April 17

Our Primary Picks

From FBG Chair Paul Thibault:

Dear Friends,

We the Friends of Better Government scored a major victory some months ago when the Republican Party instituted a screening panel to ask the tough questions of potential candidates for County Commissioner.

Out of that process, happily free of the old factionalism that brought us the Shaub-Shellenberger Dream Team, came strong support for Dennis Stuckey and Scott Martin.

The Party recognized this and, on the first ballot, endorsed Stuckey and Martin as solid candidates to bring better government back to Lancaster.

But now we find that we can't rest on our laurels.

Candidates who decided not to participate in, nor accept the decisions of the vetting committee and the endorsement process are running, and their efforts could cause defeats for the two most qualified candidates we've had in years who are, mirabile dictu, endorsed by the County Committee.

 We need to stand by those candidates who underwent the close scrutiny of the past months, and passed the tests with flying colors. They've known, as we've always known, that, if we want better government in Lancaster County, we have to work for it.

The Party has done the right thing; now it's up to us to support to the greatest extent possible Stuckey and Martin.

We're not asking for contributions to FBG; we're asking you to make your donations to the Lancaster County Republican Committee, with "Stuckey-Martin '07" on the memo line.

Let's do it for Lancaster County; elect good men given to us by the faction-free, collective wisdom of the Republican Party. We waited a long time for this.

P.S. E-mail us your views here at www.fbgonline.com

September 18

Proposal Before the Republican Party

From FBG Chair Paul Thibault:

Here follows the proposal being discussed by the Lancaster County Republican Party:

A Renewed Commitment with the People of Lancaster County

Preamble

The Republican Party of Lancaster County has a great responsibility. Over the past 150 years, it has been given the support of the people in almost every general election of local officials and judges. That support has always been reciprocated by fine men and women who have served the public well.

Much is expected of those to whom much has been given. The public has made the Republican party the majority party. In turn, the public expects Republicans to be committed to good governance in its support of candidates and policies to the will of the electorate.

A political party's reason for being is to win elections.

A political party's responsibility is to present for election candidates who will do their jobs extremely well and will be a credit to the party that nominated them.

A political party's opportunity is to improve our civil society by promoting excellence, dedication and depp concern for the common good.

We accept these responsibilities and pledge that we strive for a new and even higher level of contribution to good government and the improvement of our society. We believe the voting public will recognize that Republicans offer better choices of principles, policies and candidates.

Good Candidates and Good Government

We will assure that endorsed Republican candidates meet the "Three Cs" test of their fitness for office.

Character - A candidate must have admirable traits of personal character. He or she is known to be trustworthy. He or she has a spotless record of ethical practices in dealing with others.

Competence - A candidate must have the skills to do well in the job he or she seeks. He or she must have demonstrated that he knows how to apply those skills. Strong weight will be given to skills in personal organization, conceptual thinking, listening, getting and using information and leading through cooperation.

Commitment - A candidate must be committed to serve the public who elected him. Pursuing the public interest must be placed ahead of personal ambition and recognition. We expect unflagging energy, dedication to the job and an attitude that welcomes every opportunity to be open and accountable for good performance in the office.

We will insist on good governance from public officials.

Good governance springs from good people and good practices. Every official should ask every day, "Am I doing a good job?" and "Are we governing as well as we could?" We stand ready to assist public officials in assessing and improving both personal and organizational performance.

Good governance requires that the public's trust is never jeopardized. Specifically, office-holders must be free of any conflict of interest between themselves and the office they hold. When in office, their motivations for, and deliberations about, important initiatives and decisions must be transparent. No hidden agendas.

Good governance also requires collaboration. County government should work with the City of Lancaster, townships and boroughs to continually improve relationships and cooperation - and to improve the economic and societal health of those communities.

County government should also seek information and advice from business and professional people to improve both effectiveness and efficiency.

We will support judges who uphold the law.

The sound principle of judicial review cannot be turned into an intolerable presumption of judicial supremacy. We oppose judicial activists and their unwarranted and unconstitutional restrictions on the free exercise of religion in public spaces.

Good Policies

We insist that government should be good stewards of the public's money.

County government should always be doing the hard work of finding better ways to deliver better service at lower cost. While a large portion of county programs are driven by Commonwealth standards, mandates and funding, there is always opportunity in a budget approaching $300 million to find a better way, a more efficient way. County officials should be accountable for finding those ways.

County government should not try to expand the size of public services with public employees. Rather, it should try to deliver better service with the most effective and efficient combination of employees from both the public and private sectors.

We will preserve the proper balance of growth and preservation in the use of our land.

We support growth in the economic, social and cultural quality of life in this wonderful county. We encourage all the developers and planners of alternative uses of our land to follow the county;s comprehensive plan.

We will support those who are trying to expand opportunities for men and women in the owrkforce.

Employers need and will need skillful people to enable them to prosper in the private sector or to fulfill their not-for-proft mission. Employees need the opportunity, the encouragement and available resources to improve their skills. We support the broad coalition of the Workforce Investment Board, the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and its members, and the institutions which offer skill evaluation and training to incumbent workers.

We will encourage faith-based and community initiatives.

Government has a role to play in the improvement of communities, but as a partner with, not a rival to, the "armies of compassion". No organization should be disqualified from receiving funds simply because it displays religious symbols, has a statement of faith in its mission statement, or has a religious leader on its board.

We will assure that no doors are closed to anyone because of race or ethnic background.

Discrimination is unlawful and unjust. Most people know that. Federal and state policy is clear. County policy must be, also.

We will help families.

The family is the heart of our society. We support the culture of life. We will work to assure the safety of families, the integrity of the family unit, their financial independence from government support and their relief from unreasonable taxation.

Our Commitment

We promise the people of Lancaster County that we will continue to be a political force for good candidates, good government and good policies. We will not accept incompetence or even minor betrayals of the public's trust.

We promise to be the party of the open door, and while steadfast in our commitment to our ideals, we respect and accept that members of our party can have deeply held and sometimes different views. This diversity is a source of strength, not a sign of weakness.

So we welcome into our ranks all who may have differing opinions. We commit to resolve our differences with civility, trust, and mutual respect.

We promise to be the party of positive progress. God has created a good world and endowed us with the purpose of serving him through serving others. This is a great commission and we accept it.

September 7

State of Ship

From FBG Chair Paul Thibault:

"The wheels are coming off" - Commissioner Pete Shaub

The news from the Commissioners' Office couldn't be more ominous. First, Pete Shaub makes it public that he is thinking seriously of stepping down from his position before the end of his term. The importance is that, for the first time, the topic of resignations in the Commissioners' Office has now been spoken out loud. It's interesting how going from thinking something to saying it aloud can introduce a whole new dynamic into a topic.

The firestorm that has long engulfed this board of Commissioners has led many to wonder silently why this trio of ill-starred pols doesn't just pack it in and return to the peace and quiet of private life, where they can once again wake up in the morning without having to think what new disaster - what new firing, new resignation, new fumble, new misstep, new attack - awaits them when they get out of bed.

But now that Pete has uttered the words 'Maybe I should quit', attention will turn to his two confreres/enemies, and people may now feel free to ask out loud whether they too shouldn't think of cutting their losses and going home before the end of their term. After all, so far this board of Commissioners has been like a set of rowers on a Greek trireme, rowing and rowing, but with two rowing in one direction and the other rowing against that direction. The result has been a ship going in circles, and in the process, talented crewmembers have either jumped ship or been pushed overboard.

The second bit of news is that Don Elliott, the County Administrator, is leaving. We don't know yet if he's jumping ship or being pushed overboard - and with this set of Commissioners, we'll probably never know the facts. But his departure means that there will be no one to handle the mechanics of county governance. I will bet that the present Commissioners have not spent time learning about the ways of guiding and coordinating policy among department heads (those that remain, that is); so, with Don's departure, the departments will be left to drift for the next couple of years, with no active direction from their bosses.

It is a dark day in Lancaster County, because the palace intrigues on the fifth floor of the Courthouse are reaching a new apex, and the people's interests are again left to languish. This ship is running aground; let's hope it's not on Gilligan's island.

May 31

Odd Politics

From FBG Vice-Chair Anne Gardner:

A funny thing happened on the way to the...courthouse, statehouse, and city hall. What should be an arm-linked, harmonious trio of exuberantly elected Dems - Molly, Mike and Rick - is instead a weird and disjointed chorus of  confusion. You think the Republicans are in disarray? Take a gander at Sunday's paper and learn the regard in which our Mayor and Representative (not to mention our Governor, no matter what Henderson maintains to the contrary) hold their sometime partisan colleague. Henderson joins her Republican counterparts in the dubious distinction of having alienated virtually every other elected official within their respective parties. An interesting story would be the collective recitation of despair, dismay and disparagement directed in print to the three from...their closest political associates.

Shaub's and Shellenberger's motives for their individual and collective acts of misgovernance can be intuited from a connection of pretty obvious dots. Henderson's remains a mystery, seemingly explicable only as some sort of strangely-contextualized seizure of opportunity to assume power and influence. You've got to hand it to her: It's worked. We cannot miss the fact that it is she who hires lawyers and brings resolutions to a vote with her carefully crafted majority whilst the Commissioner Chair speaks bafflingly of winters and springs.

But, at what a cost. Does she not care that Gray and Sturla - fine men both and, say it though I shouldn't, doing a good job in office (Sturla after all is now the second most senior legislator from the county) - treat her as an object of derision?

What Henderson's future will be is between her and her party. In terms of Republicans, I sense a terminal weariness among the populace - exhaustion from a surfeit of appalling words and deeds courtesy of the commissioners. Thank goodness for the newspaper reporters and tireless public servants such as Art Morris who will not let the story die. But the time will shortly come when we as responsible citizens must throw off the stultifying cloak of distaste and gear up for attention and action; as far as I know, both commissioners intend to run again for office. The endorsement meetings begin six months from now. The process of finding good people to run begins yesterday.

April 17

Treat the Cause, Not the Symptom

From FBG Chair Paul Thibault:

Back in the good old fourteenth century, when bubonic plague stalked Europe, doctors discovered that, if you isolated sick people for forty days - the word for that number is quarantine - you stopped the disease dead in its tracks. There was one downside: the sick people usually died.

The doctors were treating the symptom, but not the cause. Today, doctors prefer to get at the cause of disease.

In a similar vein, we have before us now a proposal, this from the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce, to deal  with the chaos, fighting and grand jury investigations afflicting our present Board of County Commissioners. It would be better, they say, to switch to a new form of government, oddly named Home Rule (though in fact we don't have Foreign Rule now).

This government structure would concentrate decision making in one person, a County Executive, with a large body of little "commissioners" meeting periodically to pass legislation.

The proponents argue that the problem we have today with the County government leadership is that the three Commissioners have both executive and legislative power. The new scheme would solve things by separating the two powers.

Leave aside the fact that few people have high praise for the doings of both our State and Federal governments, which do have this separation of powers. There are other weaknesses in this proposal.

The creation of a new form of government does not ensure that it will be wise, willing to tackle the serious issues of the day, or eager to restrain expenses. It does not ensure anything, because it's not the structure that gives us good government, it's the people in it.

Two weeks ago, I visited one of my sisters and her family in Augusta, Georgia. They have a commission style of government in Richmond County there, uniting in their case city and county, with an elected executive and 10 commisioners. The government has been in gridlock since its establishment ten years ago. The dividing line in their case is racial. There are five white and five black commissioners. Nothing gets done. The news item when I visited was the offer of professional mediation for the ten warring commissioners, with several members of the board refusing even to show up for the counseling (or 'coaching', if you will) sessions. I don't think the people of Augusta are too eager to come here to urge us to adopt their form of government.

Back in the sixteenth century, the finest minds were urging that power be concentrated in the hands of the king. The feudal barons, they argued, could not be relied on to provide predictable law and order. The king, by contrast, was the font of justice, a man who could easily remain above the fray of the small fry, and who knew what the kingdom needed. People listened to those smart folks and power shifted to the king. But since the French Revolution, we don't find too many takers for this idea.

One of the problems with this idea now being floated in our fair County is that it arises because there are serious problems of management and leadership in the Courthouse. I would argue that this is precisely the wrong time to consider alternative forms of government. It would be far better to wait till there is again a strong Board of Commissioners (and that will happen), when everyone is calm, there is no felt pain, and instead the question on the table would be: How can we make a good government better? That's when good ideas will surface.

Right now, too many people just want the present farce to end, and they're open to any suggestions. That's how mistakes are made.

At bottom, the issue is not the look or shape of the office, it's the person in the office.

So how is it that we have such unpopular and distrusted officeholders in the Commissioners' Office today?

I can only speak from the Republican perspective; what explaining the Democrats have to do I will leave to them. But there is a clear weakness on the GOP side, and it is in the endorsement process. Here lies the real cause of our problems today.

Many voters rely on the committeepeople of the Lancaster Republican Party to examine, question and size up potential candidates for office. It is the job of these volunteers to find out the facts about people who are putting forward their names for consideration for political office. When the examination process is done, the committeepeople vote their preferences. The candidates with enough votes get labeled "Endorsed". Voters look for that label. Consequently, GOP committeepeople have a duty to be thorough, evenhanded and focused on the quality of the candidates.

This, unfortunately, has not always been the case. Part of the reason is that the interview process is close to useless. Often, a number of area committees will gather together and give the candidates ten or fifteen minutes to talk and answer questions. Ten or fifteen minutes is not anywhere nearly enough time for committee members to get a real sense of the candidates before them.

Back in 1999, when I was seeking the party's endorsement for a second term as Commissioner, I attended these various gatherings. At one of them, the committees for Columbia, Donegal and Manheim  assembled in different rooms and each candidate was given fifteen minutes. When I was shown in to meet with the Columbia people, they were running several minutes late; I had barely gotten started when someone rushed in and said I had to get over to the Donegal committee, as they were waiting for me. I left the Columbia people in midstream, arrived at the Donegal room and there the chairman informed me that I had fifteen minutes allotted and I was nine minutes late into my time already.

It was a joke.

But this too often is how endorsement decisions are reached. There is a rush (why? who knows?) to get to a vote. And oftentimes people don't know what questions to ask so they can learn enough to vote.

The Republican party needs to address that problem, if it is to select qualified candidates that they can comfortably back. With qualified candidates, the problems we now see in the Commissioners' Office will go away, as will the talk that the problem is in the office, not the officeholder, for we will have fixed the cause, not the symptom.

The Shame of It All

From FBG Vice-Chair Anne Gardner:

Recently, we were treated to a half page in a Saturday Intelligencer-Journal to explain to our county how Conestoga View - a resource rich in people, talent and use - was squandered in a single vote by three people in some sort of web of self-interest. It was a half-page laundry list of miss-steps, of by-passed laws, policy and procedure, of up-turned noses and averted gazes in the face of public pleas for information and participation - all to be described by the culprits as "inadvertent".

I refer of course to the mind-boggling communication form the three county commissioners, purporting  both to take and to place blame for the Conestoga View fiasco. They use lawyer-speak - third-person and passive voice phraseology - to admit that the process was flawed. A nice conclusion to reach when one is utterly and shamefully wrong, and running for one's political life.

Cut through the obfuscating verbiage and here is some of what is 'admitted':

* One of the commissioners was deliberately kept in the dark about a planned action that had major financial, personnel, service, public relations and resource implications for the entire county. "It was unfair and inappropriate to wait...to tell her about the proposed sale". In fact, it was a purposeful exclusion of someone who might have thrown a wrench into the machinations of Commissioners Shaub and Shellenberger.

* Step after step of correct process were wilfully ignored as Messrs. Shaub and Shellenberger plotted.

-"...such vote and court approval should have been obtained..."

-"...a public vote to retain Stevens & Lee as Special Counsel should have been pursuant to a written engagement letter"

-"...it would have been beneficial for S&L to advise the Commissioners about a possible interpretation of the Municipal Planning Code..."

-"...we should have been told of the issue beforehand..."

and on and on, ad nauseam.

This half page of bombast and blame shifting would be laughable except that at its core is a sickening representation of how badly served our county has been by these people and their professionals.

But what is not said is in some ways more important that what has been said.

For instance:

* Finally, scales fall from Molly Henderson's eyes. She knows of the plan. She already perceives Gary Heinke's lack of competence. She knows the "core services review" is a farce. She knows she was not advised of Access Financial's shadowy role in the planning. She knows she bypassed the Controller's Office, with its watchdog expertise. She ignored the voices of prominent, knowledgeable Lancaster citizens (ex-Commissioners Thibault, Ford, Huber, ex-Mayor Morris, Chamber of Commerce President Baldrige, to name a few).

Any single one of these factors would be a red flag to any responsible public servant. Instead, Ms. Henderson's stride and stridency never faltered. She didn't listen, she lectured, and she marched on with the commissioner chairman to the final, devastating vote.

For those who had supported her in her run for Commissioner, hoping she would act as an antidote to a coming administration many Cassandras feared would be inept and self-serving, the dismay and disappointment have been profound.

But there is much more that we need to learn.

I don't know what self-serving motive caused Mr. Shaub to hatch the scheme in the first place. It was not a philosophy of conservative prudence, because I do not believe the majority commissioners possess a philosophy beyond one of narrow self-preservation.

The minority commissioner's support of the sale, when she should have been suspicious and skeptical, is unfathomable;  perhaps it has something to do  with the internal quid pro quo's she worked out with Mr. Shellenberger, the person she put into the chairman's seat. The same sort of scenario could explain how Mr. Shellenberger wittingly or unwittingly - either is possible - became a pawn of Mr. Shaub's original machinations.

A delicious twist to all this is that in the end - when he could do so and not jeopardize the sale of Conestoga View - Mr. Shaub claimed a revelation and joined the side of the angels. But he fooled no one.

I feel somewhat soiled by my close reading of the commissioners' apologia, and the time I've spent on its analysis. I can't imagine how Mr. Morris can - but bless him that  he can - immerse himself in this day after day. I want to be quit of it, but must take one more word to comment on the commissioners' final and lame mea culpa. They promised to "do better going forward".

Don't, please don't. Please keep your hands off our county and go away. 

April 6

Russian Nesting Lawyers

From FBG Chair Paul Thibault:

Molly Henderson and Dick Shellenberger are set to bring us their own version of the Russian nesting dolls, those cute knickknacks where you lift the top half of the doll to find another doll inside, and then another, and then another.

Except this version features nesting lawyers. Now that the Commissioners are noticing the uproar over the secret and therefore illegal decision two years ago to hire lawyers, appraisers, and a financial advisor to sell Conestoga View, they want someone, at taxpayer expense, to tell them what we all know already.

The new lawyers, from Harrisburg, are to investigate the "appropriateness" of the fees charged by the lawyers the Commissioners themselves had authorized to handle the sale of our nursing home.

The Commissioners have an attorney from Lancaster investigating the original lawyers, and now we'll get yet another set of lawyers investigating the lawyers - hence nesting lawyers.

Apparently, our Commissioners feel we taxpayers have all the money in the world to help them figure out what they have been doing. But that's a question for another day.

Nesting dolls are humorous, and here's something else that is humorous. If these Harrisburg lawyers declare the fees of the Lancaster lawyers to be "inappropriate" (yes, a very vague term), then, Molly Henderson says, she wants them "to represent the county in any legal action recommended by the counsel and approved by the board of commissioners."

So there is every incentive for these new attorneys to find more work for themselves; if they don't find anything inappropriate, their work ends. If they declare something inappropriate, folks are going to wonder why. Far better would it have been if, upon a determination of "inappropriate", the next step would be handled by some other lawyers. Of course, that would add another layer of nesting lawyers.

Yet we all know this is an unnecessary expense. We all know that the secrecy of the original, undocumented hiring of the lawyers to sell Conestoga View invalidates the taxpayers' obligation to pay anybody.

But this game of nesting lawyers is designed to hide the truth at the core of all the nesting lawyers. The Commissioners were wrong in conspiring to hide the sale of Conestoga View; the lawyers were only their instruments.

April 3

No Comment

From the New Era, March 30, 2006:

"After several rounds of discussion and amendments, the commissioners lost track of Shaub's original motion and had to break for 10 minutes while they reviewed a tape recording of the meeting."

March 27

Laughter in Lent

From FBG Chair Paul Thibault:

The forty days of Lent are for Christians a time of prayer, fasting and almsgiving, all designed to focus the mind on the seriousness of life and to prepare for the coming joy of Easter.

Reading about County government these days tends to add to the somberness of the season. No longer do we utter words of shock and dismay when we learn of the latest fighting or dissimulating going on on the fifth floor of the Courthouse. Instead, we find ourselves less upset and more resigned that this is the way things are going to be for the next year and a half.

But there is also a new emotion taking form. The term 'Three Stooges' has now appeared more than once in print in the last couple of weeks, and this marks a real turning point in popular attitudes towards these three Commissioners. The first flush of anger at fifth floor antics is subsiding and in its place, mockery is arising - always a dangerous situation for those who want to hold on to power.

Q: "How many Commissioners does it take to make a decision?"

A: "Fourteen. Two elected officials and twelve of their lawyers. But don't tell anybody."

It's now impossible to find anyone who believes anything this trio says. They are uniquely polarizing figures; they stand in opposition far more readily than in support of anything, and when they explain their reasons for doing so, the reasons don't make sense.

When they grabbed the Atglen-Susquehanna rail line away from the Solanco municipalities, nobody could understand why, any more than they can understand now the same Commissioners' readiness to hand the trail back to the municipalities, so the County can develop a walking trail on that line for $20 million (no, that dollar figure is not a typo).

When they opposed the convention center, they said it was because the taxpayers were at risk for $60 million (false). Now they say it's because they're concerned what effect a failed convention center might have on the City, even though the City desperately wants the center.

When they decided that they were going unilaterally to re-examine the whole convention center project, they told would-be study applicants that a decision would be made in 19 days. The decision was made in just six days, to the surprise of all, especially any group still preparing a proposal. And whom do they choose? A group that had helped the hotelier opponents of the project.

Whatever they do now meets with questioning and skepticism. And looming above it all is the sense that these three Commissioners don't know what they're doing. The debacle of the sale of Conestoga View made it crystal clear that these  folks don't read, don't ponder, don't analyze, and don't understand what is being sold to them.

And yet, even though this topic is somber and it is Lent as well, I burst out laughing in spite of myself when I opened the latest issue  of the magazine published by the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania to find, there on page 12, an article submitted by our very own Dick Shellenberger, entitled "When the Public Process is Truly Open to the Public: A Success Story in Lancaster County", and on the back cover is a large ad by the secretive buyers of Conestoga View, Complete Health Care Resources, with the motto, 'Let us buy your county nursing home'.

No, Commissioner Shellenberger's article was not about Conestoga View.

But Easter's coming.

March 17

There He Goes Again

From William W. Adams:

Commissioner Dick Shellenberger may be a fine person. As Commissioner, however, he does not always tell the truth. In a March 15 e-mail to Republican committee people, he again attacked Penn Square Partners and the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority with (let's use the nicer word) untruths. Here is one egregious example.

Shellenberger said, "The Commissioners, time and time again, have called on Penn Square Partners to be open, forthcoming and transparent. Instead, PSP has refused to answer our '57 questions'..."

That is patently untrue. The Commissioner should check what his writers give him before sending it out.

On March 25, 2005, Nevin Cooley of Penn Square Partners met with Shellenberger in Mayor Smithgall's conference room. Over two hours, Cooley answered every question that had been put PSP in the infamous '57 Questions' request. This can be corroborated by any of the other six people who were in the room: Mayor Smithgall, Senator Gib Armstrong, Representative Mike Sturla, Treasurer Craig Ebersole, Lancaster County Convention Center Authority Executive Director Dave Hixson and Mark Fitzgerald, President and CEO of High Associates.

If you are a friend of better government, you have to ask, "Commissioner, have you any credibility left?" and "How long can this go on?"

February 27

A Lost Opportunity

From FBG Chair Paul Thibault:

The decision by the County Commissioners to re-examine aspects of the Lancaster County Convention Center held within it some very promising possibilities.

After the long wrangling by two of the Commissioners over this economic development opportunity, with charges and countercharges flying around like chaff on a screen, this study could have been the opportunity for an outside source, new to the idea, to give us all their view and judgment on the project.

I for one was quite confident the outcome of an impartial study would have strengthened the case for the convention center and hotel.

The Commissioners issued a Request For Proposals on February 9, gave potential applicants until February 22 to submit their proposals, and promised to award the contract on February 28.

They did something unique with the RFP in that all applicants were to directly contact, not a staff member as is the norm, but one of the Commissioners, Molly Henderson.

This could have created a huge problem, since Ms Henderson is a decisionmaker. If in her discussions with applicants a misunderstanding or misinterpretation had arisen, this could have led to a lawsuit, putting the County taxpayers at risk. Fortunately, nothing happened.

But then the Commissioners - or more accurately, two of them, Henderson and Shellenberger - abruptly closed the application time only five days after sending out the Request For Proposals and the next morning awarded the contract.

Now we'll never know if all the qualified firms would have submitted a proposal. Certainly if a firm had been working hard to prepare as assiduously as possible their proposal and expected to have until February 22 to get everything in order, they suddenly found themselves out of luck.

Instead, casual observers of this episode may be excused for wondering if there is more to this than meets the eye. The firm that was so rapidly chosen - PKF Consulting - has already helped out the opponents of the convention center in their lawsuits - hardly a comforting fact for those of us who were hoping for a truly and visibly impartial study.

Moreover, one could argue that PKF, already having some data relating to the project, had an advantage over other good consulting firms who were not yet familiar with the issue, in that they could put together their proposal all the more quickly.

PKF submits their proposal and boom, the Commissioners choke off the application process.

If only our Commissioners had played by the rules they themselves had set up.

If only they could trust to let things play out, especially without manipulating basic procedures.

Of course, we've seen this pattern of behavior before: it brought about the Conestoga View fiasco.

February 25

Now That's More Like it!

We're on the way back. Republican committee people put the County GOP right back on track last week when they endorsed candidates of demonstrated competence and admirable character. This is just what we needed after several years of being led down the wrong path for the wrong reasons.

This party can stand tall and say to the voters, "You can count on us. Our candidates for public office will give you the three Big Cs: Competence, Character and Commitment (to diligence in serving the public ahead of self.)" The Democrats have had their fifteen minutes in the sun. We're back. You can back us with the fourth C: Confidence.

- William W. Adams

December 22

Great Advice for Better Government

These comments were sent to us by John Blowers, who addressed them to our County Commissioners at yesterday morning's meeting at the Courthouse.

November 17

A question for our local historians:

Was a Board of Commissioners in Lancaster County ever under criminal investigation by the District Attorney - that is, before 2005?

November 16

The Puzzling Resumes of 'Doctor' Heinke

From FBG Chair Paul Thibault:

The unfolding story of how Doctor-ed Gary Heinke got his job in the Commissioners' office continues to fascinate.

It is clear that Dick Shellenberger was determined to get his crony Heinke the job as human services director and he was willing to go a great distance to accomplish this. Having Heinke send him his resume immediately after the Primary election in May, 2003 - while Timi Kirchner was still County Administrator, and there was no such position as human services director - tells one that Shellenberger wanted to get to work on the project as quickly as possible.

Of course, this act also opens up a very dangerous question for Commissioner Shellenberger: given his extreme interest in Heinke's candidacy, and his receiving both versions of Heinke's resume, didn't he notice the great discrepancies between the first and second resumes? Didn't Shellenberger notice that Heinke's 'accomplishments' got significantly beefed up?

The phony item in the second resume about Heinke having served as "President" of the Arden Hills city council must surely have elicited interest from the Commissioners, since politicians naturally like to talk shop.

I picture the conversation as a series of questions from our Commissioners, asking Heinke what the city was like, the political situation there, the major issues, what party label he ran under, the personalities of the other members of the city council, and so on. And Heinke must have come up with stories - yarns, some might call them - lies, others might.

Did our Commissioners swallow these wholesale? Did any of them sense anything suspicious or out of alignment? Did Heinke slip up on any of the details? Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during that conversation. But, to be fair, two of our Commissioners had themselves never held office before. They would have looked on Heinke as a veritable political veteran.

And what of Dick Shellenberger? Didn't he spot something  as remarkable as a term of elective office that appeared only in the second version of Heinke's resume? Didn't he?

It's also interesting that Pete Shaub helped in this shadowy enterprise. Pete in his first term never evinced much interest in the human services side of government, so he might have figured this appointment was an easy gift to his new partner, Dick. To be the nice guy, Pete didn't do anything to block a fellow who was not qualified for the job.

After all, Pete owed Dick. In 2002, Pete had put together an extensive list of questions that he insisted prospective candidates for Commissioner fill out if they wanted to be his running mate. A number of good people refused, and decided not to even seek the Party's endorsement if this eHarmony.com kind of questionnaire was the sort of test they needed to pass. Dick, apparently, didn't mind filling out the form. Filling out the form, of course, signaled that you were willing to let Pete call the shots.

So, with the Primary successfully behind them, Pete must have figured that the Heinke appointment was a way of cementing the bond with his new second-in-command.

But with both Shaub and Shellenberger supporting Heinke long before other applications were received and before the whole apparently predetermined process of interviewing  candidates for human services director ran its course, what led Heinke to rework his resume into a marketable piece of fiction with the confidence that Shellenberger wouldn't call foul on the changes?

Yes, this story continues to fascinate.

November 13

And Someone Tell Me Why She's There

The word "lame" does not begin to describe Molly Henderson's nervous attempts to distance herself from the disaster that is The Great Conestoga View Fiasco. Then we learned in Friday evening's paper that she didn't know - couldn't have known - of the Shaub-Shellenberger cabal's plan to place crony Heinke in the newly-created role of Human Services Director. She took the two Republicans' championing of Heinke on faith as a way of showing solidarity with them.

What? I thought - silly me - that Molly's presence in the courthouse might be antidote to the known fecklessness and self-interest that would be the hallmark characteristics of the majority commissioners. Instead we now know - by her own admission - that she simply caved to their actions of at best thoughtlessness and at worst venality.

A great shining moment of standing up to Pete Shaub after his destruction of Ron Bailey...followed by months and months of inexplicable, despicable actions so very painfully harmful to the fabric of our county. We knew the stripe of Shaub and Shellenberger. Molly's actions have been a real body blow.

November 3

'Somebody Tell Me What We Did'

From FBG Chairman Paul Thibault:

This, in effect, is what Commissioner Henderson is saying about details of the Conestoga View fiasco.  As reported in today's Intelligencer-Journal, she wants to know how the County's special counsel, Joanne Judge, earned her fee of hundreds of thousands of dollars in arranging the sale of Conestoga View.

This report opens some fascinating doors into the inner workings of the present Board of Commissioners.

A few weeks ago, Commissioner Henderson lectured opponents of the nursing home sale on the proper method of absorbing the reality of this sale. She told of how at the outset, she too was opposed to the concept of the sale. But this, she soothingly assured the crowd, was the natural anxiety one feels when confronting change. You know, like rabbits hearing a breaking twig.

The solution? Become educated on the prospect. That is what she did, and at the end of her educational adventure, she told everyone, she knew and understood what was going to happen, and she fully supported it.

But now comes word - from her own mouth - that maybe she didn't know so much. Now she admits that she doesn't know how and why some people made so much money on this deal. (Of course, as Rush Limbaugh regularly observes, one should always "follow the money")

"I think", she now admits, "it's important to know, when dealing with that much money, where did it go?"

Oh.

A month after voting to finalize the sale of our 200-year-old poorhouse, the last guaranteed refuge of the indigent elderly and sick, Commissioner Henderson smells a rat. We find out that she has asked if the fees charged by the County's own lawyer were authorized by the County.

Note: the phrase "authorized by the County" means "voted on by the County Commissioners". Where, pray tell, was the good Commissioner when she voted for the special counsel and when she approved the details of the sale of Conestoga View?

Didn't she educate herself on what fees would be charged to the taxpayers? Why is she only now growing curious and concerned?

Where is that self-assurance that she told us came with her education on this matter?

While the good Commissioner is undertaking this voyage of discovery, here are a couple of other questions people would like answers to.

1) Who paid the special counsel for her work? Wasn't it the buyer, in which case we see a fatal case of conflict of interest, wherein a lawyer hired to protect the interests of the client accepts payment from the opposing side?

2) The County's financial advisor picked up a sweet $50,000 for advice. Where is the work product that details that advice? So far, all the County can produce is an invoice with a one-line statement that this advice costs $50,000. And did the County cut the check for this munificent fee, or was it, once again, the buyer?

We only want this sort of information so that, through education, we too can still our fears about this sale of a treasured asset.

October 30

October 25

Heinke-Panky Cronyism

From FBG Chair Paul Thibault:

Out of the County Commissioners' office comes news that Gary Heinke, the chief services officer, has a phony resume. "Doctor" Heinke, as he insists his underlings call him, mailed away for that honorific title.

But the beaut in his curriculum vitae house of cards is his claim that he served as "Assistant Superintendent" of a school district in Minnesota. It turns out that he was a teacher's aide.

Heinke maintains that he was also an intern in the Superintendent's office. That's like a student who worked as an intern in the Commissioners' office later listing himself as an "assistant County Commissioner" on his resume.

Heinke was put in his present position of eminence by none other than his close friend, Dick Shellenberger, who did not reveal their personal link to his commissioner colleagues until Heinke was hired (Shellenberger promised not to keep a secret like that again).

This unqualified impostor set to work overseeing complex departments like Mental Health/Mental Retardation, Drug & Alcohol, the Youth Intervention Center, the prison, and Conestoga View.

And it is with Conestoga View that the people of Lancaster County should feel their blood pressure rising. Here Heinke hit hardest.

When the Commissioners came up with their cold blooded decision to unload the hapless residents of Conestoga View, Heinke went along with their scheme.

He was detailed to handle the sale, and he bungled it. He didn't know where to start. He didn't know that Conestoga View made money; he thought it lost money. He didn't know that you sell to the highest bidder, not the only bidder. He had no idea that, because of the intimate relationship of Conestoga View to the County, the sale of the institution would foist new taxes of well over a million dollars a year onto the taxpayers.

He knew none of this. He didn't have the training to know this. He was only an intern and a teacher's aide.

But he was Dick Shellenberger's crony.

These are the depths to which our County government leadership has sunk. Lord help us in the next two years of their term of office.

October 19

Trouble in Jihadland?

Check out the fascinating letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi at www.dni.org.

October 4

Farewell, Conestoga View

From FBG Chair Paul Thibault:

Two views on the Conestoga View fiasco:

When the present Board of County Commissioners ran for office two years ago, they whispered not a syllable about the County's nursing home.

As far as the voters knew, or were led to believe, all three candidates smiled appreciatively at this two-centuries-old institution, seeing in it the embodiment of Lancaster's virtuous concern for the weak and the ailing.

Ron Ford and I knew that Pete Shaub had long urged us to get rid of Conestoga View, in the name of some mythical "core services review" - as though County government could gaily pick and choose its tasks, without reference to the real world.

Ron and I brushed the idea aside, and never imagined that future Commissioners would one day soon share such a chilling vision of government's relation to penniless people at death's door. After all, Lancastrians know intimately the parable of the Good Samaritan.

But now the unthinkable has happened. Our frailest neighbors have been shown the door; County government chooses no longer to offer its age-old guarantee of food, shelter and medical care.

The reason? Dick Shellenberger, a man with a soft voice and cold eyes, says government should not be in this "business". And there, unashamed, the Chairman of the Commissioners reveals his essential cynicism: he views nursing care of the indigent as an act of commerce, to be judged by the clink of coins in the cash register.

I believe it was Oscar Wilde who pointed out that a cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So in this sad day in Lancaster, we find ouselves governed by cynics in the Courthouse.

And we face two more years under the yoke of this unhappy trio.

Another view:

Punch & Judy shows feature puppets in dramatic and desperate acts. They are violent and they are noisy - and we know that the puppeteers behind the curtain invisibly direct the play.

When the Commissioners revealed - over the Fourth of July weekend - that they had secretly been preparing the sale of Conestoga View, Lancaster County was stunned. Nobody saw this coming.

On July 6, they effectively sold the home.

Conestoga View was hemorrhaging money, they told us; we couldn't burden local taxpayers with any part of the care and feeding of the sick and dying poor.

Then, as details of the sale gradually came to light, errors of fact, imbalances of responsibilities, sloppiness of conduct steadily roused the anger and dismay of the populace.

It was revealed that

• Conestoga View was not losing money;
• the home had not been offered to the highest bidder but to only one bidder;
• the penalty if the County backed out of the deal was 100 times the penalty if the buyer backed out;
• the County gave away its extremely valuable Information Technology headquarters and its 18th century Children & Youth Agency building along with other historic outbuildings, and counted this as a gain for the County;
• the County would now pay the taxes on the buildings on behalf of the new owner;
• the buyer could alter the conditions and admissions policies of Conestoga View on flimsy jusifications; and
• the sale of Conestoga View would add perhaps a million dollars a year onto the County taxpayers' shoulders, up from zero - a fact that the County Administrator acknowledged was a "downside" to the sale.

All this and more emerged from the shadows as the light of inquiry shone on the sales agreement.

Not one person spoke out in favor of this backroom deal. Correction: in all of Lancaster County, only two people supported this deal: Molly Henderson and Dick Shellenberger.

Normally, when assumptions are tested and shown to be false, decisionmakers revisit their judgements. Yet in this case that screamed for repeal, the two Commissioners calmly pushed ahead and, in the teeth of vocal opposition, finalized the sale of Conestoga View.

We are all left scratching our heads, for we see no rational explanation for the Commissioners' actions, nor did they choose to give us any.

And so we are left to wonder what was the "X" factor in their calculation. What unseen force propelled them to this politically suicidal action?

Frankly, we feel we are spectators at our own Punch & Judy show, wondering what is behind the curtain.

September 27

From FBG Vice-Chair Anne Gardner:

The letter below was sent to Lancaster's three newspapers in the wake of the 'firing' of Judy Ware and John Fry from the Convention Center Authority Board. It reflects the immediate outrage of countless people with whom I've had contact over the past weeks, and also the disgust and disappointment that many of us tote as a daily load as we've watched the workings of the Board of Commissioners virtually since the day the three were elected.

The Board in its collective and individual wisdom has given us:

• positions dramatically changed from their campaign representations (i.e. support for the convention center project);
• sub rosa actions resulting in damaging upheaval (i.e. harassing Ron Bailey to his resignation, reorganization of the county financial planning functions);
• policy decisions dazzling in their scope and impact made behind the scenes (i.e. seizure of the Armstrong Building, sale of Conestoga View);
• the hiring of ad hoc attorneys at considerable, unbudgeted, or uncapped expense (i.e.Kegel & Kelin);
• reckless suit against the State (resulting in a clear threat to the county's ability to count on favorable treatment in the future);
• disregard for the voice of the public save when it agrees with their positions (see all of the above for examples);
• meetings at which the county's business is conducted with internecine rancor, disrespect, rage, gross ignorance, and, most disturbing of all, blank faces of indifference as citizens call them to account.

At some point in the (I hope) not too distant future, a critical mass will form around all this outrage at misgovernment and at the center of it will be a person or group whose voice can rally for action. Action that will take the form of replacing the County Republican committee's business-as-usual that allowed our current Commissioners to attain the stage from which they wreak their havoc and that, worst of all perhaps, allows a Democrat to run the county. And if you think this is not the case, look more closely at who is substantively making all decisions. It is not the Commissioner Chairman.

To the Editor:

Shame and indignation are the sad passwords for the day for Lancaster.

The actions of County Commissioners Molly Henderson and Dick Shellenberger that resulted in the loss of two of Lancaster's finest from the Convention Center Authority - civic contributor Judy Ware and F&M President John Fry - are reprehensible in the extreme.

Forget the issue of who supports the downtown project and who doesn't. Ware and Fry are public servants in the finest sense. One might even say in a finer sense than our elected officials, as they give countless hours, expertise and their own dollars to the community without recompense or self-interest of any kind.

Ware and Fry - and all Lancastrians who are or might be inclined to devote a considerable amount of their time and means to public affairs - must feel a chill of astonishment and distaste at this treatment and what it indicates for others going forward.

Henderson and Shellenberger's specious defenses of their actions (Henderson's, that "Ware can be appointed by the city", probably not, and Shellenberger's, that "Fry's term was up, according to a file letter," turns out it was a typo) are meant to appease the public. Rather, they represent a slap in the face to all who think and care about such things.

So I'll add insult to shame and indignation, and ask all who share these reactions to the events of the past couple of days to think about it, talk about it, write letters - all to the purpose of finding a way to put a stop to the egregiously bad government we are experiencing at the hands of this board of county commissioners.

September 14

Conestoga View is Obsolete

Poverty has been eradicated in Lancaster County.

There are no indigent poor in the County, Dr. Gary Heinke of the County Commissioners' office revealed today.

In an article in the New Era (located beside another article on a nursing home in New Orleans that had abandoned their residents to a tragic death in Hurricane Katrina), Dr. Heinke used this startling announcement to justify the sale of Conestoga View to a private firm near Philadelphia.

And Heinke's bosses, the present Commissioners, are apparently in agreement with him.

Since 1799, the poor of Lancaster County have been assured of good, compassionate care should they ever need it. Boards of Commissioners, generation after generation, have continued that assurance and that reality for those most in need.

It seemed pretty fundamental, after all, to God-fearing Lancastrians that we look after those of our neighbors most in need. We read in the Gospel of Matthew that whatsoever we do to the least of the Lord's brethren, that we do unto Him.

But now, we're told, we don't have to be concerned about the least, because they're not indigent. Let a Philadelphia firm look after them.

Of course, the agreement of sale between the County Commissioners and the buyer states [p. 14] that the "Buyer will continue to provide charity care to the indigent residents of Lancaster County..." But, according to Dr. Heinke, these no longer exist. So, logically this clause should be removed from the agreement of sale.

To read such chilling nonsense as today's declaration makes us wonder what the world around here is coming to.

September 8

Conestoga View Update

At their regular weekly public meeting yesterday, the County Commissioners acknowledged that, in the event the new owners of Conestoga View eliminated the Ventilation Unit at the County nursing home, they had no idea where ventilation patients would be able to turn to.

The sales agreement the Commissioners have signed with Complete HealthCare Resources permits the new owners, after a year, to shut down the unit if they should so choose.

The problem arises in a critical way because there is no ventilation unit anywhere else in the County.

Mayor Charlie Smithgall, in his capacity as a pharmacist, urged the Commissioners to stop the sale, saying that Conestoga View is the only nursing home that will admit paraplegics and quadriplegics, regardless of one's income level.

Former Mayor Art Morris asked the Commissioners to delay the settlement date for three to six months, so that all questions can be answered and all necessary safeguards be put into place. The Commissioners did not commit to any delay past the expected settlement in early October.

County Administrator Don Elliott stated that the Commissioners believe they have sufficient protections for present and future patients of Conestoga View, but, in an apparent contradiction, said, "A lot of the questions you're asking are the same ones we're asking. At the end of the day, if this does not make sense for the County, I can't recommend to the Commissioners that we do it. So we're asking for the same information you're asking for."

He did not explain why these questions or demands had not been satisfied before the signing of the sales agreement.

Dr. Gary Heinke, who has Conestoga View as his area of oversight, remained silent through the discussion.

August 29

They've Sold It

August 19

The Employees of Conestoga View

The Odd Sale of Conestoga View - New commentary from FBG Chairman Paul Thibault.

Blinding Summer Heat

July 13

On the Stump, Galicia Style