According to Melinda Zipp, Coordinator of Project Hope, The Urban League of Lancaster County will be hosting a free seasonal Flu Shot Clinic on Nov. 3, 2009 from 2-6 PM.

She told NewsLanc “It will be the seasonal flu shot, not the H1N1. It is free to anyone ages 4 & up. Please feel free to post our flyer for clients and employees. No appointment necessary, will be walk-in.”

Following District Attorney Craig Stedman’s Departmental Presentation at the Tuesday, October 28 County Commissioner Meeting, NewsLanc asked Stedman for his position on the mysterious 2003 death of Baltimore-based Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan Luna in rural northern Lancaster County. When asked if he would consider taking up the case, Stedman said that, according to his knowledge, the Federal investigation of Luna’s death is not yet a closed case.

As of May 2009, Luna’s case remained under a joint investigation undertaken by the FBI and the Baltimore Office of the Pennsylvania State Police.

In December of 2003, Luna’s body was found face-down in a creek, with 36 stab wounds and defensive cuts marring his hands. The Lancaster County Coroner, who ruled Luna’s death a homicide, reported that Luna’s hands had been “shredded.” The then District Attorney of Lancaster did not take up the case, deferring it to Federal authorities. Since then, some have raised the question of an FBI cover-up, citing the withholding of evidence, disinformation to the public, and intimidation of friends and family members.

The controversy surrounding Luna’s death has spurred the publishing of a book and a possible motion picture.

A transcript of NewsLanc’s exchange with Stedman follows:

NewsLanc: Would you consider opening your own case on the death of Jonathan Luna?

Stedman: “In my understanding, there is a case that’s being handled by the Feds. That’s what I was told when I came in. I never worked on the case—I was in the office, but I never worked on the case. That was handled by the DA at the time. My understanding was that, early on, the Feds were the primary jurisdiction, since he was a Federal prosecutor, and they’re handing it, and they have the case. I wasn’t aware that it was closed; no one told me that.”

NewsLanc: Would it be breaching any established rules of conduct for you to open something while they are looking at it?

Stedman: “Well, you never want to have two organizations investigating the same thing. By that same token, if there’s information that comes to light, relevant to the case, surely we’re going to do the appropriate thing with it. What I would do is forward it to the Federal—I guess it’s the US Attorney in the Eastern District—it’s my understanding that they have the case. Unless some other factors come through, they’re investigating his death. And I know its an extensive investigation. But I don’t know whether there’s been anything recent or not.”

“I was in the office, but I wasn’t handling that. So it’s difficult for me to comment on it. It’s like you’re a surgeon and there are two surgeries going on, and you don’t know what the other surgeon is doing while you’re working on your case.”

NewsLanc: The complication with this situation would be that some who consider this a homicide have noted the presence of probable cause on the Federal side of things. So there could be a conflict of interest with it being a Federal case.

Stedman: “Well, obviously, those are pretty serious accusations. But, obviously, if there was information that anything was being handled inappropriately by any investigator, we don’t want a conflict of interest. I haven’t heard anything that would indicate that there was anything inappropriate being done by anybody involved in this case. I can only say what I know.”

“I’m not really sure what the conflict of interest would be. I would assume that they’d want to solve the murder of one of their employees more than anyone else.”

“It’s just hard for me, because I just wasn’t involved in it. My understanding is that it’s a Federal case.”

Stedman presents on DA Office Developments

During the meeting, Stedman’s presentation touched on a number of developments that have occurred since he took office as District Attorney in 2008. Since taking over, Stedman has sought to engender a “widespread approach” to targeting crimes that necessitate a longer sentence. Chief among these cases are violent crimes, sexual offenses, and repeat offenses. Stedman said that he has also sought to crack down on home burglary, which can have a devastating impact on the victim’s sense of personal safety: “If there was ever a crime that deserved a mandatory minimum sentence,” Stedman said, it would be this.

Since 2008, Stedman said, the District Attorney’s Office has been rearranged into “more of a military type organization,” in which each supervisor is assigned to a crime-specific unit—sexual assault, juvenile court, major crimes, etc. This way, Stedman explained, each case can be handled with greater technical focus and skill.

The Juvenile Court Unit has been pursuing new solutions to straightening out youth offenders while minimizing the need for institutionalization. As a result, Stedman said, there has been a significant drop in the number service days provided at Lancaster’s juvenile facilities—from 1,600 days each month before 2008 to less than 9,000 today.

According to Stedman, child predator activity has increased at an concerning rate in recent years, largely through internet activity. To handle this problem, the DA’s Office is considering a new internet predator unit.

One program that has hit hard times, Stedman said, is the countywide Drug Task Force. This unit performs long-term investigations across municipal borders to catch major drug dealers in the county. The program, Stedman said, has lost the DA Office’s Felony Drug Prosecution Unit about $200,000 each year. Noting that some municipalities donate more money to the Humane Society than this Task Force, Stedman said that he will most likely request aid from the Commissioners at a later date.

At the Tuesday, October 27 City Council Meeting, Matt Holden—currently running for a seat on City Council—criticized the City’s handling of neighborhood resident concerns. Holden began, “While going through different neighborhoods discussing the issues of Lancaster City with residents, I frequently hear people refer to their neighborhood as a ‘forgotten’ part of the city.” Holden said he has heard this complaint from residents of Cabbage Hill, the 6th and 7th wards, and annexed neighborhoods along the Conestoga

To demonstrate his point, Holden cataloged a number of resident complaints, including:

• Parking problems on a two-way section of Lime Street
• The need for four-way stops in the northeast
• Complaints of crime in Cabbage Hill
• Increased drug trafficking in the West End

Holden recommended that Council appoint neighborhood liaisons to solicit local input and report back to the Council with concerns and potential solutions. “We need to stop fooling ourselves into thinking that we know what is best for a neighborhood that we don’t even live in,” Holden said, “We need ears and eyes in every neighborhood.”

In response, Randolph Carney, a city resident who has regularly attended City Council as well as committee meetings for nearly five years, noted that “most of the issues that [Holden] talked about have been addressed in the last couple of years.” Carney concluded his remarks with a broad commendation for the current City Government: “I’ve been watching this City Council, and I’ve been watching this Mayor, and I know from my personal experience that you are doing the best job that any human being possibly could in your position.”

Mayor Rick Gray’s report to Council responded to the claim that the City has not done enough to serve its neighborhood residents. Gray proceeded to recount several quality of life related initiatives brought about in the last four years, prefacing that many of these issues were first raised through nearly 30 neighborhood meetings. According to Gray,

• After single hauler trash collection was sponsored in 2006, litter has been reduced by 25%, and recycling has increased by 40%;
• 287 additional trash receptacles have been installed, primarily within the city’s neighborhoods;
• A 2002 rental unit inspection ordinance was belatedly enforced in 2007, resulting in more than 6,000 inspections, and more than 1,000 rental units being registered for the first time.
• Nearly 500 property use violations were issued in city neighborhoods, addressing overgrown grass and weeds, excessive trash, abandoned vehicles, etc.
• For “the most serious offenses,” police response time has improved by 25%; response time for all calls has been improved by 18%.

Gray: Attack ads hurt the community

Following the Council Meeting, NewsLanc asked Gray for his response to the provocative campaign mailers released this week by the Friends of Charlie Smithgall. “I think it’s sad to play to fear that way,” Gray said. The ads, in a gritty typeface, declare, “Mayor Gray’s Lancaster / More Crime Than Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Reading”

Gray asserted that the FBI statistics from which this ranking is derived must be interpreted cautiously: “If you check the FBI website, it says, don’t use these rankings, because it would be misleading and over simplistic.” A visit to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report website confirms Gray’s assertion. Before allowing access to the report’s homepage, the site presents the following caveat:

“Caution Against Ranking

“These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction…

Gray said that the mailer takes the report’s findings “out of context,” adding that “If you say Lancaster has more crime than Philadelphia, our Chief of Police would fall on the floor laughing. He spent 29 years [there].”

According to Gray, the political ad’s message “hurts the city because it plays on stereotypes of the city being a very dangerous, dangerous place….To just play on that the way that mailer did, and the way [Smithgall’s] campaign has, I think is very detrimental to the city and basically…puts his election above the interests of the city.”

NewsLanc’s Cliff Lewis also posed written questions to Ben Bamford, candidate for Tony Allen’s seat as a Lancaster Township supervisor, concerning the relocation of the Norfolk Southern rail yard in close proximity to Lancaster Township, an action vehemently opposed by nearby township residents and others. The questions and written responses follow:

1) What position did you take concerning TRRAAC’s requests that alternate sites for relocating the rail yard be analyses by a neutral party? “I had spoken with Sarah Young Fisher a few times directly about TRRAAC’s request for a study of alternative sites. TRRAAC was not willing at that point to undertake a study of that financial magnitude. I did tell her that TRRAAC’s credibility would be greatly enhanced if they could provide data that would lead to a greater understanding of the alternatives. In that, it is possible that TRRAAC could have gained more support for their position.”

2) Did you attend their meetings? “I did attend a meeting at Grace Baptist Church where a former employee of Armstrong provided information relative to the types of materials that were supposedly dumped on the site. In addition, Mr. Cluck discussed issues related to DEP policy and procedure. The focus of the meeting was to further increase awareness of the issues. I believe that your publisher was in attendance.”

3) Did you speak up for or against the chosen location? “I did not speak up for or against the chosen location.”

4) Have you written any letters to the editors or columns on the subject providing your views? “I have not written letters to the editor or columns regarding my views on the subject.”

After his answers, Bamford commented: “It is my understanding that TRRAAC is no longer. They seem to have disbanded as members have gone their separate ways. If this is not true then please tell me.”

He is apparently unaware that TRRAAC has been renamed CAARRT (TRRAAC in reverse) and continues to actively challenge the legality and propriety of the proposed rail yard location.

Second in a series of two by Cliff Lewis

Ben Bamford—a Democrat running for Republican Tony Allen’s seat on the Lancaster Township Board of Supervisors—places public communication at the forefront of his case against the incumbent. According to Bamford, the existing Board has not done enough to keep residents informed about what goes on in Township Government: “Communication, I think, is sorely lacking on a number of levels,” Bamford said, adding that “because of the way that our township is configured, I think we need to spend even more time making sure that we are communicating.”

To improve this dynamic, Bamford recommended expanded use of the Township website, frequent e-mail updates, and the possible relocation of regular Supervisors meetings.

Allen maintained that the Township Government has not done anything to impede public knowledge or input: “We have a very open government, everyone can come to our meetings…, all of our documents are exposed, and we don’t do anything behind closed doors, unless it’s an executive session on personnel.” He added that any suggestion of poor transparency is “probably more to strike up a bit of energy than anything else.”

The Township’s handling of the police contract negotiations, Bamford asserted, was a prime example of insufficient communication. “The police issue has been worked on since October of 2008,” Bamford said, “and I think that, when you’re talking about an essential service for the residents of the township, you need to engage them early and often, and make sure that they completely understand the issues.” Bamford noted that the Fall 2008 and Winter 2009 Township newsletters made no mention of the police issue:

“This is one area where they have complete editorial control, and they chose not to put anything in this newsletter about [it],” Bamford asserted.

Public communication aside, Bamford also suggested that the Township did not adequately establish its requirements to the municipalities proposing police services: “It would have been very helpful had we created a request for proposals that outlined completely all of our concerns and questions and needs and wants, which we did not have.”

“I don’t think that anyone appreciated the way that the situation was handled,” Bamford said, “I know that we have created some animosity with the City.”

Allen disagreed that the Township’s relationship with Lancaster City has been damaged as a result of the contract switch. “This was strictly a business deal,” Allen asserted, “They priced themselves out of the market, so to speak.” He also stressed that the Board’s selection of Manheim Township police will increase services for Lancaster Township residents: “We will have [24/7] police coverage in Lancaster Township, which we did not have before. A lot of people are not aware of that,” Allen said.

Now without the decades-long police connection, Bamford recommends that Township officials meet with City officials to discuss future cooperative efforts: “Now that the contract is signed, and it’s created such an uproar with the City and the Township and Manheim Township, we really need to bring the City in, sit down and say, ‘Okay, moving forward, we’re neighbors: What are we going to do to work together?’”

Allen asserted that such coordination with the City already occurs through the Lancaster Inter-Municipal Committee.

One issue upon which both candidates agree is the importance of preserving the character and identity of Lancaster Township. For Allen, a three-term incumbent, this means maintaining a low-cost government that remains in its proper place: “The only thing you can do on this level is keep things going and make it a good community to live in.” For Bamford, this means keeping watch over developments that could spur traffic conditions and alter the quality of living in residential spaces: “We are not a heavily commercial township,” Bamford said, “We are built of neighborhoods and that’s what we need to focus on.”

Perhaps as early as next summer, a 1.3 mile public trail will run adjacent to the Conestoga River. The eight foot wide paved trail will, according to an intermunicipal agreement, will “provide a direct link from the southeastern part of the City to the County’s 544 acre Central Park.” James Hackett, Executive Director of the Parks and Recreation commission told the Commissioners at their October 27 Work Session that the six-month construction project could begin within the year.

The trail, Hackett said, will stem from Betz Road, off of Conestoga Drive, and continue to South Duke Street, near the park’s Chesapeake Street entrance.

The project is a joint effort between the County, the City, Lancaster Township, and the Lancaster County Conservancy. Under this agreement,

• The County has secured land easements along the trail, and will be responsible for maintenance and repair with the help of a grant from the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR);
• The City will stabilize ravines along the river bank, maintain the Chesapeake access area, and lend police services, where needed;
• Lancaster Township will maintain accesses at Betz Road and South Duke, while also lending police service;
• The Conservancy will act as project manager through design, construction, and inspection, also providing 200,000 for a matching DCNR grant.

Hackett said that a past study had recommended a greenway to run adjacent to the entire Conestoga River. “This 1.3 mile section,” Hackett said, “is really the first section of that. It’s been a long time coming, I know there’s been a lot of discussion on it, but this is the first section. We’ll see where it goes from here.”

County prepares for staff cuts

Also at Tuesday’s Work Session, the Commissioners passed a new, uniform Severance Policy for County employees. According to Administrator Charlie Douts, the measure is intended to provide continuity between all County departments, in the event of future “reorganizations” or position eliminations. In addition to contracted studies that are currently underway, Douts noted that the County has been internally assessing the efficiency of its departments.

[In response to LGH is technically a “Public Charity”]

The reason the IRS distinguishes between the two is that tax laws are far more advantageous to public charities.

Private foundations must refrain from acts of self-dealing (IRC 4941), meet minimum distribution requirements (IRC 4942), abstain from “excess business holdings” (IRC 4943) and “jeopardizing investments” (IRC 4944), and refrain from making certain expenditures (IRC 4945), while public charities are not subject to the provisions of IRC chapter 42.

Public charities enjoy an exemption from the IRC 4940 tax on net investment income to which most private foundations are subject, have less burdensome reporting requirements (the annual information return that private foundations must complete, Form 990-PF, is more complex than the information returns filed by public charities (Forms 990 and Form 990-EZ), are exempt, in the case of certain public charities, from various federal excise taxes, and have additional fundraising opportunities, such as higher dollar limits for contributions.

While there’s no such thing as a “public foundation” in the tax code, LGH meets the common dictionary definition of a foundation: an institution financed by a donation or legacy to aid research, education, the arts, etc. Using the term “public foundation” for what the IRS calls a “public charity” is sloppy, but hardly a serious error. Saying that there’s no real difference in the tax code between public charities and private foundations, on the other hand, might lead a reader to commit a rather unfortunate error in his tax planning.

Boy, quibbling readers (and I admit to being one) are a real annoyance, aren’t they? I’m glad I got out of newspaper publishing while readers still had to get out paper and pen, and hunt up a stamp.

Editor: On the contrary, “quibbling readers” are a blessing. The public needs to hear from persons with expertise.  Editors and reporters are not a repository of all embracing knowledge and wisdom. NewsLanc seeks to be a forum for public discussion.

… Remember that Smithgall laid off fire fighters in his previous iteration as mayor. Remember that he expressed his interest in seeing the fire bureau reduced in size in his first two terms. Remember that he was developing a scheme to have volunteer firefighters from outside of the city provide fire protection to city residents.

Charlie Smithgall will write off as much of the city fire bureau as he can to pay for more police…

City residents need to understand that the fire bureau is already dangerously understaffed according to the national standards accepted by the fire service. Any further reduction will place the lives of city fire fighters at great risk, while creating additional hazards to the lives and property of city residents who in their greatest hour of need will rely on the city fire bureau for help.

The answer to NewsLanc’s question of “What should Lancaster General do?” in the eyes of LGH’s leadership will always be “Whatever is of the greatest benefit to LGH” as opposed to the community the public charity is meant to serve.

Why am I so sure this will never change?  Because in corporate culture, the final word on every decision — especially financially-impacting decisions — sits ultimately with the Board of Trustees.  And with the individuals who are listed below, there will not be even a remote chance of any of these Trustees going against the monopolistic and self serving desires of Lancaster General Hospital.

[They are:]

Gibson Armstrong, retired state senator who allied himself with the newspapers, The High Group and Fulton Bank in bringing about the convention center project.

Edward T. Chory, MD, General Surgeon, who directly benefits from Lancaster General Hospital’s on-call per diem pay

John A. Fry, President of F&M (member of the infamous ‘Big Five’ of LGH, Lancaster Newspapers, High, F & M and Fulton), who partnered with LGH in relocating the Norfolk Southern railyard, trampling the rights of neighbors who were seeking an independent study of the best location.

Dennis A. Getz, Executive Vice President & CFO, Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.(yet another member of the infamous ‘Big Five’)

Gerald W. Rothacker, Jr., MD, another surgeon who directly benefits from Lancaster General Hospital’s on-call per diem pay; and a direct beneficiary of a $10 million building (located at North Pointe Business Park) for his surgical practice wholly paid for by LGH

Michael W. Van Belle of the High Group (yet another member of the infamous “Big Five“)

Additionally, with the likes of Getz of the Lancaster Newspapers, will there ever be a front-page article on Lancaster General Hospital that is not favorable?  So if the only daily published newspaper is under the sway of Lancaster General Hospital, where will the scrutiny come from?

NewsLanc has published that Lancaster General Hospital is a Public Charity that functions in a very private manner.  By law, LGH needs to hold one annual meeting that is open to the public.  LGH permits no media coverage of other board and committee meetings.  All is done in secret.  The public is shut out.

I can agree with NewsLanc in that three members of the Board of Trustees should be elected by the public to four-year terms.  But I say that these three individuals would only make up a small minority of the Board and with little chance of overcoming the LGH-controlled Board of Trustee cronies.

I would mandate eleven elected positions (a majority of the twenty-one LGH Board of Trustees) as a step toward offsetting Lancaster General Hospital’s, always-agreeable Board of Cronies.

Meetings of the Finance Committee of the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority are always interesting. This is where the expenditure of OUR taxpayer dollars is discussed, with the recommendations of the Finance Committee to be acted upon by the entire LCCCA board.

The LCCCA Finance Committee meeting held on Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:00 PM inside the Show Manager’s Office of the Lancaster County Convention Center brought out some interesting points. For example, the operational loss of the facility to date totals $331,064. Interestingly, this is below budget, primarily because of the hotel and convention center’s delayed opening (there can be no operational costs when the facility is not operating). This means that even though revenue from the “hotel tax” is down more than six percent year to date over last year, there is no immediate need for additional tax revenue.

Unfortunately, actual energy costs have been much higher than anticipated before the facility opened for business. And other expenses have been much higher than expected: for example, it was anticipated that three full-time employees would be enough to keep the entire integrated facility clean (with the exception of the kitchen and guest rooms); the reality is that six full-time employees have been kept on staff to fill the actual need. As a result, the facility’s profit margin is far lower than had been planned.

Construction costs are still coming in, and most likely will be through the end of 2009. It is currently anticipated that the final cost of construction for the convention center and its portion of the “shared space” will be over budget by approximately $939,453. This could POSSIBLY be partially offset by savings of up to about $300,000 because bids for many items purchased as “Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment” (FF&E) cost less than the amount budgeted for them.

The saga of the taxpayer-financed hotel and convention center project in downtown Lancaster, PA is just beginning. One thing is certain: how our tax dollars are spent will continue to be very interesting.