence exempt from disclosure.

I appealed this denial, both to the State Office of Open Records and to the District Attorney. The reason for the two-pronged appeal was uncertainty over whether the state agency or the District Attorney has jurisdiction. The District Attorney deferred taking action pending a final determination from the state.

On Monday, the state ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, clearing the road for the District Attorney to consider whether the record was exempt from disclosure as part of a criminal investigation.

In a ruling handed down by the District Attorney himself, he concludes that the record must be disclosed. "While in certain circumstances, some or all of audio/visual recording of a traffic stop may constitute a record of a criminal investigation, the circumstances of the instant matter do not demonstrate how the sought recordings in this case are exempt. According to information provided, the respondent's police department made a traffic stop of [redacted]. He was issued a traffic citation. he pleaded guilty and paid a fine. The case is now closed."

Bethlehem Township can, of course, appeal this decision.

Whether I have more to say about this matter depends on what I see and hear when I get my hands on the audio/visual. Until that happens, I will remain silent. I have no desire to hammer someone over a mere traffic stop.

The reason for this post is two-fold. First, I want to establish that, in Northampton County at least, the audio/visual of a completed traffic stop is a public record, so long as there is no other ongoing investigation.. This ruling is consistent with other case law. Second, I need to rebut the false report made elsewhere that incorrectly claimed my records request was denied. It was actually granted, and by the office that has jurisdiction.

Open Records Office: Meeting Audio Tapes Are Public Records

When Township officials record meetings to prepare the official minutes, is the audio tape subject to disclosure under the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)? AQccording to the state Office of Open Records, they are.

South Newton Township rejected requests for the audio tapes of two public meetings, noting they exist solely to assist the Secretary in preparing the official minutes. But the state Office of Open Records has ordered their disclosure. "The Township has not provided any competent evidence that the audio recordings at issue were prepared by or for a public official or employee for their own personal use, and that the recordings do not have an official purpose."

Cawley Stonewalls Morganelli Request for Lt Guv Budget

John Morganelli may be soon be a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. But he still has rights as a citizen. But incumbent Jim Cawley is ignoring repeated Morganelli requests for a copy of a detailed, itemized budget for the second highest ranking official in the Commonwealth. He's been ignored for two weeks straight. He won't even provide a copy to State Senator Lisa Boscola. "It appears that the office of Lt. Governor is unresponsive to citizen requests," notes Morganelli. So yesterday, he filed a Request under the state's Right-to-Know law, asking for both the budget as well as the salaries paid to certain key staffers. He also wants the "budget for and all positions related to the residence of the Lt Governor in Fort Indiantown Gap and all salaries of said positions including but not limited to maintenance, security, and all services."

Under the state's Open Records Law, Cawley has five business days to respond. The Open Records office ordered him last year to disclose home addresses.

How to Abuse a Good Law

Pennsylvania's relatively new Right-to-Know Law has opened the doors to what has too often been a closed government. Not only does the law create a presumption that all government records are public, but it establishes a statewide Office of Open Records for speedy appeals by those who think they've been unfairly denied access. This new law has undeniably been useful to reporters and bloggers interested in casting a public spotlight on what is happening. But at least one citizen is using it as a tool to harass smaller governments. The law provides no remedy for vindictive requests.

Local governments may feel annoyed, but there have been relatively few appeals in Northampton County (14), Lehigh County (23), Allentown (38), Bethlehem (34) and Easton (10).

But tiny West Easton Borough, whose 2010 census was just 1,257 people, has handled 40 open records appeals, more than Allentown.

Reason? Tricia Mezzacappa. The Gladys Kravitz of West Easton, she has filed 39 Right-to-Know appeals under her own name. She filed another as "Concerned Citizens of West Easton," using her mother's address.

You could say this must mean that West Easton is a closed government that likes to operate in secret. But if that were so, wouldn't there be other appeals by other people?

Mezzacappa has won just four of these appeals.

When a small government like that is tied up with so many appeals, it is hard to imagine it has time for anything else, including government.

According to Mezzacappa herself, she was ejected from Monday night's West Easton Borough Council meeting by Easton police. "And dragged she was...physically abused, and accused of drinking in public (laugh), and threatened with a disorderly conduct charge, [and] tossed out of the meeting by Officer Siegfried of EPD."

In a mass email to West Easton Borough Solicitor Christine Schlottman, Mezzacappa warns, "Congratulations, you have successfully added more fuel to the fire. I will now be returning to each and every meeting, camera ready, and will be recording, as you stand by and allow my government through you, to violate my constitutional rights. I have known many lawyers who will do anything for a buck, but you take the cake. What a disgrace."

In a letter to The Express Times, in which she basically defends the Ross Township massacre by a crazed gunman angry at Township officials, Mezzacappa hints at her own situation. "West Easton seems to mirror the exact predicament of Newell in Ross Township. I thank the Lord that I have had the patience to continue putting up with this tyranny."

It is nuts like Mezzacappa that give nuts like me a bad name. Her abuse of the Right-to-Know Law is just what state legislators need to close those doors shut.

Northampton County's Right Not to Know Law

In a story about Monday's auction at The King George Inn, The Morning Call reports that "Archie Isadore" was there, looking for a lamp or painting for his Martins Creek home. There is nobody named Archie Isadore living in Martins Creek, but there is somebody named Archie D'Isidore. He happens to be Northampton County's Director of Court Services. Was D'Isidore on vacation? Sick leave? Why was he there and not at work, looking at personal emails and firing employees in the Register of Wills Office?

I decided to file a Right-to-Know request, asking for any and all records that would establish whether Director of Court Services Archie D'Isidore was working on Monday, December 17, 2012, or whether he was on vacation, personal time, sick time or had any other excused absence for all or part of that day. It's a fairly straightforward request. An attendance record for one frickin' day.

I received this rather bizarre reply from Northampton County's Right-to-Know Officer, Jill Mancini:

"Your below request has been forwarded the appropriate departments with the additional notation that since every record that might reflect Mr. Isadore’s attendance status on Monday from any source was requested, that all final records with the supporting documents, should there be any are forwarded.

"Pursuant to Section 902(a) of the Law, we are invoking our right to an additional thirty (30) days pursuant to the following subsections:

(3) timely response to the request for access cannot be accomplished due to bona fide and specified staffing limitations;

(4) legal review is necessary;

(7) the extent or nature of the request precludes a response within the 5 day period.

"Records which reflect the requested information do exist currently but the final formalized records will not be produced for about 2 weeks pursuant to protocol.

"For your information it is my understanding that the responsibilities under the RTK law will be transferred imminently. While the law has imposed substantial burdens on county staff, the benefit of readily accessible information, hence transparency, redounds to us all. It is unfortunate for requestors that we do not have someone assigned exclusively to this task. Other counties, such as Luzerne have created a position for this purpose with successful results. I thought you might be interested to know that this law has spawned about 6,100 appeals to the Office of Open Records and about 350 to the Courts since its adoption at the beginning of 2009.

"It is expected that a response will be produced before the 30 day period has passed but it will be produced at the latest on or before January 19, 2013."

Translated, what Mancini is telling me is she is going to make me wait thirty days for information the County has now, although it might not be reduced to a "record" at this point. She also wants me to know how overworked she is, and makes a pitch for a full-time right-to-know officer.

By my count, Mancini has been overwhelmed by a grand total of ten Right to Know appeals this year. Several resulted from her own failure to even acknowledge the requests within five business days, as required by the law.

Noon Update: Luzerne County's Solicitor, Vito DeLuca, informs me that Luzerne's Right-to-Know Officer is an Administrative Assistant who handles other duties as well. Mancini's assertion is inaccurate, although DeLuca a did say his assistant spends a large portion of her day responding to RTKs.

1:45 PM Update: I have been informed that the "Archie Isadore" at the auction was, in fact, the father of Director of Court Services Archie D'Isidore. I am pointing that out to be fair to him, although the point of this post is the odd reply by Mancini. I would be unable to share that with you unless I alaso pointed out why I had filed the RTK request.

Allentown Still Stonewalling

Perhaps the chief reason for the NIZ legal challenge was the perpetual stonewalling by Allentown officials. Instead of transparency, Allentown prefers to keep us all in the dark.

Perhaps its time to rethink that attitude. Allentown tried stonewalling an anti-abortion advocate's request for information because he's suing the City for violating his constitutional and statutory rights. A three-judge panel of Commonwealth Court has just ordered Allentown to fork over information that the State Office of Open Records and trial judge agreed are public records.

Allentown Peppers Hanover, Bethlehem Townships With 28 RTK Requests

Since June 1, Allentown DCED Director Sara Hailstone has peppered Bethlehem and Hanover Townships with a total of 28 Right-to-Know requests. Those two municipalities are the spearhead of a municipal challenge to the legality of Allentown's 130-acre Neighborhood Improvement Zone (NIZ).

Under a state law passed in 2009 after a record-breaking budget stalemate, the NIZ was created. It authorizes Allentown to pay for a hockey arena and other improvements with the EIT revenue of anyone working inside the zone, even if he lives in another municipality. But this legislation has been attacked in Commonwealth Court as an unconstitutional "special" law that could only ever apply to Allentown.

Hailstone has asked for meeting minutes from both municipalities, even though those are already available online. She requests minutes of executive session, too, even though those are never kept. She wants copies of all email exchanges with developer Nic Zawarski, even though he's been retired for 15 years and his sons now operate the business. She asks the townships to tell her how much they've paid to Bethlehem law firm Broughal and DeVito, which represents both Townships. Finally, she wants all emails concerning an alphabet soup of agencies, from ANIZDA to ACIDA to AEDC.

Hailstone's multiple requests have been referred to Broughal and DeVito for legal review.

How do I know about these Right-to-Know requests? I filed a few myself.

Updated 11:45 AM: In an earlier version of this story, I write that developer Nic Zawarski is deceased. He is very much alive, and I apologize to Mr. Zawarski and his physicians.

Court Strikes Blow For Right to Know

Last week, a sharply divided Commonwealth Court ruled, 4-3, that a Governor has no obligation to produce his daily schedule, at least to the extent that doing so would reveal "predecisional deliberations." Now, in yet another close one, this appellate court has struck a blow in favor of the public's right to know.

In an Opinion on behalf of a 4-judge Majority, Judge Leadbetter rules that a state agency cannot ignore a request for records simply because it fails to refer specifically to the Right-to-Know Law or comply with all the niceties. Written requests for records are Right-to-Know requests so long as they "identify the requested record and include the requester’s name and address." If there is some technical deficiency, "the open-records officer in the agency must so notify the requester of this fact so that the requester can resubmit the request."

In a strongly worded dissent, President Judge Pellegrini scoffs at Leadbetter's ruling. "Because the majority’s holding would make an unaddressed request written on the back of a brown paper bag and given to a PennDot plow driver by the side of the road on a snowy winter night a valid right-to-know law request, I respectfully dissent."

Judges Bernard McGinley and the Lehigh Valley's Renee Cohn Jubelirer join Pellegrini.

Allentown Hides NIZ Local Tax Reports From Palmer Tp

Chris Christman

When you ask someone for a copy of a report, and he denies it even exists, that should pretty much end the matter. But what if you later discover that there really is a report? In fact, what if there are 96 of them? Wouldn't that make you think twice about the honesty of the person who answered your initial question?

Well, that's what happened to Palmer Township, when it requested some information from Allentown about the NIZ. Let me break it down for you.

Back on February 2, Township Manager Chris Christman asked Allentown, in a Right-to-Know request,  to produce its NIZ local tax reports. They would include a schedule listing the amounts of EIT collected for employees who work within the Neighborhood Improvement Zone, but live in Palmer Township.

Christman even attached a sample copy of Allentown's own schedule.

After hitting Christman with a thirty day extension, Allentown finally answered, on March 12, that it had no such  records.

But that's baloney.

The very next day, Christman filed a Right-to-Know Request with the State Department of Revenue. He attached a letter from the Secretary of Revenue reporting that a whopping $1,124,223.76 in local taxes was collected from businesses within Allentown's Neighborhood Improvement Zone during 2011.

The Secretary of Revenue, incidentally, was relying on 96 NIZ local tax reports supplied by Allentown. The very NIZ reports that Allentown denied it possessed. Apparently, there are 316 "qualified" businesses within the NIZ, more than three times the number that Allentown Finance Director Garrett Strathearn reported to the combined Tax Collection Committees of Northampton and Lehigh Counties.

Obviously, someone in Allentown is hiding something, denying it has records that were in fact provided to the Department of Revenue.

As you might have guessed, Christman's request is under "legal review."

Maybe Senator Browne has them. ... or his wife.

Under Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know law, a Court may impose a $1500 penalty when an agency denes access to a record in bad faith.

Palmer Township's Board of Supervisors held an executive session at their Tuesday meeting this week. Unfortunately, Chairman Dave Colver was absent, or I suspect they would have voted to join Hanover, Bethlehem and Lower Saucon Township's legal challenge to Allentown's tax grab.  I say this because Palmer Township has been getting the stonewall.

Or lies.

Volunteer Fire Company Ordered to Fork Over Records

Last week, I told you that the Second Ward Fire Company, a volunteer fire company in Bangor, was refusing to produce records requested by Bangor Borough Council member Dave Houser. In a bizarre letter to the State Office of Open Records, Fire Co. Prez Bill Schrack claimed the Right to Know Law has no application to volunteer fire companies. In addition, he argued that it was somehow a "conflict of interest" for a Borough Council member to examine the finances of an organization that the Borough helps fund.

As if the letter was not strange enough, 92 comments were posted calling Houser every name in the book, including a few that have not been invented yet.

Obviously, it's a sensitive subject.

Today, the State Office of Open Records granted Houser's request. It holds, as a matter of law, that volunteer fire companies are subject to the Right-to-Know Law. They perform governmental functions.

Don't Piss Off the Firemen

It happened twice last week. On Monday night, it was at a Bethlehem Township Commissioners' meeting. On Friday, it was in a blog posting here, about a Bangor Borough Councilman's request to view the financial records of a volunteer fire company.

In both instances, I managed to infuriate volunteer firemen.

Monday night, I dealt with five Bethlehem Township Volunteer Fire Company firefighters, from its Chief to its President. Now those guys are all about transparency. They actually want people to see their records. But they were giving me dagger eyes because I had pointed out, in an earlier story, that a rash of embezzlement has led many municipalities to keep a closer eye on them.

These guys were being stopped in the street and asked about embezzlement, so I was not their favorite person.

But I think they've forgiven me.

They've invited me for a ride to the Lehigh River.

Upon learning of my predicament with Bethlehem Township's volunteers, a local sage (whose identity I'll keep super secret) warned me, "Do not piss off the firemen." Unfortunately, I got that advice on Saturday, and by then it was already too late.

My Friday post is about Bangor's courageous and dedicated heroes. Unlike the courageous and dedicated heroes in Bethlehem Township, these life savers feel their records are nobody's business. Even when they are publicly funded. Even when the person who seeks those records is one of the public funders.

By the time I was warned not to piss off the firemen, there were already 69 mostly angry comments on what I thought was a fairly innocuous posting. It's continued to go up, most of them being negative.

It makes no difference to these guys that the Office of Open Records FAQ specifically states that volunteer fire companies and their records are subject to the Right-to-Know Law. It makes no difference that their own President has acknowledged, in his response to the state Office of Open Records, that his department has never been audited in its over 100-year history.

Bangor Borough Council member Dave Houser, who made this request, has been eviscerated and shouted into silence. Here's one of the comments, which sums up the attitude. "I don't care anymore about the RTK bull anymore. He [Houser] has an obvious issue with the fire dept. This goof has nothing better to do than to cut down an organization that that trains every week for 52 weeks per year to do the things he'll never have the balls to do. What's next...will he go to church on Sunday and stop the congregation from putting money in the offering? Film at 11....." As for me, I've been told I hate all volunteer firemen.

Actually, I hate everybody.

Anyway, I've been in touch with one of the Bangor firefighters. I've been invited for a ride to see their rescue operations on the Delaware River.

Volunteer Fire Co. Refuses Records Request From Boro Councilman

Earlier this week, I told you that Bethlehem Township's Volunteer Fire Company is willing to open their financial records to anyone. But that's is stark contrast to another volunteer volunteer fire company in Bangor. It's refusing to comply with a request from Borough Council member Dave Houser, even though the borough helps fund it.

In a letter to Pennsylvania's Open Records office, Fire Co. President Bill Schrack makes some incredible arguments:

This letter is in response to the above mentioned docket originated by Mr. David Houser's request for information from our fire company. As the newly appointed president of this organization I have been tasked with handling this matter. There are several reasons why our organization chose not to disclose the requested infromation to Mr. Houser which resulted in the current appeal and they are listed below.

1- We are a non-profit volunteer organization whose sole purpose is to provide fire protection to our community along with two other fire companies comprising our department for greater than 100 years. We feel, with the definitions provided under the Right To Know Law (RTKL) section 102, that we are not considered an agency required to provide such information to the general public.

2- Being that we are a volunteer organization the time frame imposed by a legal formal request such as presented created an undue hardship on the members of our organization. We do not have the personnel or resources available at times to handle these types of requests, nor was there an offer of a reasonable time frame to process this request. As stated earlier, our sole purpose is to provide fire protection to our community.

3- Noting again that we are a volunteer organization with limited available manhours and funds, there was also no offer of any reimbursement of costs associated with processing this request by Mr. Houser.

4- We also strongly believe that there is a conflict of interest in Mr. Houser's request, as we believe he is requesting this information as a Borough Council member and not as a general citizen. We believe that the information requested would be detrimental to our survivability as an organization.

5- Lastly, the information that Mr. Houser requested does not exist in the forms that he is requesting. We have seperate logs for the financial secretary and the treasurer. No official fiscal year reports are generated. Monthly reports are made, vouchers drawn, and the results are spread among the minutes recorded by the secretary. Also there has never been an audit performed by an "independent" agency as there has been no need for such. Once yearly, a committee is formed of current members by the President to perform this task ensuring the books are in order.

With the aforementioned reasons we request that this docket be closed in favor of Second Ward Fire Company. If this matter is not closed we request ample time to seek legal council of our own in review of this case. I am sorry for the delay in this response, but as I stated we are a volunteer organization and are not always readily available for coorespondance via mail. I had been fortunate to receive this letter within the time frame alloted a response. Please feel free to contact me via e-mail for a faster response for any further information that I may provide to assist in your decision in this matter.

State Senate Refuses to Produce Browne's NIZ Emails

On Tuesday, I filed right-to-know requests with State Senator Pat Browne, State Representative Jennifer Mann and Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski. In Senator Browne's case, I am seeking any of his email exchanges, over the last year, concerning the Allentown NIZ, with Mayor Ed Pawlowski, State Rep. Jennifer Mann, NIZ participants Joe Topper and JB Reilly and lobbying firm Pugliese Associates.

Yesterday, my request was rejected on the basis that those emails are not "legislative records," as defined under the Right-to-Know Law. In crafting this Open Records law, state legislators created more restrictive rules for themselves than local government or even the executive branch. In other words, they are unwilling to practice what they preach.

Facially, this rejection seems correct.

I'll be reviewing this over the weekend. If anyone out there is aware of any decision requiring a state legislator to produce emails, please let me know.

I think the public has a right to know what the Hell was going on, especially with Pugliese.

Dietrich Ordered to Produce Note Passed During Public Meeting

On October 6, during a Northampton County Council meeting, Ron Angle announced that landfill magnate Charles Chrin would make a $2 million contribution for farmland preservation, with the money coming from lot sales at Chrin's planned industrial park. Angle had been unleashed by Council two weeks earlier, during an executive session. His mission was to squeeze Chrin and see what he was willing to give in exchange for a favorable TIF at his development, which will gobble up 689 acres of farmland. Chrin's generosity, according to Executive John Stoffa, will enable the County to preserve 650 acres of farmland. That will go a long way to negate the loss of greenspace caused by Chrin's development.

It was a good deal that benefits us all. Like him or not, it was realized largely as a result of Angle's own efforts. But with the notable exceptions of Mike Dowd and Barb Thierry, the rest of Council were unwilling to acknowledge his achievement. That's understandable, I suppose. Democrats Ann McHale and Lamont McClure, two of Angle's biggest political opponents on Council, would have no reason to acknowledge his success, no matter how good it was for the County. The rest of them simply dislike the guy.

The person who really put me off? Council member Tom Dietrich. He is one of the Council members who agreed to send Angle on this mission. Maybe he was disappointed that Angle actually succeeded. Whatever his motive, in the middle of this meeting (1:06:00) and during Angle's announcement, he acted like a 5th grader. He scribbled and passed a handwritten note to Ann McHale, with which she could be heard agreeing.

"Anything you could share with us, Mr. Deitrich?" asked Angle.

"No. That was between he and I," answered McHale, as Dietrich hid behind her skirt. Just like the anonymous cowards who post vile attacks here, Dietrich lacked the courage to own his own words.

Amazingly, for doing exactly what he was directed to do, Dietrich accused Angle in that note of bribery, according to the account of someone who saw it.

The very next day, I filed a Right-to-Know request for the note or a reasonable facsimile. Dietrich knows what he wrote and shared in the middle of a public meeting, and should be required to produce it. If he accused a fellow Council member of bribery during the middle of a public meeting, that's something the public has a right to know, too.

Not surprisingly, Dietrich refused to produce the note. Dietrich the candidate was all about transparency, but Dietrich the elected official is all about secrecy. He dispatched Council Solicitor Phil Lauer to claim (1) the note does not exist; (2) if it does, it is not a public record; and (3) if it is a public record, it's exempt.

I appealed.

On Wednesday, the Office of Open Records (2011-1406_OHare-Northampton_County.pdf) ordered Dietrich to produce the note. He's got 30 days, and should not try complaining that his dog ate it.

LVR Appeals Refusal to Produce Callahan Cell Phone Records

Superbowl weekends are always an excuse for mid-Winter parties and booze, leading to more than the usual number of accidents. So it's no real shocker that in the early morning hours of Superbowl Sunday three years ago, there was an accident in Bethlehem. No one would be surprised to learn that the driver at fault was driving the wrong way on a one-way street, or that he was speeding, or that he had been drinking, or that the impact of his accident would have him and his companion hanging upside down in an overturned vehicle.

What is a surprise is that the driver slammed into and injured a Bethlehem police officer. Even more surprising is that although the odor of alcohol was detected and a Bethlehem police officer was actually hospitalized, there were no field sobriety tests and no trip to the DUI center. A bigger surprise is that the driver in question was Dino Cantelmi, Mayor Callahan's brother-in-law. Eyebrows go up a little more when the officer assigned to investigate just happens to be one of the Mayor's friends, who was promoted ten months later. But the biggest shocker is that this story never appeared in either of the two daily newspapers, who love to scoop each other on the Bethlehem battleground. Even a week or a month after this accident, this would have been big news.

Instead, everything stayed inside a cone of silence. At least for awhile. It took three years, but the story finally came out. Three years later, my biggest question is what did Mayor Callahan know? Was he involved in keeping this story under wraps?

I filed a Right-to-Know request seeking cell phone records for both the Mayor and Police Commissioner on the day of the accident. Now I can track my own cell phone calls from three years ago, but Bethlehem officials incredibly answer that no records exist.

"The City maintains records of cell phone invoices, however individual cell phone records are not kept in the normal course of business. Therefore, the record you request does not exist and the City is not required to compile a non existing record pursuant to Pennsylvania Right to Know Law section 705."

Dead end? I appealed to the Office of Open Records yesterday.

Here's why. This is exactly what happened in another case, Bartholomew v. Smithfield Tp., AP 2010-0184. In that case, the Appeals Officer ruled that a City has "constructive control of its telephone bill and any records related to its account with the telephone company. Therefore, it is required under the RTKL [Right to Know Law] to retrieve a copy of any records that would include the information requested, if any exist, from the telephone company."

So if the telephone company can produce the cell phone numbers called that day, Bethlehem must turn them over. If City officials want to drag their cling to this invoice argument, they will have to file affidavits indicating what efforts were made with the phone company.

Ruh roh.

My appeal also seeks the photographs of the damaged vehicles. The City just ignored that part of my Right-to-Know request.

The Office of Open Records has thirty (30) days to rule on my appeal.

Morning Call Exposes Queen City Hiding Head in Sand

The best evidence that Spring is here is the fresh air coming from The Morning Call, which has exposed the financial shenanigans being pulled by Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski and his docile collection of rubber stamps, sometimes called a city council. It reveals a government that has both withheld information and misled the public.

According to this detailed account, we now know the following:

1) Council members knew of revenue shortfalls in June, but said nothing.

2) The city has denied Morning Call Right to Know requests to review proposed department budgets as well correspondence between King Edwin and his Finance Director, Larry Hilliard.

3) King Edwin cooked the books in order to avoid a tax increase during an election year. Council member Michael Donovan now concedes that in a Morning Call interview, although he never mentioned it on his blog.

4) King Edwin will convene a committee that meets behind closed doors to solve Allentown's fiscal woes, something the editorial board flatly labels a violation of "both the spirit and letter" of Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act.

5) The news account refers several times to a "written statement" released by King Edwin on Friday. Written statements can't be questioned. It appears (although it's not stated) that King Edwin is avoiding reporters these days.

A government that thrives on secrecy, like the Queen City, eventually enables corruption to prosper. Worse, it appears we are also being misled. The budget is based on revenue forecasts the city itself knew were no good.

Council member Michael Donovan is the only council member who maintains a blog. But he voiced no warnings signals back in June, when revenue shortfalls first appeared. He instead published a post about saving $650,000 by borrowing money.

A Donovan Twitter on Saturday tells us he "is about to see the musical, 'A New Brain,' at Ithaca College." That's nice. Still upset over recent criticism I directed at him concerning his own penchant for secrecy, the "Councilor" petulantly asks, "Should I bring it back for anyone special?"

I'll be "civil," just like him, and decline to answer his question. But you know what I'm thinking.

Pennsylvania Online Transparency Tools

According to a report released today by Good Jobs First, a corporate welfare watchdog, Pennsylvania is ranked 4th in the nation for its online disclosure of corporate tax breaks and other economic development subsidies. Its procurement contracts and lobbying disclosures, however, need online improvements.

Pennsylvania's subsidy disclosure website is located here, and it is a pretty nifty little tool. From the beginning of this year until today, there have been 91 grants in Northampton County alone, including $100,279.00 for the Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corporation. In Lehigh County, there have been 99 grants, including $20,000 for salaries and fringes at Properties of Merit.

Pennsylvania's less friendly procurement website is located here, and its lobbying details are here.

Norco Local Gov't Web Pages: Good, Bad & Nonexistent

When I rated Lehigh County's local government web pages, back in June, I expected to have Northampton County's results the next day. But Northampton County, though slightly smaller than Lehigh, is much more fragmented, with thirty-eight different municipalities.

I've tried to keep things objective for once. Here's how it works. Any local government with a website gets a point. Additional points are awarded for meeting agendas, minutes, online newsletters, calendars and email contacts (to elected officials only). If the site has other items designed to inform its citizens or make government more transparent, more points are awarded.

At the end of the post, I've included the data showing how points are determined for each municipality. If I've got something wrong, please let me know. I'm not proud. That's why I blog.

After a few days, I'll combine the Lehigh and Northampton County results to determine the best municipal websites in the Lehigh Valley. I'll have a few recommendations on how things can improve. If you have any suggestions, please make them known.

Here's the Northampton County breakdown.

7 points: Bethlehem Township, Easton City, Hanover Township and Williams Township tie for the county's best municipal web pages. These folks get it. Their sites promote public use and access. Three of these local governments actually include email contacts for elected officials, something very rare. Most municipalities try to guard access to their elected officials, a mistake.

6 points: Forks Township, Northampton County, Palmer Township and Wilson Borough. Northampton County has made strides over the past year, and now provides access to property records and sheriff's sales. But its biggest service to taxpayers is that you can pay your tax bills on line. Only Allentown has a similar feature.

5 points: Bethlehem City, Lower Saucon Township, Nazareth Borough and Upper Mount Bethel Township. These are all good web pages, designed to make government more transparent. All of these local governments provide access to minutes or agendas. A nice feature in Upper Mount Bethel, and one I've seen nowhere else in the Lehigh Valley, is the ability to submit your own news story about the community.

4 points: Allen Township. All the basics are there.

3 points: Pen Argyl Borough and Plainfield Township. These local governments appear to be on the right track.

2 points: Bushkill Township, Lower Nazareth Township, West Easton Borough and Wind Gap Borough. These are web pages that really need to improve.

1 point: Bath Borough, Freemansburg Borough, Hellertown Borough, Lower Mount Bethel Township and Washington Township. At least they showed up.

0 points: Bangor Borough, Chapman Borough, East Allen Township, East Bangor Borough, Glendon Borough, Lehigh Township, Moore Township, North Catasauqua Borough, Northampton Borough, Portland Borough, Roseto Borough, Stockertown Borough, Tatamy Borough, Upper Nazareth Township and Walnutport Borough. These local governments are either ungodly small or have demonstrated problems with citizen access. If they can't provide this basic service to constituents, they should merge with municipalities that try.

Here's the data I compiled to arrive at these results. If my math is wrong, it's because my dog was messing with my calculator.

Northampton County: Score - 6.
Minutes? Yes.
Agendas? Yes, but only most recent meeting.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? No.
Calendar? Yes.
You can pay tax bills online, view sheriff sale properties and check out recent deeds and mortgages. Over 150 different documents are available, including the Home Rule Charter, budget and administrative code.

Allen Township: Score - 4.
Minutes? No.
Agendas? Yes, for most recent meeting.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? Yes, on home page.
Calendar? Yes.

Bangor Borough: No web page. Score - 0.

Bath Borough: Score - 1.
Minutes? No.
Agendas? No.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? No.
Calendar? No.

Bethlehem City: Score - 5.
Minutes? Yes.
Agendas? Yes.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? No.
Online calendar? Yes.
It has a few on line extras, described in an earlier post.

Bethlehem Township: Score - 7.
Minutes? Yes (since 2000)!
Agendas? Yes. Only current meeting.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? Yes.
Bethlehem Township actually has two web pages - one for government and the other for recreation, and its home page contains a section for "fast breaking" news.

Bushkill Township: Score - 2.
Minutes? No.
Agendas? No.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? No.

Chapman Borough: No web page. Score - 0.

East Allen Township: No webpage. Score - 0.

East Bangor Borough: No webpage. Score - 0.

Easton City: Score - 7.
Minutes? Yes.
Agendas? Yes.
Email contacts? Yes. (for city council)
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? Yes.
Easton's ordinances are available online.

Forks Township: Score - 6.
Minutes? Yes, for 2 years.
Agendas? Yes, for 2 years.
Email contacts? Yes.
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? Yes.

Freemansburg Borough: Score - 1.
Minutes? No.
Agendas? No.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? Over a year old.
Calendar? No.

Glendon Borough: No webpage. Score - 0.

Hanover Township: Score - 7.
Minutes? Yes, all the way back to 2001!
Agendas? Yes.
Email contacts? Yes.
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? Yes.
This webpage contains a scrolling news ticker to inform residents, and also includes agendas and minutes for all of its boards.

Hellertown Borough: Score - 1.
Minutes? No.
Agendas? No.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? No.
Calendar? No.
The site is set up for a newsletter, but fails to provide one.

Lehigh Township: No webpage. Score - 0.

Lower Mt. Bethel Township: Score - 1.
Minutes? No.
Agendas? No.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? No.
Calendar? No.

Lower Nazareth Township: Score - 2.
Minutes? No.
Agendas? No.
Email contacts? Yes.
Online newsletter? No.
Calendar? Not updates since 2005.

Lower Saucon Township: Score - 5.
Minutes? Yes.
Agendas? Yes.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? No.
This page has separate sections for its environmental advisory council and zoning hearing board.

Moore Township: No webpage. Score - 0.

Nazareth Borough: Score - 5.
Minutes? Limited.
Agendas? Yes.
Email contacts? Yes.
Online newsletter? Yes. For the winter.
Calendar? Yes.

North Catasauqua Borough: No webpage. Score - 0.

Northampton Borough: No webpage. Score - 0.

Palmer Township: Score - 6.
Minutes? Yes, back to 2003.
Agendas? Yes.
Email contacts? Only for one of five supervisors.
Online newsletter? Yes, The home page appears to be a detailed online newsletter.
Calendar? Yes.
The site contains links to its community center, athletic association, business association, fire department and to various codes and permits.

Pen Argyl Borough: Score - 3.
Minutes? No.
Agendas? No.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? No.
There is a link to Pen Argyl's borough code.

Plainfield Township: Score - 3.
Minutes? Only one meeting is listed, from March.
Agendas? No.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? On the home page, there are notices.
Calendar? A meeting schedule is listed on the left sidebar.

Portland Borough: No webpage. Score - 0.

Roseto Borough: No webpage. Score - 0.

Stockertown Borough: No webpage. Score - 0.

Tatamy Borough: No webpage. Score - 0.

Upper Mt. Bethel Township: Score - 5.
Minutes? No.
Agendas? Yes.
Email contacts? No.
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? No, but the home page does list upcoming meetings.
A nice feature of this site, and one I see nowhere else, is the ability to submit news items in the township.

Upper Nazareth Township: No webpage. Score - 0.

Walnutport Borough: No webpage. Score - 0.

Washington Township: Score - 1.
Minutes? No.
Agendas? Only for the planning commission.
Email contacts? None for elected officials.
Online newsletter? No.
Calendar? No.

West Easton Borough: Score - 2.
Minutes? No.
Agendas? No.
Email contacts? None for elected officials.
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? No.

Williams Township: Score - 7.
Minutes? Yes.
Agendas? Yes.
Email contacts? Yes.
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? Yes.
This site contains numerous application forms, zoning forms and recent ordinances.

Wilson Borough: Score - 6.
Minutes? Yes, back to 2005.
Agendas? No.
Email contacts? Only two of ten elected officials.
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? Yes.
This site also contains an online complaint form.

Wind Gap Borough: Score - 2.
Minutes? Only 2006. None at all for 2007.
Agendas? No.
Email contacts? Only for two elected officials.
Online newsletter? Yes.
Calendar? No.

Update: I was agraid I'd screw up, and so I did. East Allen Township has one of the county's best web pages. It includes a newsletter, calendar, minutes, agenda and also includes a few forms. It's entitled to a 6.
Update #2: I also missed North Catasauqua Borough, which has no newsletter, calendar, minutes or agendas. Its score is 1.