It has been reported that several interesting events took place during this most recent meeting of our commissioners. One involves a question about possibly not following the Sunshine Act. Sources tell this writer that there was a lot of dancing around this matter. More here later, possibly a story in the Scranton Times tomorrow.
The Deputy Chief Clerk, Dan Walter was let go to make room for (fill in the blank). The terminations of two department heads: Ellen O’Malley, Assessment Office; and Gary Wilder, Voter Registration were ratified. The Assessment Office is under the direction once again of Rick Kamansky. Voter Registration is being run by Laura Watts. Both are “Acting Directors”.
Your thoughts?
There was a story in the Scranton Times with respect to the Sunshine Act violation and the position of the Commissioners as to how they reached the decision. Commissioner Warren claimed that she ordered the production of the letters on her own accord. Commissioner Giangrieco claims that he never made any decision on the matter until he signed the letter that Commissioner Warren had decreed to be produced. Apparently, the Commissioners want to convey the view that they did not meet and deliberate about the termination of an employee(s) outside of a public meeting. If they had done this, it would presumably be a Sunshine Act violation (according to the Scranton Times expert).
The new Administration is apparently making decisions on the lives of the employees without any internal discussions whatsoever — if you believe their claims. One Commissioner (Warren) determines that an employee needs to be fired, and directs the production of the termination letter, at which point the other Commissioners, independent of each other, also afix their names to the termination letter. Could the new Commissioners really care so little for the lives of the employees that they handle termination issues with such a cavalier attitude and without discussing the termination with each other?
I was told that even when the commissioners tried to do everything by the book a certain few were not happy with that either.It seems that some people are never satisfied and just want to have a “beef” about everything. Make room for (fill in the blank)?To the writer of the blog I say would say you are ASSUMING you know.As the rumor mill intensifies in the court house I wouldn’t be surprised if some are surprised that it isn’t all POLITICS. Was Gary Wilder a department head? I think not. ANOTHER ASSUMPTION
Putting aside the mechanism and procedures used to accomplish the firings, the new Commissioners have fired 4 employees in less than 30 days of the job. Does anyone know how many employees the last administration fired in their first 30 days? How about how many were fired by the prior administration over 4 years — and will the new administration exceed that number in the first 60 days?
As to the reasons for the firings, they certainly may have merit — but how do the Commissioners know if the firings were appropriate without deliberating and discussing the matter with each other? The quotes in the Scranton Times made it appear that there were no deliberations or discussions with each other over these serious issues. This seems unlikely. So, why don’t the Commissioners simply admit that they got together, talked it over, and made a decision - even if someone is going to complain that it violated the Sunshine Act? Who cares if people complain about it — as the last blog noted, people are going to complain no matter what. People will complain more when it is apparent that you are not telling the truth. This is a far bigger problem than any violation of the Sunshine Act.
To: Taxpayerpayingattention, (Fill in the Blank) referred to anyone who was on the short list from the commissioners for a job. If you are suggesting someone specific was being referred to, you completely missed the point. Maybe “You Fill in the Blank” would have been better. One would hope the person hired will be the most qualified. We will see.
Regarding Gary Wilder being a department head, I stand corrected. However, it is my understanding that he was certainly in a non-union position with an assistant. While it may not be a department head, it is a whole lot closer to it than not. Aren’t we splitting hairs here? By the way, the current posting for the job states the title.
If these new commissioners are going to make decisions without the benefit of discussing matters as was indicated by PoorRichard, we are in for one heck of a ride over the next 3 years 349 days. How many more will be given the sack?
When noting fired employees, one should remember Raymond Davis, County Solititor most recent. At what public meeting was he terminated?
Generally the plan in previous administrations has been to get the bad news out of the way early on, that way voters won’t remember at re-election time. This time is similar to this point with the addition of apparently acting outside public meetings.
You would think that a commissioner who continues the private practice of Law would be aware of this, AND even if there wasn’t a county solicitor at the time to advise, he would alert his fellow commissioners about conducting business outside a meeting if they didn’t know it already - which they should have. You would think…
I am so tired of hearing about the Sunshine Law. The “busy bitties” are just using this as a means to try to control the Commissioners and their meetings. The voters of Susquehanna County unanimously decided these 3 upstanding citizens could run the County better than anyone else on the ballot. Why don’t the “busy bitties” leave them alone to do their job. We understand that your mentor is no longer in office, so get over it and get on with your life. The “busy bitties” do not represent the majority of the taxpayers, they are just the loudest. The rest of us are at work earning a living for our families at 9AM every other Wednesday.
I cannot believe that anyone with any compassion believes that someone’s employment should be determined at a public meeting. Have a heart here. It is embarrassing enough to lose your job without the public knowing it before you do.
As far as the terminations, I believe there was merit in all 3 – and maybe they should look closely at a few more……..
It is my understanding that Veteran’s were to be given preference only when there are equal qualifications. If any tax payer of Susquehanna still believes that Gary Wilder was qualified for this position – $60,000 later – then they need to think again. There are much better ways I would like my tax dollars spent that to cover an employee’s error. Especially one that could have been avoided by due diligence – no training needed.
So let’s do what “Likeitis” says: “We commissioners were elected by the voters; JUST TRUST US! You don’t need to worry your pretty little head what we do or how we do it, or if we comply with the Sunshine Law, or just do “what we want to do when we want to do it!” The reasoning of “Likeitis” and those of his ilk are stunningly breath-taking! I’m sure he would have fit right in as the Nazis took over Germany in 1933.
The basis of our governement is openness and transparency in government. Those “busy-bitties” as “Likeitis” likes to call them are simply asking our commissioners to follow the law. I hardly think that is irresponsible or asking too much to simply require our elected officials to uphold their oath and do the minimal things required of them. Jim Jennings and activists demanding accountability in government do a great service for this county and her taxpayers. Seems most people in this county don’t bother to read newspapers, and even those that do only get half the story (if that much) depending on how much the reporter is allowed to report, and can get approved by his or her editor. Thank God for those who take the time to attend Commissioners’ meetings and take the time to comment and question authority.
Again, “Likeitis” understanding of the Veterans’ Preference Statute is not accurate. I challenge readers of this blog to read the law for themselves. Qualified veterans are to be given preference ahead of non-veterans who are qualified - even non-veterans who qualifications exceed the requirements in the posting for the job. Surprised? Read the law for yourself. There’s plenty of case law on the subject too.
One last thing. Gary Wilder made many errors while serving as Voter Registrar. But I challenge readers to ask members of their local Board of Elections what they thought of his performance and the training he provided in prior to the Primary and Fall Election. Could you have done a better job? Do you know of someone else in the County who should have been teaching the course? It will be interesting to see the level of training and support that the next Voter Registrar provides to local election officials. And isn’t it interesting that when Gary Wilder had full and complete control of the ballot development process from the Primary to the Fall Election, there turned out to be no errors or reprinting costs! Funny how there were in the Primary when there were so many “cooks” involved with the ballots brewed!
What of Ellen O’Malley? She was certainly a qualified employee and knew her job and knew it well! Her firing was totally unjustified and showed the ugly face of partisan politics in this county. The current commissioners have set a new standard for arrogance in governing in Montrose. Sad to say, but they made the last Board of Commissioners actually look good! And that’s saying a lot!
Smartgurl’s last comment does not surprise me. It is obvious what (or should I say who) drives her (or his) responses. I do not believe the Commissioners are without responsibility for their actions. Nothing can change overnight, so why attack the minute an action has been taken. Obviously these 3 Commissioners were not her (or his) choice. Is it any wonder why she has no faith in them. Rather like a petulant child who did not get their way…….
If the real concern was making sure the Sunshine law was being followed, I could agree. But it is obvious it is only a tool used to heckle and coerce. If the Sunshine Law did not exist, another would do as well……
In the event the County is in need of an employee who can conduct classes, and do nothing else correctly, the Commissioners will know where to find one. “Gary Wilder had full and complete control of the ballot development process from the Primary to the Fall Election” – Where did you hear that fairytale?
I totally agree with Likeitis. Perchance the last administration did not hire the most qualified person for some of those key positions. Perchance it was someone’s first cousin or close friend. Would that surprise anyone? Not in the last hundred years of county government in Susquehanna County. I hope this new administration DOES hire the most qualified people to fill those positions, don’t you? Perhaps they’ll think twice before hiring family and friends or at least they’ll be qualified.
Given the fact that SmartGurl assumes “the ugly face of partisan politics” played any part of the recent terminations should be looked into a bit further. $60,000 of taxpayers’ dollars blown away by someone’s negligence? The words ‘source document’ were referred to repeatedly during Election Board meetings. Common sense says go back to the source document to verify your work and while he said he had, it was obvious he hadn’t. If he had there certainly would never have been so many reprints of ballots at an unnecessary cost to the taxpayers. What I see here is, saying you did something when it was clear that you hadn’t. Isn’t there a name for that?
The Chief Assessor was knowingly insubordinate toward the commissioners and I believe there was more. Documentation of that was posted on the joke board where she believed it was comical. Our elected officials should have to put up with the antics obviously displayed by people in key positions or any position for that matter? With the bits and pieces I’ve witnessed in the courthouse - the terminations were justified.
Aw, I think I must have offended “Likeitis” male ego. When one must resort to ad hominum attacks, insinuations, and ascribing of motives rather than engaging in a reasoned and mature discussion, it is obvious the weakness of one’s position. You generate heat, but not much light.
Am I asking too much to wish that our commissioners merely follow the laws of our Commonwealth and treat us, the residents of this county, with a modicum of respect, decency, and common sense! No matter what three people had been elected in the last election I would ask the same. As “PoorRichard” made clear in his opening comments, “The quotes in the Scranton Times made it appear that there were no deliberations or discussions with each other over these serious issues. This seems unlikely. So, why don’t the Commissioners simply admit that they got together, talked it over, and made a decision - even if someone is going to complain that it violated the Sunshine Act? Who cares if people complain about it — as the last blog noted, people are going to complain no matter what. People will complain more when it is apparent that you are not telling the truth. This is a far bigger problem than any violation of the Sunshine Act.”
So why won’t the Commissioners just level with us? No, I don’t think I’m being anything “like a petulant child who did not get her way”. The Commissioners we have are there because they were elected by the voters. With their election and the oaths they have taken, come responsibility - and accountability. “Likeitis” and his pal, “taxpayerpayingattention” seem to have put the blinders on to see only what they want to see and to be selective with their facts. Let’s get real, guys; the “Sunshine Act” is THE issue - not just a convenient tool used by opponents of the commissioners (of whom you seem so fond).
By the way, it’s curious that the Gary Wilder wasn’t fired in April or May when the ballot errors came to light since you seem to believe he was solely and totally responsible for $60,000 of errors. Why the wait until January of the following year?……And why wasn’t Ellen O’Malley fired after her “insubordination” in the summer? Why the wait until the following year? Partisan politics? You tell me.
The Sunshine Law is fine when you use it on the other party - just don’t use it on my party. My party rules! Now that we are in power, we will come to the meetings. It’s my party versus the bad one! No matter that gigantic companies are ready to dig into our land for gas, trying to give us the lowest price, and hoping that as a county we are not united; no matter that we are the second poorest county in the state; no matter that domestic violence, reported or not, is a local tragedy; no matter about health care; and no matter that our agricultural lands still await new farmers. It’s my party that counts! Dont’t mess with my commissioners. It’s the two parties that matter, not the issues that ultimately could unite us.
Hurt my feelings?…….hardly. But, I must agree with one thing SmartGurl hinted to, the terminations should have taken place a long time ago. Isn’t it great thing for the County that we finally have Commissioners in place that have the “what for” it takes to do the correct thing – even if it is several months too late. I really don’t care if they talked about it in private or not (everyone else did) – they took an action that should have been taken a long time ago. Correcting mistakes is never bad - even if they weren’t their mistakes. One thing I question, though, why is SmartGurl upset about only these 2 particular terminations? Think about it…….
I am “fond” of these Commissioners (to use SmartGurl’s words)– so far. I agree with their actions to date and I applaud the “grit” it took to do it – which was so obviously missing in the last term.
“When one must resort to ad hominum attacks, insinuations, and ascribing of motives rather than engaging in a reasoned and mature discussion, it is obvious the weakness of one’s position.”
ad hominum attacks-
“Aw, I think I must have offended “Likeitis” male ego. ”
“You generate heat, but not much light.”
“I’m sure he would have fit right in as the Nazis took over Germany in 1933. ”
Right, you never attack character. You wouldn’t go as far as to call someone a bigot, dumb, and then connect him to the Nazi’s would you?
insinuations, and ascribing of motives-
“The quotes in the Scranton Times made it appear that there were no deliberations or discussions with each other over these serious issues. This seems unlikely.”
“Why wasn’t Ellen O’Malley fired after her “insubordination” in the summer? Why the wait until the following year? Partisan politics? You tell me.”
So you would insinuate that the Commissioners are lieing and playing party politics, but you don’t want any other insinuations.
You make mountains out of molehills, complain about slippery slopes and then attribute false causes. You are a master of the falacy of logic, and hypocritical in your defense, complaining about insults and then throwing them around.
Let’s look at the facts. If an employee loses $60,000 because they are too pathetic to check their facts, then they should be terminated. If an employee decides to be insubordinate, then they should be terminated. What kind of business has employees losing more money than they make and other employees not following orders? No well managed one, that’s for sure.
If anything is wrong, it is that these employees didn’t get fired when they were supposed to. If you want to complain about party politics, maybe you should start there.
There is no insinuation as to the Commissioners’ comments — there is simply two possible conclusions:
(1) The Commissioners had no deliberations with each other prior to individually determining that the employees should be fired. This is particularly disturbing, especially where two Commissioners are newly elected and have no prior knowledge of the performance of the individual employees. If Commissioner Warren directed that the termination letters be drafted without consulting with the other Commissioners, the simple question is how did the other Commissioners know that it was the right decision to fire the employee?
(2) It seems more reasonable to conclude that the Commissioners discussed the matter with each other — and made a decision to terminate the employment of the employee(s). This now raises the Sunshine Act question — which has repeatedly surfaced in all administrations — regardless of which party was in control. Moreover, Commisssioners of both parties potentially violated the Act — so this cannot be viewed as a partisan issue.
(3) Based upon the foregoing, and the information contained in the Scranton Times article, we are left to conclude one of two things:
First, Commissioner Warren unilaterally decided to propose the termination of several different county employees without discussion or deliberation with the other Commissioners, and the newly elected Commissioners simply rubber stamped this decision without any further discussion or deliberation, or
Second, the Commissioners did discuss and deliberate about the merits of particular employees, with Commissioner Warren providing her insight based upon her 4-years of prior experience, that the Commissioners collectively determined to terminate the employment of several employees outside of a public meeting or an executive session, which may have violated the Sunshine Act, and then, when confronted on the issue, told the newspaper reporter that no such meetings took place.
There is nothing partisan in this analysis. One of the two scenarios occurred — involving Commissioners from both political parties. Neither scanario even addresses the merits of the firings; rather, the question is one of process and procedure — and potentially honesty, depending upon which version you believe. No insinuation - just facts and reason.
Likeitis: for your information, the voters did not “unanimously” decide on these three commissioners - there was quite a spirited contest, remember? For many voters it was ‘pick the lesser three of all the evils.’ And whether you like the Sunshine Law or not, it’s just that: the law… with a lawyer in the commissioners’ office its possible violation not three weeks into the term says a lot about what we can expect. See what can happen in the short time the county was lacking an actual solicitor? Best be watching, even if it is your party in control now!
Do I hear sour grapes?……Bottom line – these 3 Commissioners received the most votes, so obviously the majority of the voters wanted them elected. Whining and nit picking won’t change the facts….
I think Poor Richard missed a third option – aren’t “infractions of the rules” written down and filed somewhere in the vast domain of the Courthouse? And if not, everyone in the County was aware of the misdeeds of the 2 most talked about terminations. How blind and deaf would anyone need to be not to have heard the details? They were certainly “food for fodder” on this web site, and if you don’t frequent the internet, just pick up a paper or visit the Courthouse. Ignore the gossip if you want, the facts speak loudly enough by themselves. It is extremely naive to believe that the 2 new Commissioners knew no details about the “notorious 2”. The Commissioners appear to be intelligent enough to form their own opinion. And the important thing is…. the correct action was finally taken.
“And if not, everyone in the County was aware of the misdeeds of the 2 most talked about terminations.”
You beat me to my next point Likeitis. The Commissioners could have easily came to the same conclusion on their own accord considering the amount of information already circulating.
As for you PoorRichard, you say you don’t insinuate anything when both your scenarios lead to the same conclusion, wrongful termination. If both your scenarios have the same conclusion, isn’t that stacking the deck? You are clearly ignoring the _fact_ that there was enough information available without meeting. Your way you present your “facts and reason” is more telling of your own opposition to the current administration than a fair and unbiased approach.
I have no opposition to the current administration. I have not formed an opinion as of this date, and certainly wish the current administration well. In the end, local politics has little to do with party affiliation and everything to do with personal ability. This is one reason why someone like Sheriff Pelicci was able to get re-elected time and again as a Democrat in a Republican county — he did it because he was exceptional at his job and people knew it. The political future of the current administration will likewise depend upon their job performance — or, perhaps even more importantly, the perception of their job performance. Perception is often more important than reality — especially in politics.
This brings us back to my initial comments to the blog posting which mentioned both the Sunshine Act and the Scranton Times article. My comments had nothing to do with the merit of the terminations — only the process that went into the terminations.
Regardless of one’s political affiliation, it is difficult to believe that we cannot agree on a number of things: (1) the Commissioners should follow the Sunshine Act where possible; (2) the Commissioners should discuss and deliberate with each other before making decisions; and (3) the Commissioner should tell us the truth.
As to the first, I do not get too overly concerned with the Sunshine Act stuff as it seems absurd to suggest that the Commissioners can only make decisions every 2 weeks at a public meeting. Still, when we talk about perception, there are those that care about it deeply and the Commissioners would do well to keep everything out in the open. As to the second issue, I want the Commissioners to make good decisions after careful deliberations with each other. As to the terminations, I believe that they did deliberate with each other and I assume that there is a reasonable basis for the terminations (and I hope it was based on something more than gossip that was heard around the community). This finally brings me to the final point, that I will reiterate again, the Commissioners should simply admit that they talked about the terminations and did not individually shoot from the hip in firing employees.
There is nothing controversial or partisan about any of this — or even anything aimed at opposing the current administration.
The problem is simply that they did not come out and say that we talked it over collectively, we weighed the oppotions, reviewed the personnel file, and collectively determined that the best interests of the county are served by terminating the employees and moving in another direction. Is there anything partisan in expecting that type of explanation from an elected leader regardless of their party affiliation?
As this is the blog people seem to be commenting about my husband (Gary Wilder) on I thought it probably the right place to thank someone for their card which arrived in the mail yesterday, because after going to all the trouble to personalize it they forgot to sign it . (lol)
Just so that person knows to which card I am refering…On the front it said,” you aren’t stupid (that was the personalized part) until the fat lady sings.” Then on opening it the fat lady sings & written in felt pen & block letters was .. “Happy termination moron good riddance.” If the sender thought that this would upset Gary, little do they know him …he laughed so much. So again thank you for the amusement but perhaps the moron part WAS your signature.
Sorry to hear about the letter.
Yes, local politics too often is concerned with personalities, one up-manship, and partisanship. You know, my party is better than yours. There are so many larger issues that affect our county. Actually, we citizens should be better informed than our public servants. That way, our money gets spent wisely, and all actions taken by our public servants are on the up and up.
And to people who wonder about the Sunshine Law, study it. If we think we can just elect these people, and then rest, that just doesn’t work. The issues affecting our county need all citizens’ input.
No sour grapes, Likeitis…I didn’t like the previous commissioners but one month into the new administration they’re looking better all the time. What does sour me, however, is your total lack of understanding and/or misstatement of the electoral facts, so I would suggest you sit down with the election results, a calculator and a good dictionary. You’ll soon see it’s not quite as “obvious” as you thought, if you did.
Fact: a total of 17,790 votes were cast for one commissioner candidate or another - since each voter can vote for up to two candidates, though that is not to say every one did, the minimum number of voters was therefore 8,895…could have been more. Looking at the total votes for each candidate will readily reveal, with the help of your calculator, that NOT ONE COMMISSIONER was elected by a “majority of the voters” as you claim! A plurality is far different than a majority, and never more so than in politics.
In point of fact, the top vote getter was the choice of only 44.6% of the voters, with the other two commissioners each getting barely over one-third support at 35.7 % and 35.6 %! Yes, the three top vote getters were elected, not exactly news. But the plain fact is that for each sitting commissioner WELL OVER HALF of the electorate voted AGAINST him or her! This is far from a ringing endorsement.
I am not nitpicking here…to suggest these commissioners are the majority’s choice is just plain wrong and misleading. And the sloppiness of thinking and language that claims they are detracts from the rest of your argument, much of which was right on the mark.
With 10315 out of the 17792 votes, the current administration picked up a total of 57.98%. 57% is more than 50%, therefore it is a majority.
I can play around with numbers too.
Just something to add, when there are more than two people running, let alone seven, it is almost impossible for one person to get 50% of the vote. Especially when there is at least two candidates running from each party.
It is terrible that someone would send such garbage to a person who just lost their job. I am not surprised that Mr. Wilder is laughing, when you consider the situation:
(1) The County initially passed over his employment application without giving the proper veteran preference to his application.
(2) The County Commissioners were advised by the county solicitor that they were required to give a preference to the veteran, and they refused to do so. Only one of the Commissioners followed the legal advice.
(3) This resulted in a lawsuit that it pending against the County for violating allegedly violating the act that provides for a veteran preference in government hiring
(4) The person that was hired over Mr. Wilder did not remain in the position long, and suddenly and without notice, quit the position, apparently in order to run for Commissioner, which never materialized.
(5) The Commissioners then scrambled for a replacement in the middle of a primary season, and Mr. Wilder agreed to step in and try to clean up the mess.
(6) There were substantial mistakes made in the ballot printing process, and Mr. Wilder stepped up to the plate and accepted responsibility for the mistakes.
(7) After the ballot issue was resolved, the primary election went very smoothly.
(8) Thereafter, a confusing period between the primary and general election followed, which involved numerous write-in candidates getting involved in the mix.
(9) Mr. Wilder’s probation period was nearly expired, when it was extended for a period of 9-months.
(10) The probationary period extension was made outside a public meeting, and at a proceeding that one commissioner refused to participate in as she believed that it was an unlawful proceeding, i.e., violated the Sunshine Act.
(11) The extension of the probationary period for 9 months also violated the County Employee Handbook, which provided for extensions of only 6 months.
(12) There is a question as to whether the Commissioners who voted for the extension should have done so given that their conduct forms the basis of the lawsuit for violation of the veteran preference, and, as such, it could appear that they had a bias in the extension of the probationary period.
(13) The general election ran smoothly and without any substantial problems, again despite numerous write-in candidates and the requirement to review the results, and the general election was accepted.
(14) After the new administration took control, Commissioner Warren, by her own admission, directed the a termination letter be drafted for Mr. Wilder. Commissioner Warren would have been the only remaining Commissioner from the previous administration, and one of the Commissioner’s alleged to have violated the veteran preference. Rather than removing herself from the decisionmaking process given the pending litigation, she apparently took the lead in the termination process with Mr. Wilder.
(15) There is now a question as to whether Mr. Wilder’s termination was procedurally proper, i.e., the alleged Sunshine Act violation, which is the same question still revolving around the extension of his probationary period.
(16) When Mr. Wilder was terminated, he was temporarily replaced by the same person who had initially been hired over him without consideration of his veteran preference, and the same person who had abruptly left the position at the onset of the 2007 primary season.
When you consider all of this, it is not surprising that Mr. Wilder is laughing … perhaps all the way to the bank
1-3
I’m going to make the assumption that we use the same Veteran laws as the US Office of Personnel Management. In the law, it states -
“Both title 5 and title 38 use many of the same terms, but in different ways. For example, service during a “war” is used to determine entitlement to Veterans’ preference and service credit under title 5. OPM has always interpreted this to mean a war declared by Congress. But title 38 defines “period of war” to include many non-declared wars, including Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf. Such conflicts entitle a veteran to VA benefits under title 38, but not necessarily to preference or service credit under title 5. Thus it is critically important to use the correct definitions in determining eligibility for specific rights and benefits in employment.”
Which means unless Wilder was in WWII, he only gets benefits, not a preference. Now I don’t know if he was in WWII, but somehow I doubt it.
5. Clean up a mess, or make a mess?
6. How noble of him…
7. $60,000 in mistakes later
8. That’s part of the job.
9-12. Generally when an employee accepts responsibility for a $60,000 mistake during a probationary period, they get fired.
13. Again, that’s the job.
14-15. I don’t know why the County Commissioners didn’t fire Wilder when he made the mistake considering he was in a probationary period. Perhaps the two people who were recently unseated didn’t think $60,000 was a big deal, or maybe they didn’t want to change people in the middle of an election. Regardless, Wilder didn’t get fired when he should have, and the current administration decided to fix the mistake. Since I would expect the County Commissioners to pay attention to what is going on in the courthouse, I assume they had all heard about Wilder’s mistakes before Commissioner Warren suggested the firing, and didn’t need to deliberate.
As to 4 and 16, if an employee is going to run for an office and they think it will detract from their performance, they should step down before running. Even though the person didn’t end up running, they did make the right choice. Also, if they did a good job while they were there, and they were willing to come back, that helps the county because now we don’t have to waste time or money training a new employee.
I like the way Patriot can “fool around with numbers”. He certainly detailed my comments about the election results in a manner which anyone should be able to understand – even us common “folks”. These three Commissioners were elected which is telling on its own…’nuff said. No calculator or dictionary needed. I wonder though, who could so easily quote these numbers off the top of their head……..”justabumpkin” must have gotten his (her) “notebook” out. Does anyone know….has any one single Commissioner in Susquehanna County ever won by getting over 50% of the vote?
I have two more items to add to Poor Richard’s comment:
(10) Obviously the Commissioner that “refused to participate in (the extension) as she believed that it was an unlawful proceeding, i.e., violated the Sunshine Act” thought that $60,000 was just “peanuts”, or she would have found a way to terminate or extend the probation in the “Sunshine” way. She didn’t want it done…plain and simple, and the “Sunshine Law” was just an excuse not to act.
(11) I believe that Gary Wilder’s probation was extended another 6 months, not 9. A 6 month extension to a probation is pretty standard in the “real” world. Those of us who travel there everyday know that – and it was little compensation for the taxpayers who have to make up for that $60,000 loss.
Many have Likeitis. I believe that the last set of Republicans (Kelly and Loomis) did or came close. If memory serves me, there were around 10,300 voters and each received in excess of the half of 5150.Gary Marcho in 1987 received the most votes of any commissioner candidate in a general election.(7000 plus)
Though I don’t have the actual numbers from that far back, I’d be willing to bet the farm such former - and esteemed - commissioners as Jack Masters, Ken Adams and Irving Loomis each got a majority of votes cast at some point in their political careers. John Blachek may have also and Gary Marcho as well, as suscoresident notes above. Where I got the recent election numbers, a matter that seems to mystify Likeitis greatly, is from the very site you’re reading - Susquehanna County Blog…amazing! And Patriot, you know (or you should) that your “majority” analysis of Jan.31 is bogus statistics and misleading in the extreme. I would refer you to a book called “How To Lie With Statistics”, popular in the 1950′ and 60’s. Not even sure it’s still in print these days. If it is you would learn that your 57.98% figure was the invalid result of TRIPLING one variable (the total votes received by all three successful candidates) while only DOUBLING the comparative (the total number of votes cast where each voter can cast two). That’s worse than comparing apples and oranges - it’s comparing bushels of apples with pecks of oranges! So play around with the numbers all you want…there are people out here who aren’t as easily b.s.’d as you’d like to think. And now, can we put this subject to rest and move on? Who knows what our commissioners have been up to…or haven’t…while we’ve been debating their first meetings!