The Big Gamble: Financing a Political Campaign

Written by Roberta Biros

Some would say that 2009 was a yawner of a political year. In Pennsylvania, the only statewide races were for judges (races which many found to be lack-luster). In Mercer County, there was only one countywide race of any consequence on the ballot, and that was the race for Mercer County Treasurer. Last year I outlined the details about campaign financing as it related to the coffers of our State Legislators [read the full blog post HERE]. This year I’d like to outline the specifics of the only countywide race in detail.

The race in question was between 16-year republican incumbent Ginny Steese-Richardson and democrat newcomer Roberta Biros (yes, that’s me). Both candidates ran unopposed in the primary and won their nominations without much excitement or fan fair. The political excitement began after the primary when Steese-Richardson and Biros went on a head-to-head to battle for votes. While shaking hands at fairs might be free, campaigning can be very expensive. The content of this article will focus on the money spent in the County Treasurer race in 2009.

Let us first review the results of the election (for those of you that are not familiar with them). According to the records of the Mercer County Elections Bureau, the OFFICIAL results of the election were:

ROBERTA BIROS (DEM): 6,049 ~ 32% of the vote
GINNY STEESE RICHARDSON (REP): 12,884 ~ 68% of the vote

Comments regarding the results of the election have been mixed. I've said that I thought I (Biros) did horribly, but I've been told by many that my results were actually pretty good for a newcomer with no name recognition (especially considering that I had absolutely no support from the leadership of the Democrat Party, and my opponent had amazing backing from incumbents . . . republicans and democrats alike).

Total spending by the candidates and their committees in 2009 totaled $36,779.04, and it is broken down as follows:

ROBERTA BIROS (DEM): $ 8,218.86 ~ 22% of the spending
GINNY STEESE RICHARDSON (REP): $28,559.18 ~ 78% of the spending

It should be noted that the spending for Steese-Richardson included the reports for the candidate and her committee. Not included is the spending done by the Mercer County GOP or the Pennsylvania State GOP in order to assist Steese-Richardson. These numbers would be especially interesting since both political groups provided much support to Mrs. Richardson.

The spending for Biros includes only data from the candidate report as Biros formed no political committee. As with Steese-Richardson, there are no numbers included for spending by the Democrat Committee. Biros did receive the benefit of slate cards and advertising by the Mercer Democrat Party, but they would have gladly removed her name from the advertising if they thought they could have gotten away with it (this is according to Democrat County Commissioner Ken Ammann). The numbers presented are the dollars spent directly by the candidates and their campaign committees (if applicable).

Anything interesting as far as the spending goes?

I found many of Mrs. Richardson's expenses personally interesting, but not worth my time or effort in this post (with the exception of a few humorous items outlined at the end of this article). I personally don't think that every dinner at Golden Corral, breakfast at the Knights of Columbus, or admission to an ice cream social should be included as campaign expenditures, but that is just me. Since every trip out the door is technically “campaigning”, one must determine the difference between actual “campaign expenses” and the “cost of campaigning”, which are clearly two different things.

As far as the expenses incurred by Biros, nothing stands out here either as all expenditures were reasonable, but you can all feel free to take a look for yourselves. Campaign finance reports are available at the Bureau of Elections at the Court House. You can look for free, but copies will cost you $0.25 each.

Summary of Expenses:

When looking at total dollars spent, Biros managed to fair well for the money spent. In only spending 22% of the cash, she was able to secure 32% of the votes. Further analysis of the spending totals shows that Steese-Richardson (and her committee) spent $2.21 per vote in her campaign, and Biros spent $1.36 per vote. In the end, Steese-Richardson simply had MORE MONEY to spread around in the countywide race . . . and, thus, she could afford to “buy more votes”. It just goes to show that money is everything . . . in politics anyway.

That, therefore, brings us to where those campaign dollars came from.

Summary of Contributions:

In the case of Biros, all of the dollars spent came from the candidate’s personal funds. No campaign contributions were accepted, and those that were received were refused voided and uncashed. This was clearly outlined in my blog post titled “Comments Regarding Campaign Finances” [read the full story HERE].

Steese-Richardson, however, ran a typical campaign that was financed by everyone BUT Steese-Richardson. The candidate report for Steese-Richardson does show that the candidate spent $2,166.59 of her own money, but the rest of the money was received through donations. During 2009, Steese-Richardson started with an amount of $5,251.06 in her campaign account and then raised an additional $26,572.37 in contributions. The contributions came from the typical sources as follows:

Contribution from the Republican Committee and well-known and loyal Republicans

Yes, I suppose it should only be expected that Mrs. Richardson would receive money from her fellow Republicans. Here are just a few of the specifics along with the amounts that they contributed for your reading pleasure:

Mercer County Republican Committee ($500)

Dave King, chairman of the Republican Committee ($260)

Phil English, former Republican Congressman ($100)

Friends of Dick Stevenson, the campaign committee representing the Republican Representative Dick Stevenson ($200)

Robbins for Senate Committee, the campaign committee representing the Republican Senator Bob Robbins ($250)

Bob and Cindy Robbins, Republican State Senator and his wife ($200)

Michele and Guy Brooks, Republican State Representative and her husband ($75)

John Lechner, Republican County Commissioner ($125)

Robert Kochems, Republican District Attorney ($200) ---- Oooops. My mistake. I’m so sorry. District Attorney is actually a Democrat and a member of the Mercer County Democrat Executive Committee. I seem to get confused by that, but then again District Attorney Kochems seems to get that “political party thing” confused often too.

Barbara Brown, Republican Candidate for District Justice, but lost the Primary ($300) ----- Ooooops again. Another mistake on my part. While Ms. Brown did run on both tickets in the Primary, she is a registered Democrat and “supposedly” a very loyal one at that. Barb Brown even went as far as to explain to me that she could never agree with my conservative politics . . . but yet she made significant donations to the campaign of an incumbent Republican (and secretary of the county GOP). I suppose I was more conservative than Mrs. Richardson after all. I say “Hmmmm”.

Contributions from Political Action Commitees representing Financial Institutions

As the County Treasurer, Mrs. Richardson stays “tight” with the banks. So tight, in fact, that she receives regular contributions from the Political Action Committees (because receiving funds directly from a bank is illegal according to campaign finance law).

National City Corp PAC ($100)
First National Bank of PA PAC ($100)

I personally think that financial institutions should be prevented from having a Political Action Committee, but that is an issue for another day.

Expenditures that made me laugh:

There was one campaign expense that made me laugh. Mrs. Richardson’s campaign committee logged an expense for $21.14 on 11/3/2009 labeled “Food for Election Night”. Election night parties are typical. I also threw a party for my friends and family (a.k.a. “volunteers”) on Election Night. Heck, Matt Snyder from The Herald even joined us for a little while when he stopped in for a post-election interview. The party, however, was held at my home and office, and the money that I spent came out of my pocket and wasn’t recorded as “campaign expenses”. It wasn’t an expense of my “campaign”, it was a gift to my friends and family who worked long and hard hours on my behalf as a “person” and not a “candidate”. Based on the $21.14 that Mrs. Richardson spent, I can only guess that her’s wasn’t much of a party.

There was another interesting expense that made me scratch my head. The Steese-Richardson campaign also logged a $450.00 expense on 10/31/2009 for a “bus”. Huh? This is one of those times when I wish that the campaign finance reports provided a little extra information like “what on earth did they need a bus for?”.

In Summary:

When it is all done and over it is pretty clear that when it comes to running a political campaign . . . “Cash is King”. As a general rule, you need to “Go Big or Go Home”, and if you are going to “Go Big” you better plan on doing it with other peoples money. Remember, this was a race for a row office that pays roughly $54,000 per year. Steese-Richardson spent almost $30,000 to keep the job for another four years. Granted, she wasn’t spending HER money, so she got off pretty cheap; but this is not the sort of thing that hard-working taxpayers can afford.

Is there really a chance for honest, hard-working and concerned citizens to run for a political office and win because they have a good message and honest objectives? Or, is the system designed to keep “those kinds” of people out of the process? If you enter into politics, do you need to become a “politician” (a.k.a. “whore”) in order to compete with the other “politicians” (a.k.a. “whores”) that we refer to as “incumbents”? At first glance, that appears to be the case. I, however, prefer to remain more optimistic about it. Back in February I was warned by several friends that “you might need to run twice to win once”. That concept has stuck with me, and I wonder if it could be true. If you simply stick with it and keep coming back for more, will you eventually break down the walls to the “inner circle”? I’m not sure, but maybe time will tell.



.

Rep. Mark Longietti announces Pa. House Scholarship applications available

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT from Representative Mark Longietti (D-7th)

Pa. House Scholarship applications available

Applications for the 2010-11 Pennsylvania House of Representatives Scholarship are now available at my Hermitage constituent service office, or online at http://mail.newsmail.pahouse.org/track?type=click&mailingid=47135&messageid=45784&databaseid=397&serial=1183149330&emailid=roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com&userid=4439&extra=&&&2002&&&http://www.pahousescholarship.com/.

This scholarship program is open to Pennsylvania high school seniors who plan to attend an in-state college, university or professional training school full-time.

Applicants are judged on academic record, extra-curricular activities, leadership and commitment to community; must have a 3.0 grade-point average; and are required to submit an essay on William Penn's role in shaping state government.

The deadline to apply is March 1, 2010.

If you know a college-bound high school senior who could use a little help with tuition costs, please share this information with them. There are two scholarships worth approximately $2,500. The program is privately funded; no taxes or other public funds are used.

Please contact Representative Longietti if he may be of further service to you and your family.

Tolling of I-80: Concerned Pennsylvanians Take Their Fight to Washington DC

Representative Michele Brooks organizes a delegation from the I-80 corridor to visit Washington DC on Thursday, December 17, 2009

Written by Roberta Biros

The possible tolling of I-80 has been an issue in Pennsylvania for too long now. Attempts by the Turnpike Commission to push through an application with the Federal Highway Commission has been denied, but the Rendell administration seems to think that that one more try with a more “friendly administration” in Washington is worth another shot.

The argument is a simple one. Those that support the tolling of Interstate 80 argue that the proposed tolling was originally part of planned funding for statewide transportation costs, and that funding is still needed. To that argument, the federal government has stated that revenue from the tolling of I-80 can only be used to maintain the same I-80. It is for that reason that the application has been denied. It seems like this should have been a “done deal” back in 2008, but those that support the tolling of the highway keep beating the same dead horse in hopes that the leadership in Washington will eventually see things through a new set of rose colored glasses.

Understanding the Two Sides of the Coin

The battle over the tolling of Interstate 80 has become a simple conflict between the urban areas of Pennsylvania and the rural areas along the I-80 corridor in the northern tier of the Commonwealth. Perhaps it has become a matter of David vs. Goliath, but those of us along the I-80 corridor haven’t given up hope.

To understand both sides of the argument, I would suggest that you watch the two videos supplied below. The first video offers the “against tolling” argument which is offered by State Representative Matt Gabler (R-Elk/Clearfield) [watch the full video on YouTube HERE]. The second offers the “for tolling” argument, and it is offered by State Representative Ron Miller (R-York) [watch the full video on YouTube HERE].

Summary of Representative Matt Gabler’s Video

Like most of the legislators that represent districts along the I-80 corridor, Representative Gabler is concerned about how tolls on Interstate 80 will affect his constituents. He is, however, also concerned about recent controversies that have brought the credibility of the Turnpike Commission into question.

His first concern is a recent analysis performed by Provident Capital Advisors. The Louisiana based group was contracted by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to provide an analysis of the tolling scheme for the Interstate. It seems, however, that Provident Capital may have been part of a shady deal. They were hired for the task although they had never before been involved in a valuation analysis of highways in the past. Their experiences have been in health care, prisons, and juvenile detention facilities, but nothing was mentioned about highways or toll roads. It made some (including Representative Gabler) wonder if the company was simply hired as a political favor in order for the turnpike commission to get the results that they wanted.

The second problem occurred recently when the House Republican Policy Committee held a hearing on the I-80 tolling proposal. According to Rep. Gabler:

“What is really disappointing is that the policy committee had invited both the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation as well as the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission to come testify. We have concerns about the plan and we have for a long time, and we think it would have been a great opportunity for them to fill in some of the holes that we think exist in the plan. They initially acted like they were going to come, and at the last minute they said ‘no we aren’t going to come.’ We were not able to hear any sort of reassurance that this plan does not have the holes we think we have in it. I’m very disappointed that they weren’t willing to be transparent with the taxpayers of the state that are going to be left holding the bag on this plan.”

During the interview, Rep. Gabler makes a particularly interesting point. Supporters of the tolling of I-80 argue that Pennsylvania shouldn’t be giving tractor trailers a free ride across the state. When asked the question, Rep. Gabler points out the following:

“There are a number of laws out there pertaining to heavy use vehicles such as tractor trailers. They are required to keep a mileage log, they are required to keep track of how many miles they run on what road in what state, and then they have to remit a payment mile-by-mile to the State of Pennsylvania for all 312 miles that they run across Interstate 80. A toll would take place on top of that. They would continue to pay their heavy use fees and they would continue to then additionally start paying tolls.”

Summary of Representative Ron Miller’s Video

As a supporter of the tolling of I-80, Representative Miller has a little different point of view. Unlike those Representatives in the I-80 corridor, Rep. Miller is not concerned about the negative impact of the tolling on local economies. He sees I-80 as a source of funding, but doesn’t acknowledge that tolling would impact ANY Pennsylvanians in a negative way. When addressing the exact same question as Rep. Gabler regarding some drivers getting a free ride across Pennsylvania, Rep. Miller says “they have a valid point”.

The Issues of Concern for Mercer County

Representative Michele Brooks (R-17-Mercer, Crawford, Lawrence Counties) recently participated in a roundtable discussion / radio address where she outlined the issues regarding the tolling of I-80 and highlighted the concerns of the people of Mercer County and other taxpayers along the I-80 corridor.

The roundtable discussion included David Taylor (Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association), Kevin Shivers (Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Association of Independent Businesses), along with Representative Michele Brooks. You can listen to the full 30 minute radio address HERE.

Rep. Brooks first explained:

“What we’re concerned about, first and foremost, is the tolling of I-80, but also how Act 44 came into fruition. This piece of legislation was railroaded through the House of Representatives and the Senate during a late budget without any appropriate public vetting. That is an illustration of what is partially wrong with government today. They push things through that effect everyday people and everyday jobs without any type of public vetting or transparency. That is our first concern. Our second concern is the economic impact of tolling this road. And third, we are not aware of any interstate in the history of the United States that has not been originally constructed as a toll road that has been successfully converted to a toll road.”

Regarding the economic impact on the local economy, Rep. Brooks states:

“It’s going to hurt our manufacturing, its going to hurt our small businesses, its going to hurt our family farms. Along the I-80 corridor there are real families and there is going to be real job loss. It is going to hurt our agricultural industry and our family farms.”

When asked the question “is this a problem of revenue when it comes to funding for our roads, bridges, and highways or is this an issue of spending?,” Representative Brooks responded:

“It’s an issue of spending.”

She went on to explain:

“Infrastructure is critically important to our businesses and our residents, but so are their jobs. If we are going to decimate an economy in order to build roads, have we really gained anything?”

To point out an issue of irony, Representative Brooks said:

“(We are) at a time when the federal government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars attempting to spur the economy, yet a decision by the federal government to toll I-80 would contradict that goal. This decision would have a devastating impact on our local economy.”

Specifically regarding the impact on jobs and the economy, Representative Brooks offers a few examples.

“I’m going to mention Hodge Foundry located in Greenville, Pennsylvania. 30% of their business is large wind turbines. If the tolling of I-80 goes through it will increase their transportation costs nearly 50%.” She adds, “we are not at a point in our economy where you can increase costs, so you’re going to lay off employees or you’ll reduce benefits to make up that additional money.”

Additionally, she explains:

“(We) have a local granary. It will cost him an additional $50,000 to $70,000 for transportation of grain. That’s going to effect food costs. That’s one local granary. It is going to impact our small family owned businesses as well as our manufacturers.”

Regarding the fact that this is the second attempt to toll I-80, Representative Brooks is concerned that this has simply turned into an issue of “politics” rather than good government. In response to other comments made during the roundtable discussion, Rep. Brooks stated:

“Under the Bush Administration (I-80 tolling) was rejected, but there have been several comments made by the Governor and the Turnpike Commission that they feel the current administration is a ‘friendly administration’ toward this application. That is politics at its worst. There should be no politics played in this decision. There are strict guidelines on why this application should be approved and that is what should be followed.”

It is the “politics” of the situation that has Rep. Brooks particularly concerned. In response to the controversies related to Provident Capital Advisors (the vendor that was hired to do the valuation analysis), Representative Brooks states “(in our letter to the highway administration we pointed out) that this is too significant of a decision that effects way too many lives . . . this decision can’t be made on questionable information from an entity that has no transportation related background at all.”

In an effort to get past the “politics”, Rep. Brooks has organization a delegation to take the concerns regarding the tolling of I-80 directly to Washington DC. She stated:

“One of our goals in visiting Washington and talking with the Federal Highway Administration is to give an accurate portrayal of the hardships that the tolling will have on real families and real farmers . . . the jobs and the businesses.”

As a criticism of government officials who have turned a deaf ear to the concerns of the people of the I-80 corridor, Representative Brooks said “It is ironic that some in government think that they have the answers . . . business owners, employees, residents, and farmers are saying ‘Stop, this is going to hurt us’ . . . yet there are some in government that just continue to railroad things through and think they know best . . . instead of the very people that we are elected to represent."

Representative Brooks has worked with Congressman Thompson’s office and Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s office to arrange a meeting with a delegation from the State of Pennsylvania that will include State House Members and State Senators. According to a recent update from Representative Brooks, the meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, December 17th.

To close her participation in the radio address, Representative Brooks explained her goals for the Washington trip as follows:

“We have to make sure that the Federal Highway Administration has a very clear and concise portrayal of what happened. (They need to understand) how this legislation was railroaded through, (and) how there is outrage among the public if this does goes through. We are also going to point out that the merits of the application have not changed from prior rejections, and (we will explain) why we don’t feel that those merits have changed. We are also going to talk about how it (will) have a devastating impact on our local economies.”

In preparation for the Washington visit, Representative Brooks will be collecting the results of an on-line petition that was presented on her website. She encourages concerned citizens to visit the on-line petition to sign against the tolling of I-80. The on-line petition is available HERE.

An Interesting Twist: Do we need to dissolve the Turnpike Commission?

This week Representative Mike Vereb introduced a bill that proposes the complete elimination of the Turnpike Commission. The bill would assign all operation of the Turnpike Commission to PennDOT. State Represenatives Matt Gabler (R-Elk/Clearfield) and Dick Stevenson (R-8-Mercer/Butler) were co-sponsors of the bill.

In a YouTube video [view the full video HERE], Representative Stevenson says:

“The waste, fraud, and abuse that we’ve seen in the Turnpike Administration for years now is something that must be addressed, and when we have the turnpike commission now trying to take over I-80, that fills many of us with great concern. This is an organization which has not shown a great history or a great ability to run the road in a manageable or efficient style. Why would we let them now takeover another major highway across Pennsylvania.”

In support of the proposed bill, Representative Kathy Rapp (R-Warren/Forest/McKean) also made comments. In her YouTube video [view the full video HERE], Rep. Rapp said:

“We no longer need the Turnpike Commission. Penndot is very capable and much more responsible. . . more responsible with the taxpayer dollars. The Turnpike Commission just overspent 80 million dollars on an exchange in Montgomery County. It’s time to be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. One way that we can do that is to dissolve the Turnpike Commission (which this bill does) and have Penndot be responsible for the transportation and the roads in the State of Pennsylvania.”

I’m not absolutely certain that dissolving the Turnpike Commission is the answer, but it is an interesting idea. Right now I say “one step at a time”. I’d prefer to see the proposed tolling of I-80 stopped first. After that, I’d be glad to entertain the idea of dissolving as many useless government entities as possible . . . including the Turnpike Commission.

As always, just my opinion. ~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

.

Representative Roae (Crawford) Supports Efforts to Fund State-Related Universities

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT
DISTRIBUTED ON DECEMBER 10, 2009

Rep. Brad Roae (R-Crawford) predicts that it will be at least Monday until the House votes on bills to fund Pitt, Penn State and three other measures for state-related institutions.

“I voted five times on Wednesday to bring the college funding bills up for a vote, but the Democrats blocked them,” Roae said. “One after another the Democrats voted against allowing the Pitt, Penn State and the three other college funding bills to come up for votes.”

Roae said the schools will have to raise tuition if the college funding bills are not approved.

“The funding should have been passed by June 30 as part of the budget, but the Democrats have blocked them for several months” Roae said

“At 11 p.m. last night, when voting session ended, the Democratic speaker of the House announced that voting session would be at 8 a.m. on Thursday. At midnight, he changed it to 10 a.m.; then, at about 10:15 a.m., he postponed voting session for the rest of the day.

“The table game gambling expansion bill was up for the third and final day of consideration, but Speaker McCall moved it back to make it the second day of consideration again so they could amend it,” Roae said. “The speaker, majority leader, and governor are demanding that the gambling bill and the $200 million in expected tax revenue pass before bringing up the $600 million in bills to fund the colleges. The House Republican Appropriations Committee reports that $400 million of it could be passed before the gambling bill.”

Roae said the attorney general has a grand jury investigating gambling casino corruption.

“Many of us (in the General Assembly) believe we should not give table game licenses to people who may be under investigation,” Roae said. “It would be prudent to wait until the attorney general’s investigation is completed before we consider table games.”

“If we do approve table games, the tax revenue should be used for property tax cuts rather than for regular government spending. Gambling was supposed to dramatically lower our property taxes, a promise many believe has not been kept.”

Roae said many people are also concerned about current bill language that would allow casinos to make loans to customers who are out of money but want to keep gambling.

Rep. Brad Roae
6th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
(814) 827-6054
(717) 787-2353
Member Site: RepRoae.com
Caucus Site: PAHouseGOP.com

.

ALERT Regarding Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers from Rep. Rapp

The following legislator announcement was received from Representative Kathy Rapp of the 65th District, but it might be of significant interest to folks in Mercer County too. I am, therefore, sharing the complete content below unedited.

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

Representative Kathy Rapp Announces

Fight for Your Rights: Tell DEP to Leave Your Boilers Alone

Big government is at it again.

The state’s Environmental Quality Board (EQB), which develops regulations for the Department of Environmental Protection, is proposing significant new restrictions on the use of outdoor wood-fired boilers.

Many people rely on these boilers to affordably heat their homes and should not be subject to unwanted and unneeded regulation by the state. Local governments already have the authority to regulate these boilers if needed. If these state regulations are allowed to go through as-is, there’s no telling what the Rendell administration will go after next.

Tell the EQB and DEP to leave your boilers alone by submitting your comments before Jan. 4, 2010:

Send written comments to Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477 (express mail: Rachel Carson State Office Building, 16th Floor, 400 Market St., Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301). No fax comments will be accepted.

Send written comments via e-mail to http://reprapp.com/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100050829.26108.101&gen=1&mailing_linkid=4311.
A subject heading of the proposal and a return name and address must be included in each e-mail. If the sender does not receive acknowledgement that the comments
were received within two working days, the sender should resubmit his or her comments.

Attend an upcoming public hearing scheduled on the matter. The closest hearing will be held in Cranberry Township, Butler County at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 2, at the Cranberry Township Municipal Building, 2525 Rochester Road.

> More information is available at RepRapp.com.

Representative Michele Brooks is "On the Road Again"

Written by Roberta Biros

Representative Michele Brooks (R-17) sent an email announcement yesterday morning stating that she would be hosting three town hall meetings in December. The meetings were scheduled for December 1, 2, and 3 from 7pm until 8pm. The announcement provided very short notice to its recipients, but it was an interesting announcement none the less. Why? Well, allow me to explain!

Most interesting is the fact that Representative Michele Brooks is the ONLY legislator that represents any portion of Mercer County that schedules town hall meetings on a regular basis. I am on the email lists of Sen. Bob Robbins, Rep. Dick Stevenson, Rep. Mark Longietti, and Rep. Michele Brooks, and Rep. Brooks seems to be the only one that regularly meets with her constituents in an open forum. For the record, I would be more than happy to attend and summarize any and all meetings of other Mercer County legislators, but there haven't been any that I am aware of.

Also of interest to me were the locations of Rep. Brooks’ meetings. You may recall that back in May Rep. Brooks held two town hall meetings (read my summary of those meetings HERE). At that time I criticized that both meetings were scheduled for the northwest corner of her district (in Espyville in Crawford County and Greenville in Mercer County). It was my opinion that Rep. Brooks was staying close to her home town of Jamestown and ignoring the rest of her district because she wanted to remain in her “comfort zone”. This month, however, the three meetings were stretched across the vast expanse of the 17th District as follows:

Dec. 1 – Coolspring Township Building, 852 North Perry Highway, Mercer.
Dec. 2 – Cochranton Firehall, 113 Adams St., Cochranton.
Dec. 3 – Washington Township Building, 1413 George Washington Road, Volant.

The careful planning of these meetings is clearly an attempt to cover a much larger piece of real estate, and I give her credit for that. Insert well deserved applause HERE.

I already had previous engagements for December 2nd and 3rd, so I decided to attend the December 1 meeting. Besides, the Coolspring Township location was only a few minutes from my home in Delaware Township. I covered one of her May meetings pretty thoroughly [READ HERE], but I was curious to see if the content matter changed 6 months later.

The meeting was scheduled to begin at 7pm. Unlike the meeting in May, I managed to arrive at this meeting on time and was able to experience the excitement from start to finish. There were between 15 and 20 attendees. Rep. Brooks did not have a planned discussion thread. Instead, she opened the floor to open comments from the attendees and she fielded any and all questions that were tossed her way.

The discussion topics varied, but the following issues were all discussed at some level:

I-80 Tolling
Health Care Reform
2009-2010 PA State Budget
Fair Funding
Police Services
Alternative Energy
PA Agricultural Caucus
Fire Departments
Term Limits
Building Codes
Regulations re: Outdoor Wood Stoves
Guantanamo Bay Prisoners

Below is a more detailed overview of some of the more interesting (and, perhaps, controversial) topics:

I-80 Tolling

Although many people think that the issue of the tolling of I-80 is long over, the truth is that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has resubmitted an application for enacting tolls on the interstate to the Federal Highway Administration. The two prior applications were rejected, but the Turnpike Commission’s attempts continue. This was the first topic that was brought up by attendees of the meeting, and Representative Brooks was anxious to discuss the topic in detail. As per Rep. Brooks:

“I am spearheading an effort with Congressman Thompson (R-PA 5) and Congresswoman Dahlkemper (D-PA 3) to coordinate a meeting with the Secretary of the Highway Administration. We want to arrange for a delegation to travel to Washington to meet with Secretary LaHood.”

Rep. Brooks made it clear that the goal of the meeting would be to turn down tolling on I-80, but she feels that it is important to make sure that the information used to make the decision is accurate. Rep. Brooks sited various examples of misinformation regarding recent studies and comments regarding “over exaggeration regarding the potential economic hardships for the area”, and she wants to make sure that accurate data is presented from the stand point of trucking, goods and services, and agriculture.

Rep. Brooks pointed out that “while this is a Federal decision, we have rallied to point out the deficiencies in the application that the Turnpike Commission has submitted . . . they have spent millions of dollars getting their story out and we need to make sure that our story is also heard”.

Rep. Brooks also stated “the merits of application have not changed … and we want to make certain that decisions are made on the merit of the application and not on the politics . . . Washington politics should not be involved in this decision”. Rep Brooks stated “there is too much at stake to do otherwise”.

After a long and detailed discussion of the topic, Representative Brooks stated regarding the tolling of I-80, “We aren’t going down without a fight”.

[What is my opinion? I’m glad to see that Representative Brooks is taking a pro-active roll in the fight against the tolling of I-80. It would be easy to simply say “this is a federal issue and it is out of my hands”, but, instead, she is taking extra steps to rally Congressmen and women and take the fight to Washington DC. I’d like to see more ACTION like this from our state legislators. Bravo!]

Health Care Reform

The next topic that was brought up by attendees was that of Health Care Reform. Representative Brooks was very clear to point out that the topic of Health Care Reform is a federal issue, but she was willing to discuss the topic from the prospective of opinion only. While she shared some of her thoughts about the current health care legislation being considered by the federal government, she was equally careful to remain unbiased. While those in attendance were clearly “party friendly”, she made a point to not offend the few Democrats in the room (there were two that I counted . . . including myself).

As a general opinion, Rep. Brooks stated “I’m very concerned about the costs of this plan, but I also wish that the quality of our health care would enter into the discussion.”

Regarding the current health care bill, Rep. Brooks noted “I was raised that you try to do things right the first time. Thousands of pages take months to digest and understand I’m afraid that they are trying to push through a fix too quickly. Don’t we want it done right?”

Representative Brooks further explained that she had participated in a public hearing in the spring at Edinboro University where she heard testimony from physicians from Canada and Australia. She outlined numerous examples of problems with the single-payer systems in those countries.

Rep. Brooks made every attempt to share information as well as her personal opinions regarding health care reform. She shared personal stories and experiences regarding problems with health insurance (and a lack thereof), but she reminded the attendees again “I’m not involved on the federal level but those are my concerns”.

In closing, Rep. Brooks stated “if this (health care bill) goes through, elected officials should be forced to have to go on the plan too”.

[What is my opinion? Oddly enough (and hold onto your hats here), I agree with Representative Brooks. While she was very careful to make her statements regarding health care reform very general, she hit on very important points. I feel very strongly that we need health care reform, but I am very nervous about the current Bill that is working its way through Washington. I’d like to see the focus turn toward torte reform, accessibility across state lines, and extended availability of Medicare (for a fee based on a sliding scale). Unfortunately, the current health care bill doesn’t look anything like that. I think the current option is too big, too expensive, and too complicated to be a viable option.]

Term Limits

I saved my favorite topic for last, but it also happened to be the last topic brought up by the attendees . . . TERM LIMITS. When the question “do you support term limits?” was asked, I nearly fell off my chair and I literally laughed out loud. After a pause (that seemed to last a lifetime), Rep. Brooks explained that she feels that terms limits already exist as “term limits are decided in at the voters box”. [Hmmm . . . Ouch!]

She further went on to explain that “if you don’t like the job that someone is doing you can vote them out”. If voters feel that the person is still doing a good job after years of service, they will vote them back in. [Again Hmmmm . . . and Double Ouch!]

In an effort to try to hang her hat somewhere in the middle, Rep. Brooks stated “there is something to be said for wisdom, and something to be said for new blood”. Unfortunately, however, I get a sense that Rep. Brooks appears to lean away from the "new blood" and toward the “wisdom”. [Ugh! and Triple Ouch!]

In summary, Representative Brooks is clearly against the idea of term limits. After receiving a few groans from the attendees (mostly from a frustrated “new blood” that was seated in the front row), Rep. Brooks asked for a show of hands from those that supported term limits. Unfortunately, I missed the results of the simple poll as I was attempting to type notes on my laptop while also extending my hand as high as I could reach.

[What is my opinion? As someone who ran a race against a 16-year incumbent with a campaign slogan like “the office of county treasurer should be a public service . . . not a career” . . . and with a campaign promise to NOT seek re-election after 2 terms in office, what do YOU think my opinion is?

Regardless of the fact that the topic hits a little close too home for me, the subject was of special interest to me personally for two reasons. The first is an issue of how politics affects those that are involved in it. Glenn Beck made a statement back in February. I wrote about it back then [read HERE], but I’d like to present the quote again now . . .

“I have a new theory. I don’t think I’ll take any more applies from the barrel. I’m gonna start pickin’ them from the tree. I’m gonna start listening to the freshman class because you guys, hopefully, haven’t been corrupted yet!”

It was a general statement that theorized that once “new blood” is elected, it doesn’t take long for them to “become” one of the “good ol’ boys (or girls)”. It is interesting that Rep. Brooks (after only 1.5 terms in state office) has already fallen into the typical style of a “politician”. I’m not sure if she has hopes of protecting her own VERY LONG career in office or if she is defending the VERY LONG careers of her friends and colleagues. I would be curious to know if her perception was the same not so many years ago?

The second point that I found personally interesting is that my stand that is firmly "FOR TERM LIMITS" places me safely “to the right” of Rep. Brooks. That was a place that I didn’t think I’d find myself in right now, so I have to take a minute to savor it.]

My Summary and Closing Comments

The meeting was both interesting and entertaining. The attendees had very intelligent questions and shared in some thoughtful discussion. Representative Brooks has a VERY LOYAL following, and they take the time to show up for her town hall meetings. Her supporters don’t simply respect her as a qualified representative of the 17th district (which they clearly do), but they personally “adore her”. They respect her as “Representative Michele Brooks”, but they seem to protect her more like a daughter . . . a sister . . . or a close and trusted friend.

At the end of the meeting one of the attendees made a statement regarding Representative Brooks as follows “of all of the legislators, you are one of the best communicators”. He then went on to point out the value of her email communications, website, and town hall meetings. In response, Representative Brooks said “we work for you, and I don’t ever want to loose site of that”. She continued with “we chose to live here and we chose to raise our family here . . . I believe this area will be strong again and you are the solution . . . your ideas and feedback are very important”.

What more can I say?

Representative Brooks will hold two more meetings as outlined below. I urge you to attend. It is a great opportunity to hear what she has to say and to challenge her with your own questions and comments.

Dec. 2 – Cochranton Firehall, 113 Adams St., Cochranton (7pm-8pm)
Dec. 3 – Washington Township Building, 1413 George Washington Road, Volant (7pm-8pm)

As always, just my opinion.


.

How Many of You Are Getting a Pay Raise Today? . . . This Month? . . . This Year?

Written by Roberta Biros

BLOG POST UPDATE--CORRECTION:

After contacting my local legislators I received a phone call from Representative Mark Longietti. Rep. Longietti first clarified that there will be NO COLA this year for legislators. The final calculation was made in mid-November, and that calculation determined that there would be NO increase this year. This information was contrary to the details that I had received in mid-November. PLEASE TAKE THIS INFORMATION INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN READING THIS BLOG POST. The issue still remains, however, regarding the pay raise that was automatically applied last year and how to handle possible pay increases in the future. [END NOTE]

Today is December 1, 2009. Today is also the day that Pennsylvania Legislators, Judges, and the Governor receive an automatic increase in their salary. Nice huh?

Background

In 1995, Pennsylvania legislators passed a law (ACT 51) that established cost of living increases (referred to as COLAs) for themselves and other state officials, including the governor and judges. On December 1st of every year since 1995, lawmakers and other officials in Pennsylvania have received the benefit of an automatic pay raise based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

It is my understanding that some “upstanding” legislators have voluntarily given back their pay raises back in previous years because they felt it was “the right thing to do”, but the topic of “COLA givebacks” was never so publicized as it was last year at this time. I first wrote about the issue in mid-December in 2008 in my blog post titled “Michele Brooks Gives Back Legislative Pay Raise, but Can More Be Done To Really Save Money in Harrisburg?“, I then wrote about the topic multiple times throughout the spring and summer in an effort to generate support for a repeal of the COLA legislation. All of my posts regarding COLAs can be read HERE.

Where Did Mercer County Legislators Stand on COLAs in 2008?

I corresponded with all of the Legislators that represent Mercer County numerous times last year. Here is where they stood on the issues of Legislative COLAs.

Senator Bob Robbins (R-50)


Did he give his 2008-2009 COLA back to the State?

Yes.

Did he support the repeal of the COLAs?

I received a letter from Senator Robbins last January. In it he explained the issues that he would be concentrating on in 2009, but the repeal of legislative COLAs was not on the list. It should be pointed out that he never states that he is AGAINST the COLAs (or against their repeal) . . . he simply never stated that he would support their repeal.

Representative Mark Longietti (D-7)

Did he give his 2008-2009 COLA back to the State?

No. Instead, he had donated his raise for that period to the Joshua’s Haven City Mission in Sharon.

Did he support the repeal of the COLAs?

No. I spoke to Rep. Longietti regarding the issue of COLAs and COLA repeal by phone and we communicated by email. As per Mr. Longietti's email response from January of 2008,
"I respect your view regarding the COLA, but I do not think that repealing it is good public policy. "

Mr. Longietti further stated,

"If the COLA is repealed, you will eventually see bills introduced to provide for a large pay increase. That is the wrong approach. Further, you will subject the whole process to deal making."

Mr. Longietti went on to state numerous examples where cost of living increases are implemented and he closed with,

"I work hard as a legislator, and I know that I earn my keep, and an increase to keep pace with inflation is as justified for this position as it is for other workers and for Social Security recipients. So, we may part company on this issue, but we respect each other’s point of view."

[I will refer to Representative Longietti’s comments again later in this post]


Rep. Dick Stevenson (R-8)

Did he give his 2008-2009 COLA back to the State?

Yes.

Did he support the repeal of the COLAs?

Yes.


Although I never discussed the issue with Rep. Stevenson personally, I followed his record on the issue. Representative Stevenson signed on to House Bill 62 in January of 2009. House Bill 62 (read the full text of the Bill HERE) was a bill that was intended to offer a long term plan for the handling of legislative COLAs. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a very good bill. I wrote a blog outlining the details of all COLA repeal Bills HERE (if you are interested).


Rep. Michele Brooks (R-17)

Did she give her 2008-2009 COLA back to the State?

Yes.

Did she support the repeal of the COLAs?

Yes.

I discussed the issues of COLAs and COLA repeal with Rep. Brooks on numerous occasions both by phone and by email. Rep. Brooks signed on to House Bill 633 in February of 2008. House Bill 633 (read the full text of the Bill HERE) rewrote the handling of legislator raises. I wrote about the details of HB 633 (and others) at length HERE (if you are interested).

Were Legislative COLAs Repealed in 2009?

Heck No!

It is true that there were numerous Bills offered by Legislators in an attempt to repeal COLAs, but NONE of those Bills ever made it out of committee. This is a VERY COMMON PROBLEM with Bills authored in the PA legislature. In my blog posted titled “So Much Legislation, So Little Time”, I explained that roughly 95% of all Bills that are presented in Harrisburg “die” in Committee. COLA Repeal Bills all fell into the 95% group in 2009. That hasn’t prevented legislators from continuing to try. As recently as mid-November, new legislation was being authored in Harrisburg. On November 16, Rep. Marguerite Quinn (R-Bucks) introduced House Bill 2097 which attempted to suspend the December 1 pay raises. In her official press release (read HERE), Rep. Quinn states:

“We have an unemployment rate approaching 9 percent in Pennsylvania, and many people who still have jobs have taken pay cuts,” said Quinn. “It is common sense to suspend the COLA for legislators during these tough economic times. How can we accept a pay increase during a year when we have cut so much from the budget and so many others must do with less or with nothing at all?”

Even more interesting, though, Rep. Quinn makes a great point when she states:

“If Pennsylvania’s elderly citizens are expected to go without a Social Security COLA this year, then lawmakers should be expected to do the same”

The statement regarding Social Security COLAs is an important one. According to the Social Security Administration website (read the full press release HERE):

With consumer prices down over the past year, monthly Social Security and supplemental Security Income benefits for more than 57 million Americans will not automatically increase in 2010. This will be the first year without an automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) since they went into effect in 1975.

Why is this so important? Well, individuals who have defended the continued use of COLAs for legislators have specifically pointed out that the raises are “deserved” just like the COLAs that are applied to Social Security. Remember . . . According to Representative Mark Longietti,

"I work hard as a legislator, and I know that I earn my keep, and an increase to keep pace with inflation is as justified for this position as it is for other workers and for Social Security recipients."

As the economy gets worse, the term “automatic raises” or “raises" (in general) are going to become obsolete. Legislators may feel that their raises are still “well deserved”, but the truth is that many of their constituents are lucky to just have a job or steady income at this point. Businesses are cutting back, individuals are cutting back, and it’s time for our legislators to feel the pain too.

Where Do We Go From Here?

So here we are again . . . back at the beginning. As of today Legislators, the Governor, and Judges will receive an automatic pay raise. It seemed inappropriate last year, but this year “inappropriate” just doesn’t seem harsh enough. Maybe the term WRONG or even CRIMINAL would better describe the situation?

Last year I took an enormous amount of time and effort to contact those legislators that represent Mercer County in an effort to urge all of them to not only give back their COLAs, but to urge them to support legislation that would end the COLAs once and for all. I will begin my efforts again. This morning I sent email messages to Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Dick Stevenson, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative Michele Brooks. In it I’ve asked if each of them will again “give back” their annual pay raise. I have also asked that all of them support efforts to repeal COLAs through legislative action. My full messages is outlined below:

Senator Bob Robbins
Representative Mark Longietti
Representative Michele Brooks
Representative Dick Stevenson

Good Morning,

Today is December 1st. Today, cost of living adjustments (COLAs) were applied to your annual salaries automatically. Last year I spent a great amount of time and effort in following up with each of you regarding your “give back” of last year’s raises as well as urging each of you to support a repeal of Act 51 to prevent the continuation of the COLAs again this year. Some of you voluntarily gave your raises back to the state through a direct payment to the Treasury, and others donated your raises to a
local charity. I thanked each of you directly for those actions. I also asked each of you to support a repeal of Act 51 through numerous legislative efforts. Some of you signed on to legislation that attempted to repeal or alter Act 51, others chose to concentrate on other projects, and yet others felt that Act 51 was fine “as is” because annual pay raises are deserved “as it is for other workers and for Social Security recipients”.

I urge each of you to review the issue of legislative COLAs once again. Are
automatic pay raises for legislators, judges, and the governor fair when so many Pennsylvanians are taking pay cuts, struggling to make ends meet, or even worse . . . out of work? Are pay increases for “public servants” really fair when the majority of those you “serve” (including senior citizens) are forced to do without? Is it really right for lawmakers to put themselves above the people that they were elected to serve?

I am sure that you are all aware that each and every one of you is up for re-election in 2010. I am sure that you also understand that everything that you do this year will be under a microscope. Some of you may see this as a problem or an inconvenience, but I would hope that some of you see this as an opportunity to shine and to showcase your commitment to the people of the area. Show your constituents in Mercer County that you are committed to “serving” rather than “being served”. Put aside partisan politics and make this an issue of good government and concern for fiscal responsibility.

My Questions For You:

I would like to know your personal plan for doing away with “automatic pay raises for some while others are forced to live with less”.

Do you intend on refusing your COLA this year (as well as the carry-over raise from last year)?

Are you willing to work to see to it that this is not an issue again next year?

What are you willing to do . . . specifically?

I, personally, cannot and will not support any candidate that puts themselves above the people that they serve, and I sincerely believe that most voters would agree. So where exactly do you stand?

Roberta Biros
Taxpayer in Mercer County
Taxpayer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Concerned Citizen

I urge each and every one of you to write your legislators, call your legislators, email your legislators and ask them to give back their December 1 pay raise and ask them to support the permanent repeal of future automatic pay raises.

If we yell loud enough and long enough, maybe someone will finally stop and listen.

BLOG POST UPDATE--FEEDBACK:

December 1, 2009, 10:30am:

The first legislator to contact me was Representative Mark Longietti (D-7). As I stated earlier, Reprsentative Longietti clarified that there is NO COLA this year for legislators. Rep. Longietti and I then discussed the issue of COLAs at great length. First, Representative Longietti has already decided that he will donate his LAST YEAR's pay raise (which will be received automatically again this year) to his local church (with a specific earmark regarding its usage). In regards to a repeal or rework of Act 51 and COLAs in general, Representative Longietti and I still disagree on how raises should be applied to lawmakers. We, again, agree to disagree. I thank Representative Longietti for his time and quick response.

As always, just my opinion.

Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives