Archive for April, 2009

First Friday Spotlight: Central Market

Posted on April 30th, 2009

First Friday Spotlight: Central Market

By Cliff Lewis

On May’s First Friday (tomorrow night), Central Market may well be the hottest gallery in town. For the first time, the Market will be lined with original artwork in accordance with the monthly citywide tradition, Market Master Michael Ervin told NewsLanc.

The seven displays will range from photography to furniture, and all of the work will hold a special relationship to the Market itself: “I believe that all of these artists are standholders, employees of [standholders], or friends of standholders,” Ervin said. In fact, he explained, the entire event was coordinated by a collection of stand owners eager to get the Market involved with the First Friday artwalk.

Live acoustic music will be provided by Josh Gring, the son of the Blue Bandana Stand’s owner.

A pig roast, put on by relatives of the Grass Feed Beef stand owner, will be held at the Market entrance next to the Dispensing Company restaurant, and the owners of Stoltzfus Fresh Meats will be grilling hamburgers as well.

The Market which would typically close by 4:30 on a Friday afternoon, will remain open until 8:00 p.m. to welcome all of the evening’s Downtown art-walkers. According to Ervin, Central Market has dabbled in evening events a couple of times before, but never on this scale, and never as part of the Spring First Friday festivities.

Share

INTELLIGENCER JOURNAL

Posted on April 30th, 2009

INTELLIGENCER JOURNAL

In an article headed “Pot panned as medicine; Local lawmakers, doctors oppose measure”, State Representative Katie True states “Marijuana is not medicine. Marijuana is a bunch of burning leaves” and goes on to say that Marinol, which contains one of marijuana’s ingredient THC, has a “Much better delivery system.”

Pharmacist Charlie Smithgall opines that under federal guidelines, Marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic and thus is banned.

WATCHDOG: Rep. True, who at one point opposed syringe exchanges before seeing the light, again demonstrates superficial knowledge and dangerous bias.  www.DrugWarFacts.org reports: Organizations that have endorsed medical access to marijuana include: the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians; American Bar Association; American Nurses Association; American Public Health Association; American Society of Addiction Medicine; AIDS Action Council; British Medical Association; California Academy of Family Physicians; California Legislative Council for Older Americans; California Medical Association; California Nurses Association; California Pharmacists Association; California Society of Addiction Medicine; California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church; Colorado Nurses Association; Consumer Reports Magazine; Kaiser Permanente; Lymphoma Foundation of America; Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network; National Association of Attorneys General; National Association of People with AIDS; National Nurses Society on Addictions; New Mexico Nurses Association; New York State Nurses Association; New England Journal of Medicine; and Virginia Nurses Association.

Smithgall is correct concerning federal restrictions of schedule 1 drugs through pharmacies, but many states including California now permit sale through dispensaries.  Furthermore, the Obama administration has decided that the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will not interfere with dispensaries where operated under state law.

May True never have a dear one whose suffering can be alleviated by the intake of medical marijuana. But if she does, she may once again find enlightenment and again reverse her habitual knee jerk reaction in support of the often misguided War on Drugs.

Share

More tax exempt city real estate

Posted on April 30th, 2009

More tax exempt city real estate

By moving the rail yard out of Lancaster and having Lancaster General Hospital and F&M college take over the former Armstrong plant properties, exactly how much additional tax revenue will be lost to Lancaster?

The mayor complains about the high number of non-profit organizations in Lancaster but continues to give away more of the tax base.  Go figure!

Share

Chapter Ten: The ‘bumpy ride’ of Commissioners Shellenberger, Shaub, and Henderson

Posted on April 30th, 2009

Chapter Ten: The ‘bumpy ride’ of Commissioners Shellenberger, Shaub, and Henderson

(Tenth in a series)

I am very much in favor of the convention center. But I do not support the county bond. The convention center must be self-supporting.”

Molly Henderson, a week before her election as Lancaster County Commissioner, October, 2003

“I am behind the convention center. However, I am opposed to the county insuring the bond,”

– Dick Shellenberger, a week before his election Lancaster County Commissioner, October, 2003.
County Commissioner campaigns in Lancaster usually follow a predictable pattern.

Every four years, sometime during January, candidates file papers with the county election board to appear on the May primary ballot. They and others then spend the next several weeks gathering signatures on petitions to qualify for the spring election.

For the major party candidates – the Republicans and Democrats – their time is also spent lobbying the roughly 300 committee people in each party scattered throughout the vast county for their endorsement votes.

The party endorsements are voted on by the committee members at a conference held at a local hotel at the end of February. The parties normally end those meetings with two endorsed candidates for the May primary. Occasionally, a party will endorse one or three candidates. But, historically, it is usually two who leave with the party’s imprimatur.

The spring primary for Lancaster County Commissioner is the most important election in Lancaster County. Not only does it determine which three (of four) people will eventually administer a $300-plus million annual budget, but also who will staff and oversee the fourth largest workforce in the county. Lancaster County is big business.

County Commissioners are also empowered to impose taxes, as they did controversially with the hotel room rental tax in 1999 to finance the convention center. The job of Commissioner comes with an $80,000 salary (the chairman makes a bit more), comprehensive benefits, a full-time assistant, and all the social prestige a Lancastrian could ever want.

Other major county offices, including the county District Attorney and Judgeships, are also decided in a Commissioners’ election year. In 2003, Donald Totaro, the incumbent District Attorney, who would play a central role in the lives of the next board of commissioners, was the Republicans’ endorsed choice for DA.

Lancaster County’s voting demographics are somewhat peculiar. The great majority of the roughly half a million people are scattered about the county’s mostly rural 940 square miles. About 300,000 of them are registered to vote. In the mostly (95+%) white county, Republicans out-number Democrats almost two to one. In the ethnically mixed, poorer city, where 50,000 people live, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a more than two-to-one margin for the approximately 35,000 registered city voters. (There are also about 5,000 non-Democrat and non-Republican voters in the city.)

Complicating the political calculus is Lancaster County’s enormous size and more than 60 townships, boroughs, and municipalities, some of which have differing and competing local interests, and are run mostly autonomously by regional power brokers and local boards.

After the primary, where about one-in-five registered voters make it to the polls, the top two vote-getters from both parties (endorsed or not) appear on the November general election ballot.

Party-endorsed candidates are able to use many of the party’s resources, including campaign funding subsidies. For example, the parties subsidize mass mailings; very important in a county whose diffuse electorate makes it logistically difficult to knock on all the doors.

Commissioner candidates of both major parties in Lancaster County typically spend the summer before the general election attending corn roasts, chicken BBQs and fish fries, fundraisers, park clean-ups, coffee klatches, canvassing, and picking up political endorsements wherever they can find them.

In September, the yard signs emerge, seemingly overnight, on freeways, street corners, front lawns, windows, blanketing the county with cardboard ‘vote-for-me’ messages.

At a series of fall ‘debates,’ the candidates answer canned questions with canned, over-rehearsed responses, with the same stale jokes and stiff punch lines. The substantive positions on the issues – regardless of party – are virtually indiscernible. All are for reducing taxes, improving schools, preserving farms, revitalizing urban areas, and wiping the chins of senior citizens. The Republicans, invariably, invoke the name “Ronald Reagan” into their remarks.

The candidates hold court at autumn country fairs and march in parades straight from a Norman Rockwell canvas. Letters to the editor from supporters and detractors (often ghost-written) deluge the opinion pages of Lancaster Newspapers.

After the primary, the process is largely rote and ceremonial for the Republican candidates. They know they will win the election and become county commissioners.

For the Democrats, it is very much a political match to the death. The  county’s charter requires that one party can have no more than two members on the three-person County Board of Commissioners. For 150 years this has meant that two Republicans would share the board with one Democrat.

By the first Tuesday of November – without exception – two Republicans and one of the two Democrats are elected to the board. This is how it usually goes.

Although the general election results of 2003 did end with the same two Republicans-to-one-Democrat board composition, that is about the only thing that went according to history during that very weird campaign season.

The 2003 campaign actually began in late 2002, when, in December, eight of the nine final candidates announced their intentions to run in the May primary.

Two of the sitting commissioners, Paul Thibault, the Republican chairman of the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners, and Ron Ford, the Board’s lone Democrat, had indicated they would not seek re-election in 2003. Both Ford and Thibault voted for the hotel room tax to support the convention center in 1999, with Thibault playing a leading role in its passage.

By mid-January, 2003, nine candidates for County Commissioner filed the paperwork to enter the May 20 primary. They consisted of six Republicans and three Democrats.

The Republicans included: Howard ‘Pete’ Shaub, an incumbent Commissioner; Richard ‘Dick’ Shellenberger, a restaurant owner; Dennis Stuckey, the County Controller; James Huber, former four-term County Commissioner; Steve McDonald, County Recorder of Deeds; and Scott Martin, County Youth Intervention Director.

The Democrats fielded: Bill Saylor, a former television newsman; Jon Price, a township supervisor in tiny Clay Township; and Molly Henderson, a college professor and former Lancaster City public health official.

Only Shellenberger was endorsed by the Republican Party, while the Democrats endorsed all three candidates. This was the first indication the race wouldn’t follow strict convention.

Pete Shaub was not endorsed by his own party at the Republican committee endorsement convention in 2003, as he had been four years earlier. In 1999, he had been the top vote getter of all the candidates, beating his running mate, Thibault, by almost 1000 votes.

Shaub, 48, was a fit, charismatic,  nattily dressed, former marine, employed as a construction executive. He also worked as an auctioneer for the family’s auction business.

Shaub had never held elected office before becoming commissioner, though he was Republican committeeman and a state committeeman. Shaub, originally from the southern portion of the county, was a neighbor of one of the state’s most powerful political figures.

I consider Pete Shaub to be a friend,” said Rep. John Barley, the powerful state House Appropriations chairman in 1999, endorsing Shaub.

In Shaub’s four years in office he often clashed with Thibault, and was getting a reputation of something of a tightly-wound, unpredictable official. One night, with his teenage daughter and one of her friends, he was stopped by park rangers at a county park after the park was closed. Shaub’s explanation: they were conducting a Bible study.

Dick Shellenberger, a 57 year-old restaurant owner, had no political experience at all. He belonged to, and was very involved in the Cavalry Church, a large and well-known house of worship in Lancaster County.

Shellenberger, pleasant and gracious, was a social conservative typical for the mainstream of Lancaster County. Tall, with a straight back and a nice head of hair, Shellenberger looked good in a suit. He worked in restaurants all of his life, and recently owned a local eatery with his wife, Pam.

Shellenberger was something of the darling of the party in 2003. He raised the most money and got the most votes. He even drew the top spot on the ballot for the May primary, which was a random draw. His campaign events were accompanied by songs like “This Land is your Land,” and “God Bless America.” He came with the GOP endorsement, and everyone seemed to like ‘Dick’.

Dennis Stuckey, 50, was the County Controller in 2003. Bland and portly, Stuckey generated little enthusiasm in the party. He was supported, however, by GOP leaders such as Lancaster Mayor Charlie Smithgall and current Commissioner Paul R. Thibault, two of the convention center’s most ardent advocates.

James Huber was a 68 year-old a former four-time commissioner (1987-1995), was attempting an unlikely (and unendorsed) comeback. This was Huber’s second comeback, and his bid was looked upon as a long shot.

Steve McDonald, 39, the county Recorder of Deeds, was also a social conservative in the crowded field. Blow-dried, with a sunlamp tan, McDonald’s style didn’t resonate with the rank-and-file county Republican voter.

The last Republican commissioner candidate was Scott Martin, 30, who was a full-time director in the county’s Youth Intervention Center. A former football player in the Arena League (and very briefly affiliated with the NFL’s NY Giants), Martin was considered a farfetched candidate. In March of 2003, Martin had to explain the embarrassing revelation that he was actually a registered Democrat. He called it a “mistake,” and denied he was an actual Democrat.

For the Democrats, Molly Henderson, 49, was a local Millersville product. She was a state and local committeewoman who formerly headed the city’s Environmental Health and Protection Unit in the Smithgall administration. Henderson, who earned a doctorate in Public Health from Temple, though without electoral experience, was a confident and energetic candidate, and indefatigable campaigner.

Henderson was able to collect a broad range of support which reached across the aisle and included John S. Shirk, former Republican Manheim Township Commissioner and committeeman. Her campaign co-chairman (an honorary but significant post) was outgoing commissioner Ron Ford. (Ford was also the honorary chair of another candidate, Jon Price.)

In addition to the Lancaster Democratic Committee endorsement, Henderson was also supported by Rep. Mike Sturla (D), the Lancaster United Labor Council, and the AFL/CIO.

Henderson ran for the Democratic nomination in 1995, and lost a close race to Ford and Saylor.

“I am not afraid of controversy,” Henderson said during the 2003 campaign. “I stand up for what I believe, even when my job is at stake.”

Bill Saylor, tall and still handsome at 74, was a former WGAL-TV on-air news personality, and was running for the third time for the post of County Commissioner. In 1999, he lost to Ron Ford, by fewer than 200 votes. Diffident and aloof, Saylor, also of Millersville, had a difficult time having people warm up to him.

Finally, there was Jon Price, a boyish 33 year-old Clay Township supervisor. Price was from a politically active and well-known local family, but was seen as the dark horse in the three-person field.

Before the primary, the positions of all the candidates regarding the convention center project can only be described as uniform and positive toward the project. Here is what the contenders said prior to the primary on the issue:

SHAUB: “Lancaster County should support the downtown convention center and hotel.”

SHELLENBERGER: “The hotel tax provides revenue for our visitors bureau, which in turn, if used wisely, will attract more tourists to the county.”

SAYLOR: “The worst thing possible would be for the convention center to be built then fail.”

HENDERSON: “The community accepted this project years ago. Dozens of revitalization projects—public and private—are based upon its completion.”

The rest of the candidates supported the project unreservedly.

The temperature on primary election day, May 20, 2003, was mild, with a temperature reaching the mid 70s. Election officials reported a voter turnout of 21 percent among the county’s registered Republicans and Democrats. A total of 49,630 ballots were cast on that day.

When the votes were counted, Dick Shellenberger had the collected the most, with 21,823 votes. Pete Shaub garnered 15,465, for second place and his name as one of two Republicans on the November ballot. Shaub had more than 4,000 votes more than third-place finisher, Dennis Stuckey. Huber and McDonald finished fourth and fifth  in that order.

For the Democrats, the plucky Henderson collected 6,272 votes, beating Saylor by almost 1,500 votes. Price came within 300 votes of Saylor, and challenging Henderson for the minority seat.

At this point, it appeared the fall 2003 election would go according to script. Shellenberger and Shaub would be elected and form a Republican majority, and either Henderson or Saylor would join them as Board’s Democrat member.

But the script was about to be re-written.

Watching the primary campaign for Lancaster County Commissioner in the spring of 2003 was a courtly, 55 year-old lawyer named James N. “Jim” Clymer. Jim Clymer was something of a renaissance man in fenced-in Lancaster County. A former farmer, truck driver, and carpenter, Clymer was also a licensed, instrument-rated pilot.

Clymer was then, and for several years, the national Chairman of the Constitution Party. In 1994, he ran for Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor on the U.S. Taxpayers Party ticket (which became the Constitution Party in 1999). In that election, Clymer siphoned about 16 percent of the overall turnout. He also ran for another Pennsylvania state post as a Libertarian candidate for Auditor General in 1992, and again for Lieutenant General in 1998 with the U. S. Taxpayers. In the latter race, he garnered 10.5 percent of the vote.

Jim Clymer was born, raised, went to college, and married in Lancaster County. (He went to law school in Kansas.) A father of five, who served his church as a deacon, elder, and Sunday school teacher, Clymer was a quiet community pillar who knew the values of conservative Christian Lancaster County very, very well.

The senior and founding partner of a Constitution and religious freedom-based law practice, Clymer had a reputation for integrity and professional competence. With a direct, soft-spoken, gracious personal manner, Jim Clymer was also known as a good guy.

Clymer’s political ideology might be called social-conservative, or ultra-conservative, or paleo-conservative. Many Constitution Party members disaffectedly departed the Republican Party because it wasn’t conservative enough for them.

The Constitution Party’s positions include abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Department of Education, withdrawal from the United Nations, and a non-negotiable, one hundred percent opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

While these values might not resonate in San Francisco, or even nearby Philadelphia, they do in Lancaster County, where they are in the middle of the mainstream. Taxing regular Pennsylvanians to pay for a convention center struck Jim Clymer as just plain wrong. And he was going to speak up about it.

One week after the primary, on May 28, 2003, Jim Clymer indicated to the Lancaster New Era that he was leaning toward running a third-party campaign for commissioner, saying his conservative principles were more in line with Lancaster County voters than either Democrat candidate.

I decided to run for commissioner because none of the other candidates were willing to take a position against the convention center,” Clymer said to NewsLanc.com.

Weeks later, Clymer filed papers to run for Lancaster County Commissioner. To get his name on the November ballot, Clymer was required to collect a minimum 1,500 signatures from registered voters attesting to his fitness to serve as a county commissioner. By July 31, when Clymer turned in his signatures, he had almost 3,000 valid names, nearly double the necessary number. Jim Clymer was now going to have a voice in this election.

(One of the signatories on the Clymer petition was James Huber, the former county commissioner, who ran unendorsed, and lost, in the Republican primary. Huber was also a GOP committeeman for nearly three decades. After signing the petition, Huber was stripped of his committee position.)

What most people anticipated would be a traditional two-way contest between Democrats Bill Saylor and Molly Henderson, was now a battle that included Jim Clymer for the third Commissioner’s seat.

The issue that sharply distinguished Jim Clymer from the other candidates was his complete and unequivocal opposition to the convention center. Not only was the project dependent on taxpayer dollars for support, but it was a bad idea as a basic business proposition. The issue was the centerpiece of his campaign.

“In business, you don’t just go out and start a new project without looking at what’s happening in other places. Convention centers are failing all over the place. What does this city have that will make a difference? We don’t even have air service,” Clymer said during the campaign.

Although Clymer was buttoned-down and mild of manner, he acquired considerable campaign savvy with his multiple state bids. He was also closely aligned locally with a unique and valuable campaign weapon: Ron Harper, Jr.

In 2003, Harper and Clymer were friends who shared many of the same social and political views. Like Clymer, Harper and was a born and raised Lancastrian. Both were born-again Christians (Harper a Lancaster Bible College graduate) – both married, fathers of five.

And on the convention center issue, Clymer and Harper’s positions were identical – the project was ‘big government’ at its worst. The center should not be built on the backs of the taxpayers . . . and it should be stopped.

Although not an official member of the Clymer campaign staff, it is clear the colorful Harper was more than a typical backer of the candidate.

“Ron was a very active supporter of my campaign,” says Clymer today. “And his website [5thestate.com] was very helpful in raising some important issues at the time, particularly concerning the convention center.”

Harper has no doubt about Clymer’s impact on the race.

“Oh, there is no way the convention center issue would have come up except for Jim,” says Harper today. “The county bond backing was the biggie. Shaub voted not to back the convention center bond because of Jim!”

The “bond backing” referred to a $40 million Convention Center Authority issue that would be guaranteed by Lancaster County taxpayers. All of the commissioner candidates were on record opposing the county guarantee.

Meanwhile, away from the public eye in the summer months of 2003, the two Republican ’shoo-in’ commissioner candidates, Pete Shaub, and Dick Shellenberger, were quietly engaged in regular, private meetings with Lancaster County solicitor, John Espenshade.

Espenshade, the county solicitor for more than 15 years, was also solicitor for the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority (LCCCA), and at Stevens & Lee. Stevens & Lee still represented High Industries as High’s registered lobbyist in Harrisburg.

The topic of the meetings between Shaub, Shellenberger, and Espenshade — which occurred privately among the three after the primary election and before Shellenberger took office — was the potential sale of the county-owned Conestoga View Nursing Home

After the primary, Republicans Shaub and Shellenberger campaigned on a platform of reduced government and increased privatization. Divesting of a government-run facility like the nursing home was consistent with their stated political philosophy at a time when President George W. Bush was advocating the privatization of Social Security. But they didn’t mention that Conestoga View would be put up for sale until a deal was formally proposed in public at a Commissioner’s meeting in 2005.

These meetings, and the eventual sale of Conestoga View, would play a role in killing the political careers of Shaub and Shellenberger; in fact, they would contribute to the political deaths of the entire next board of commissioners.

In order to build something like a convention center, which in 2003 was estimated to cost $55 million, money must be borrowed. Few pay attention to the world of municipal bond finance, yet this is the mechanism used to finance many of the capital projects built in the United States.

A government entity, in this case the LCCCA, “floats” or “issues” or offers the bonds for sale. A bank usually buys the bond issue, and re-markets the bond to investors. (The interest on the bond may also be tax exempt.)

In order to maximize the amount and get lower interest rates for what is essentially a loan, bond payments are often guaranteed by some level of the government. The interest rates are lower because of the government’s usually good credit rating. (Lancaster County had a desirable “AAA” credit rating.)

If the Convention Center Authority couldn’t make its payments, the Lancaster County taxpayers would be responsible for the bond debt.

The possibility that the LCCCA might ask the county to guarantee a bond issue was initially raised in the spring of 2003 by a city businessman named Chris Kunzler, III.

Kunzler, the CEO of a large, Lancaster-based hot dog and deli-meat business, Kunzler & Co., was smart, didn’t have a ‘dog in the race,’ and he was not a hotelier.

In an April 20, 2003, Letter to the Editor of the Sunday News, Kunzler publicly raised the issue that a government guaranteed bond would be necessary to finance the convention center:

The convention center alone is expected to cost $55 million, with $15 million supposedly coming from the state. The hotel tax is generating approximately $3 million a year. This $3 million in tax revenue will not come close to servicing the debt on a $40-million bond issue. Let’s not forget the ongoing operating losses of the convention center and the money being spent to promote it. Who will guarantee this bond? And when the project fails, where will the funding come from then? Taxes? Who will be responsible for the losses—the community, with additional taxes?”

Jim Clymer’s explanation for entering the race—that no other candidate was addressing the convention center issue—was not entirely accurate. While he was the only person in the race who rejected all aspects of the convention center on its face, other candidates were on the record critical of increased government involvement in the project.

Democrat candidate Molly Henderson was the first in the race to address and oppose the idea of county backing of a construction bond. She said that although she favored the center, it should be “self-supporting” and not reliant on government backing.

In late September, Clymer even proposed a county-wide referendum on the issue.

By the fall of 2003, the design and cost for the center were not finalized; no true feasibility study had been performed; not a spade of dirt had been turned; and the legitimacy of Clymer’s one-issue candidacy showed that many people throughout the county were strongly opposed to the project.

During the fall campaign, five of the six candidates (the Green Party had qualified a candidate, Scott Kender) went ‘on the record’ opposing any county guarantee of a LCCCA-issued bond to construct the convention center. Only Democrat, Bill Saylor, was non-committal on the bond guaranty

Paul Thibault, the Republican, lame duck, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, may have been alarmed by the prospects of the next board opposing a guarantee.

Thibault, with his Kennedy styled coif and silver-tongue, was the rarest of Lancaster County political insiders—an insider who was an outsider. Thibault, Connecticut-born and raised in Canada, was two times denied the Republican Party endorsement for commissioner, yet managed to be elected to consecutive terms.

A day-one supporter of the convention center project, Thibault was also the beneficiary of substantial campaign contributions from the Lancaster Alliance, the private, non-profit organization, three of whose founding 12 members made up Penn Square Partners. Every time Thibault ran, he collected the most money.

During the fall campaign, the bond issue had been discussed intensely in candidate debates and in the newspapers (both dailies supported the bond guaranty), but the Commissioners had not officially deliberated on the matter.

On October 16, 2003—without a formal request from the LCCCA—Thibault and the Commissioners’ board voted to hire bond counsel to explore a county guaranty.

“Something doesn’t smell well in Denmark,” said Jim Clymer at the crowded October 16th Commissioners’ meeting, raising the question of how the board could hire counsel unless it had—outside of public view—discussed the official action privately.

Only six days later, on the 22nd of October, the Commissioners held a public meeting to discuss the bond guaranty. One week later, in the form of County Ordinance 73, the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners, in a 2-1 vote (Shaub voted against) passed the bond guaranty.

It was less than a week before the election.

###

Chapter Eleven: Ties that Bind: The old board shackles the new

Share

Agency strives to improve service for abused and neglected children

Posted on April 29th, 2009

Agency strives to improve service for abused and neglected children

By Cliff Lewis

At today’s public County Commissioners’ Meeting, Crystal Gingrich, Executive Director of the Lancaster County Children and Youth Agency (CYA), presented an overview of the current challenges facing the organization, as well as the steps that are being taken to improve services.

The CYA serves children and families threatened by abuse or neglect, with a stated mission to “protect the health, permanency, safety, and emotional well-being of children at risk….” Some of the key services provided are abuse and neglect investigations, in-home protective services, out-of-home placement services (foster care), adoption, and parent eduction support.

According to Gingrich, CYA case workers screen over 5,700 call-ins each year, and engage in over 1,100 child safety investigations. During the current fiscal year, 473 children have been placed in protective out-of-home placement, and last year, 92 children were adopted in Lancaster County.

The number of children in out-of-home placement is one that the CYA seeks to minimize, where possible. In this regard, the numbers for this year are positive, compared to the 568-child peak during ‘04-’05: “I think that shows a definite improvement in our area of providing supportive services to children in their home, with children returning sooner, and I think we are making safer decision for children and empowering families,” Gingrich said.

The child reunification rate has historically been low in Lancaster County; this means that the process of reuniting children with parents has taken longer than in other counties. However, in the last year, the CYA has increased the reunification rate by 10%, largely due to changes in policy that allow for more in-home supportive care. One drawback that must be noted is that this reunification rate increase has resulted in a slight increase in the number of children re-entered in foster care.

Currently the CYA is participating in the National Governor’s Academy, in which 16 counties have been selected to develop policy changes with the purpose of bringing a 20% reduction in Pennsylvania’s out-of-home placement rate by 2010. The CYA is also engaging in “local children’s roundtable” discussions, where agency representatives meet with local courts to talk about ways to make the system more effective

One area of recent CYA policy reform has been a new emphasis on family involvement in the out-of-home placement process: “We have made a tremendous change in our philosophy of using relatives and finding relatives that will be good options for our children to live with, if they cannot live with their parents.” Also, the agency has begun implementing new systems to contact estranged parents (typically fathers), in the event that a child can no longer live with the other parent.

Share

City, not F & M, should conduct hearing

Posted on April 29th, 2009

City, not F & M, should conduct hearing

John Fry, president of F&M, was quoted in the Apr. 28 issue of the Intelligencer Journal as saying that lights and cameras would be added to Race Avenue this summer.  Since the 600 – 900 blocks already have lights and cameras on the F&M side of the street, he had to be referring to the 400 and 500 blocks, where Buchanan Park is located.  F&M students park their cars on the Park side of these blocks.

In a conversation with a well-known and respected community leader, I said that I thought that the primary purpose of the additional lights that F&M plans to install is to protect students’ cars, since the park is already fairly well lighted (more than most city parks) by overhead street lights. Students’ cars are usually the only cars to be parked there overnight and these cars are frequently burglarized. This community leader commented:

“If F&M permits its students to have cars, then F&M should provide safe parking for these cars. Students shouldn’t have to park them on city streets. The police shouldn’t have to baby-sit cars. Most students have electronic gadgets. Where there is a student car, it’s a given that there is something in the car worth stealing.”

A parking garage or multi-level parking deck could provide secure parking and save land at the same time.

Recently I heard a complaint about “light pollution” in Buchanan Park. The person who said this certainly would not approve of more lights. Whether additional lights should be added is a matter for the Park neighborhood to decide. An opportunity should be given for them to express their opinions in an open PUBLIC HEARING held in City Chambers, and NOT at F&M where the comments and agenda can be controlled. This is because Buchanan Park is public property, maintained with city taxes. It is not owned by F&M, but by the City.

Share

In Response to “What’s next for SDL coaching?”

Posted on April 29th, 2009

In Response to “What’s next for SDL coaching?”

It’s so sad to see that someone that only went to a single game can easily pass judgement on the coaches.

The coaches are new to Varsity & JV at McCaskey and it will take them some time to get used to. Especially the head coach, because he doesn’t like to listen to suggestions.

I guess what I’m saying is that unless you know exactly what’s going on within the team you shouldn’t judge, even if you are right.

Share

In Response to “Need for boosterism”

Posted on April 29th, 2009

In Response to “Need for boosterism”

Yes, we do need to take a positive approach toward making Lancaster a success. However, to say “Let’s stop talking down about our city and county” as an excuse to not discuss the terrible costs of the hotel and convention center project will not make its one-sided agreements or numerous questionable deals and actions go away.

What will it take to make the hotel and convention center a success? All of the deals which shift so much of the hotel’s share of costs onto taxpayers MUST be renegotiated, fairly this time, even if it means that the Penn Square Partners be evicted and replaced with a true partner. And the wrongdoing that was used to create and build this project must be investigated, and prosecuted as necessary.

But most important of all, the hotel must start paying local real estate taxes. What other hotel has ever had well over half of its construction costs (and a large part of its operational costs) paid for by taxpayers, then gets to keep all of its profits without paying its fair share of taxes to the community in which it is located?

Pretending that these things never happened will do nothing to help lift the burden that this project has placed on taxpayers for generations to come.

Share

Surveillance camera talk draws mixed reaction

Posted on April 28th, 2009

Surveillance camera talk draws mixed reaction

By Cliff Lewis

On Tuesday evening, several dozen Lancaster City residents met for the first of four community meetings regarding a $3 million plan to introduce 105 new surveillance cameras in the city. The gathering was hosted by Joe Morales, City Council Member and Executive Director of the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition (LCSC). The LCSC is a private organization of citizens interested in pursuing the implementation of digital video technology to reduce crime in Lancaster City.

The meeting began with a presentation from Morales about the demonstrated benefits of public surveillance cameras that have already been installed Downtown. In one instance, according to Morales, an illegal firearm exchange was spotted by a camera operator who then immediately notified the authorities. Within five minutes, an arrest was made and the weapon was taken off the streets.

Morales also took time to settle some possible concerns. For those concerned about operators spying onto private property, he explained that the camera system is programmed to “patch” over the windows of every private residence, such that a camera operator can see nothing but black space in those areas. Also, for those concerned about the LCSC storing excessive volumes of surveillance footage, Morales explained that all footage is deleted within seven days of its recording, unless a particular segment is involved in a criminal investigation:

“So if you’re walking down Penn Square, buying a hotdog, and nothing happens that day, that video is erased and gone within five to seven days.”

When Morales opened the floor for public comment, the responses ranged from praise to protest. Some attendees complained that the proposed system could push crime out of “watched” neighborhoods and into neighborhoods without the cameras. One man expressed concern that such systems have not sufficiently been proven effective and could easily fall under abuse; he recommended that other attendees visit www.aclu.org/privacy/spying to gather a balanced perspective on the issue.

Other attendees were eager to see the cameras implemented in the City. Several community members expressed particular interest in seeing their own neighborhoods fitted with the technology as quickly as possible: One woman even asked how much it would cost to independently fund the installation of such a camera.

Share

LETTER: Mayor Gray biased; Commissioner Martin disappoints

Posted on April 28th, 2009

LETTER: Mayor Gray biased; Commissioner Martin disappoints

“I was disappointed in the coverage of the Lancaster County Transportation Coordinating Committee meeting published in the April 28 New Era.  A couple of dozen members of TRRAAC took time from work and other activities to come downtown for a 12:30 pm meeting.  We wanted the committee to delay voting to give $4 Million in our federal tax money to F&M until a real public hearing and opportunity for public comment would occur.  The newspaper originally erroneously reported that the committee had approved the $4 Million request two weeks ago.

“I am not usually active in local politics or issues, but I could not believe what I witnessed yesterday (Monday).  It was a farce beyond words.  Mayor Gray actually fed F&M official Keith Orris softball questions, such as:  Aren’t there going to be nursing schools and other businesses located on the vacated property that will help Lancaster’s economy?

“He actually had the audacity to tell us that Lancaster City’s been dealing with the train yard for a long time, and that it’s ok to put it in another area with FAR LESS POPULATION than Lancaster City.

“I am no expert, but I have been reading for two years how this project will eliminate 55,000 tractor trailer trips annually from area roadways.  But, the committee’s own staff consultant only came up with 7000 truck trips.  Something about different methodologies.  All I know is our lawyer raised some excellent issues, none of which were refuted by Mr. Orris.  The committee staff hemmed and hawed about modeling and population growth.  It was clear they did not consider the increase in traffic that will result when the former rail yard is redeveloped to include up to a thousand nursing students, retail, office, parking garages, etc.  Mayor Gray responded that nursing students will walk and not drive. Yes, that’s what he said!

“My favorite was Mayor Gray telling us that the existing yard is the same as the proposed yard.  When I called out that the existing yard has only two tracks and the proposed yard has FIFTEEN, I was told to be quiet.  Yes, I was out of protocol, but wasn’t the only one commenting from the peanut gallery.

“I was about 15 seconds away from asking him to recuse himself for his obvious bias.”

Bottom line: they voted ‘yay’ to allow the partners to continue applying for the CMAQ funding? SHOCKING? …  Not.

I am becoming far more cynical about politics and politicians after today’s show.  Not a single member of the committee voted ‘no’ or to delay the vote to enable real public scrutiny of the project.  Commissioner Martin let us down and we will remember that in the future.

Share

More News

Credo

"....I have never made it a consideration whether the subject was popular or unpopular, but whether it was right or wrong; for that which is right will become popular, and that which is wrong, though by mistake it may obtain the cry or fashion of the day, will soon lose the power of delusion, and sink into disesteem." Thomas Paine, Common Sense, on "Financing the War", March 5, 1782

Categories

Blog Archives

Convention Center Series

Convention Center Series Index

Convention Center Series Index

Chapter 1: Beginnings- Revised Chapter 2: Dream Team- Revised Chapter 3: Helping ...

CC Series Chapter 23 Revised: The Inquisition

Lancaster County Commissioners Dick Shellenberger and Molly Henderson initiatives during ...

Keisling on Pennsylvania Politics Index

Index of the ongoing series by Bill Keisling Six Decades of ...

LONG FORM: Lancaster and Harrisburg waste authorities conceal a toxic mountain “time bomb”

By Bill Keisling Many in Lancaster County are aware that Harrisburg ...

Tsukerman on Russia

Moscow victory parade

Moscow victory parade

By Slava Tsukerman Annually on May 9, Russians celebrate the victory ...

MAY DAY IN RUSSIA

by Slava Tsukerman International Workers' Day, May Day, is a celebration ...

Memoirs

Tribute to Mike Gray:  A great loss to the cause of justice and enlightenment

Tribute to Mike Gray: A great loss to the cause of justice and enlightenment

By Kevin Zeese At the outset let me apologize. In ...

Retirement as a business executive … at long last

It took a decade.   My designated successor unexpectedly had to ...

Santa Monica Reporter

“Mud”; the most entertaining movie this spring.

“Mud”; the most entertaining movie this spring.

By Dan Cohen, Santa Monica Film Critic Right from the start, ...

A “Playlist,” Fracking, and “Le Miz”

By Daniel Cohen, Santa Monica Reporter I count only two interesting ...

LGH Series

LANCASTER SUNDAY NEWS

LANCASTER SUNDAY NEWS

Lede (“lede” is the actual spelling as Chris Hart-Nibbrig ...

LANCASTER SUNDAY NEWS

Lead article “Do hospitals pay fair share?” reports: " ‘A question ...