I filed a Right To Know with Steve Feller for the list of names of those with outstanding parking tickets. You know, the ones that came to over $800,000 which the Mt. Lebanon Parking Authority failed to collect?
I heard from Steve today.
Dear Elaine:
Please be advised that my office with the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon (the "Municipality") received your Right to Know request (the "Request") dated May 31, 2012. The Municipality is in the process of obtaining a legal review of the Request to determine whether the records you seek are "public records" subject to access under the Right to Know Act. The Municipality expects to be able to respond to the Request on or before June 29, 2012.
Thank you
Steve
Stephen M. Feller
Municipal Manager
Personally, I think they should be public information particularly since the Municipality has made basic facts about it known to the public already. Perhaps they may be holding out to see what response they receive from the amnesty letters mailed giving scofflaws contacted from June 1 - June 20 to pay the original fines outstanding. My hope is that they don't want to release names now to allow a first response to avoid public embarrassment for those who comply. Only time will tell.
Update June 10, 2012 3:24 PM This was emailed to me and provides more information and background regarding the Parking Authority. I removed some information to protect this person's identity.
I wanted to give you some info about the parking authority, but I don’t want to personally put it on the blog. If you want to put it out there from a source feel free. Some of the things people have written are way off base and I am disappointed that they have been allowed to post them anonymously. There are so many miss truths on the last couple of blog about the MLPA I don’t know where to start.
First all of the stuff about Raja’s influence on the MLPA is crap. He had none... And Al Frioni could not have done things on his own. There were 5 members of the board. 2 were members of the Republican Committee, 2 I am not sure of party and 1 was on the Democratic committee... And at other times there were additional D’s, 1 a former commissioner and 1 a former candidate for Mt. Lebo treasurer. So for people to make this a R’s vs. D’s thing is a mistake. When you ask where the D’ were when all of this happened the answer is they were at the table. But no one seems to want to mention that on your blog.
The reason why Al, Raja and Joe were against the consolidation...into the Muni is that if you look what the MLPA paid its staff it was much less then what they are making now. The MLPA was non-union. So the maintenance people made much less then the Muni employees. The Muni would even have the MLPA do work to help save money from time to time. Also the MLPA did not have a pension plan. It had a Defined Contribution plan. That is why if you look at what the employees retirement plan was when it was shut down it is very small. They do not receive cash payments for the rest of their lives like the Muni employees. Now that they work for the Muni they will be entitled to a pension. So it actually costs the tax payers more money.
The MLPA never took tax payer money from the Muni. It operated on collection rent and fines. That is it. So no tax payer dollars were touched... The MLPA did have the Muni as a “Co-signer” on its bonds. But it never needed the Muni to step in...
As for the 800k in reserves that you somehow connected to the missing fines. That 800k came from the sale of property. So there is no connection between them.
As for Dawn Morrison’s hiring. There have been some really mean things said about her. First she did nothing wrong. She was hired as a part time employee. To a position that at one time had been eliminated but the board felt needed to comeback as the current staff was no longer able to complete all of its duties without additional staff. Her title does not reflect what she did. She was a Liaison to the store owners. Going out and talking to them and finding out what questions and concerns they had. She also interacted with the Muni so we had an open line of communication. In addition she was what I would call a floater. She filled in for other staff members when they were on vacation or out sick. After about a year it was determined that part time was not enough time to complete all that was involved so it was turned into a full time position. Now when it come to having to advertise the position, I frankly don’t recall why we were told it was not necessary to do. Just that it wasn’t. You would have to ask the solicitor about that.
Now the big question the 800k in fines. First let me tell you that I did bring up the question of fines on multiple occasions. I even asked about booting and towing... I can tell you that I was never told that there was this much in fines outstanding. If I had been, I would have done something about it. I can’t imagine the... board members knew either. The thing everyone needs to remember is that the board meets once a month. It relies on the Executive Director and the staff to run day to day operations and the Solicitor and Auditors to make sure that it has all of the needed information to make decision. How this got past the Auditors is beyond me. They had been the Auditors for several years so I would have thought that they would have noticed this kind of discrepancy. The board can’t act on information it is not given. I know it is an excuse, but it is also a fact. I also know that the Muni received a copy of the financial every month. So it got by them too. I am as interested as anyone in finding out what happened. If for no other reason but to clear the name of those...who were on the board.
60 comments:
There is another possibility, dare I suggest it.
The fines were paid but the tickets never were logged as paid?
How many people threw the cash in the envelope and dropped it one of those yellow fine boxes.
Then never gave it a second thought?
Hmmmmmm
The names of the ticket holders should be published along with the municipal employees responsible for handling the fee collections. That includes the administrators, too.
I would think the information would be/should be public for the reason you state, plus the fact that tax dollars are being expended in an attempt to collect the fines. But I also think that waiting until after June 20th. makes sense for the reason you hoped would be the case.
There are many other issues associated with the collection, one of which is the possibility of a statute of limitations of time. When knowledge of the existance of some outstanding unpaid and delinquent parking ticket fines became known prior to the Muni takeover, the Parking Authority Executive Director advised that a PA law required that uncollected or unpaid fines had to be "written off the books after two years". A former Authority employee guessed that such a figure might be as high as $30,000-$50,000 per year. I have been unable to find such a law; and, if it existed, the Authority books obviously did not reflect it because the actual $800,000 figure reportedly covers the period 1997-2011. However, does a law exist, whether two, three, ten, or twenty years on legal collectability ?
While collection efforts are underway, my personal issue on this has more to do with determining now who is responsible, how did it happen, why was it not revealed or discovered earlier, can guilt be assigned and can there be recovery from the guilty ? I'm a bit disappointed that the Commission does not seem to share my view on the need to do this.
Knowing a bit about how the Authority operated and who the operators were, I can guess as to a list of possible *who's*, some of the *how's* and most of the *why's*. Jumping the gun a bit, I would look closely at former Authority boards, particularly the Chairmen, and ask the question, are any of them potentially guilty of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence ?
I would also probe the role of the auditors. The accounting basis for enterprise fund accounting is accrual, not modified accrual or cash. In accrual accounting, revenues are recognized when earned. Earned occurs when a bill or invoice is issued. Is not a parking ticket a bill or invoice ? If so, billed or invoiced but unpaid parking ticket fines should show up in accounts receivable under current assets. Authority accounts receivable at any given point in time rarely exceeded $2,500 or so. A note in the Authority's audited financial statements states that because of the uncertainty of collection, parking ticket fines are booked as revenue when paid...which is a cash, not an accrual basis. This apparently did not represent a red flag to either the auditors or the board. When collection or payments are somewhat uncertain, but based on long experience, accounts receivable can be stated as an estimate based on experience as net receivables, allowing for nonpayments. This convention was not employed. There is, however, possibly another factor that seems to be missing in the accounting and auditing of the Authority involving a Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirement in GASB Statement 38. I'll leave this for further speculation later as the time is late and I'm likely running out of keystroke allowances.
Bill Lewis
So let me understand this, Bill. If such a law existed, wouldn't the P.A. solicitor be able to provide that information? I still maintain we should go after the solicitor for the outstanding fines. He would have malpractice insurance. Then, the Commission could pursue the who's, why's and how's.
Elaine
"That was sort of a shock to us," said Mt. Lebanon Commission President David Brumfield, a former board member of the parking authority. "Why these things (occurred) -- hasn't been our focus. After we've dealt with the fines, we may try to go back and figure out why this happened. "
After reading Mr. Lewis' comments it is imperative that- contrary to Mr. Brumfield- we do focus on the ineptitude, shoddy accounting and mismanagement so we aren't shocked once again at a later date.
After all, could the virus or at the very minimum PA mindset, have been injected into municipal operations with the transfer of PA employees into municipal positions.
Gffn Gd
The devastation from a tornado, earthquake or blizzard should be a shock to municipal manager or commission. Those things beyond our control are shocking.
Things like the management of boards, accounting don't fall in the category of uncontrollable.
Unfortunately, Mr. Numbfield's position of turning a blind eye to the operations and oversight will only perpetuate the shocks in our municipal government.
When he formulates his plan to manage the field signs, will he use the advice of the same people, same municipal managers involved in the parking authority?
When he re- writes the Joint Maintenance Agreement what benchmarks will he employ.
Perhaps- see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil?
Gffn Gd
I dont know why any of you are surprised. This kind of incompetence is endemic to our town. Look at the school board. Look at three of the current commissioners (and a few of the former ones). Look at our state "representative". Look at our US congressman. And finally, look at the voting results for the last three local elections. you're all spending your time on something that doesnt matter. Should we look at who was responsible for this? Yes, of course. Fiscal accountability is the duty and obligation of every taxpayer. But try multi-tasking and looking down the road. Instead of always looking back to blame people, how about looking forward and figuring out how to PREVENT it from happening again?
Visiting the old MLPA website: http://www.mtlparkingauthority.com/enforcement.html
It appears that unpaid metered parking fines unpaid after 30 days incur a fine of $40. It also says notices of unpaid fines are sent weekly.
Assuming the 156 unpaid tickets are as above the unnamed scoflaw is on the for over $6,000.
Wonder how weekly notices were sent to this person? 156 every week or did some authority office worker tally the fines and lump them into one notice to save postage?
156 notices a week would be $65.52/ week!
Gffn Gd
Keep in mind that money from parking tickets is considered "revenue" when the municipal budget is prepared.
So, when there's an apparent "shortfall", guess who makes it up? Yep, the taxpayers!
It's time to demand accountability. If the collection can't be handled correctly, then get rid of both it and those who failed to do their jobs.
Didn't they recently raise parking rates and fines because they NEEDED money?
If I were a wasington or Beverly business owner I'd be enraged. Bad enough having to fight the that parking is free at your competitors locations and then knowing they never collect on the fee or fine.
Yeah let's drive customers away from Lebo so somebody can park for free.
Correction - the 'perception' that parking is free at your competitors locations in malls and private lots.
So we can embarass kids for a bit of adolescent celebration however illegal, the school district can prohibit them from walking in the graduation ceremony that they worked 12 years to achieve, but no, no, no - we can't publish the names of people that ignore the communities parking laws. And not just a couple of violations- 156 for one individual. I'm betting these scofflaws are still allowed to use public parking spots.
Folks, this thread is about the $800,000 in uncollected parking tickets. It isn't about YSA, field improvements, teenage drinking, or the School District. Don't get me wrong - all important issues, but let's keep this about parking, OK?
Elaine
Also, I will be tightening up on anonymous comments, unless you have some factual information regarding the Parking Authority. I hate to do this, but it has really gotten out of hand.
Elaine
I deleted ten comments from this thread. Sorry for being so rude, but we were way off topic.
Elaine
I'll try, for a bit at least, to get back to the responsibility for...some might want to term it culpability...for the uncollected or unresolved $800,000 in parking ticket fines.
I left this string at 1:29 AM on June 8 referring to a GASB Statement No. 38 accounting requirement that the Authority may not have followed and the auditors failed to discover and reveal. This GASB statement was issued in June, 2001. The issue here is, did the Authority legitimately treat fine revenues on a cash basis (when the required accounting basis was accrual accounting) thereby enabling the Authority to hide, intentionally or unintentionally, unpaid ticket fines that had grown to $800,000 from being reflected or recorded in accounts receivable in balance sheet statements ? The auditors seemed to have thought so.
However, this is where GASB Statement No. 38 may, just may, come into play. The No. 38 provision worth noting is as follows : "Governments should provide the following additional note disclosure (in financial statements): c. Details about major components of receivable and payable balances when obscured by aggregation and identification of receivable balances not expected to be collected within one year." I don't think the financial statement note the Authority actually employed...switching from full accrual to cash accounting...that permited exclusion of the existance of the unpaid tickets met the literal intent or the spirit of this GASB requirement. And, audits had to follow CASB, GAAP and AICPA procedures and practices.
Further support for my speculation can be found in a serious review of the 2011 Municipal CAFR, available on the Muni website. I prefer the PDF version rather than the "flipbook", and here are the pages I believe to be relevant for those possibly interested - all are PDF page numbers, not document : 29, 30, 41, 42, 51-52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61 and 62. These pages describe the accounting practice of the Muni and its Component Units, under which the Authority was so classified and treated. Let me quote from just "Figure A-2, Major Features of the Municipality's Government-wide and Fund Financial Statements" for those not intending to review the CAFR : the "Scope" included "the Municipality's component units" i.e. Parking Authority, and "Accounting basis and measurement focus - Accrual accounting and economic resources focus", and for "Type of inflow/outflow information - All revenues and expenses during year, regardless of when cash is received or paid". For each and every year, year after year !
Anyone believe there just may be some identifiable responsibility here for absolute nondisclosure ?
One commentor suggested that one contributing factor to the unpaid/unresolved tcket fines may have been due to ticket fines being paid via deposits by violators in the street/lot collection boxes, and not recorded or booked as such. I would recommend here that a former employee or individual with full knowledge of what I would call the *flow chart* or entire process for ticket and fine collection & recording address this on the blog to see where/how things could have gone wrong. It's a good question well worth exploring, but outside my personal knowledge and ability.
I'm likely running out of keystroke allowance and your patience. More later, perhaps.
Bill Lewis
For everyone's convenience, here is the direct link to the 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Elaine
The question of whether there is a "statute of limitations" on parking tickets piqued my curiosity. My lawyer being away on vacation, I did a quick Internet search of the subject and found the following:
"The statute stopped running the day the person got the tickets - thus there is a statute of limitation on violation, but there is no statute of limitation on the ticket. Under the common law, the statute of limitations does not apply where the State asserts a civil action involving a public right.
There is no statute of limitations on outstanding traffic tickets in Pennsylvania - as well as in most states. As long a municipality continues to pursue collection, you are responsible. This also apply(sic) to parking tickets and toll violations."
This information appears on the web site "Just Answer - Legal." I suppose the key phrase in the lawyer's answer is "..a municipality continues to pursue collection,..". I am usually skeptical of generic Internet answers to legal problems, but this one does address the question. In a town full of lawyers surely one of our Mt. Lebanon "legal-eagles" knows the answer.
The former Parking Authority Executive Director adduced by Mr. Lewis should be required to cite chapter and verse of the PA law requiring that uncollected or unpaid fines must be "written off the books after two years."
Richard, from the Parking Authority web site:
"
How to pay a ticket:
Payments may be paid by cash or check to the Mt. Lebanon Parking Authority in a few ways. You can put your sealed envelope in one of our fine boxes (pictured at right) located near meters in both the Washington Road and Beverly Road Business Districts. You can also mail or bring your ticket payment to our office located at 788 Washington Road. Invoices on outstanding tickets are mailed weekly. You may also mail the top portion of the invoice immediately with the amount stated enclosed. Any questions regarding your ticket may be made by calling the office at 412-343-4422."
Above is where it gets sticky I would think. It says "invoices on outstanding tickets are mailed weekly." Probably in light of what we know now about the Parking Authority it should read "weakly" not "weekly" but that's another matter.
If you never received a weekly notice, could you claim you never knew you had an outstanding ticket?
Would the municipality have to prove they sent weekly notices on a five year old $10 parking ticket?
What a mess!
Gffn Gd
Thank you very much, Mr. Gideon, for your execellent comment. A citizen had also asked the question during a recent Commission meeting, and the Commission President, also an attorney, very pointedly restricted his answer to "the Solicitor is looking into the matter".
The Parking Authority has always had board members who were attorneys, and members who were also CPA's...in some cases two of one or the other professions at a single point in time. I have attended dozens of Authority board meetings over the years (was even a board member 1991-1993 and for 1-month in 2011) , and never once has an unpaid ticket question been pursued beyond the Executive Directors "2-years...off the books" answer by either attorney (including the Authority Solicitor) or CPA board members. And never once did any board member inquire as to how many dollars had reportedly been written off.
As a lay person but in the course of my limited research on an alleged 2-year statute, I did come across something the Authority's Executive Director may have been referring to in PA law -- The Vehicle Code (Title 75), Chapters 61, 63 and 65. In Chapter 63, Section 6302. Time Limitations, indicates that "prosecution for any offence under this Title (which excludes parking tickets by the way) must be commenced within the period limited by Chapter 55 of Title 42". Section 5524 of Chapter 55. Two year limitation, defines only 8 "actions" for which 2-years apply...none are for parking tickets !
Which then brings up a fair question: had the Authority Executive Director been blowin' proverbial smoke about this in order to hide what was really going on, or just what ? Perhaps the Municipal Solicitor will shortly render an opinion on limitations of time to clear things up a bit.
This $800,000 *monkey* only came to public light during the April 10, 2012 Commission discussion session under item 6. Uncollected Parking Tickets, scheduled at 7:20 PM. It would be most interesting to know who uncovered this *monkey*, how, when and under what circumstances. I'm sure glad it did happen, but wish it had been years sooner. Sorta back to the fiduciary responsibility and negligence question thing again. And the Muni has had added oversight and due diligence authority and responsibility over the Authority ever since the Feb 22, 1993 Operating and Finance Agreements were executed between the party's.
Bill Lewis
Then Mr. Lewis doesn't you account make this comment all the more strange?
""That was sort of a shock to us," said Mt. Lebanon Commission President David Brumfield, a former board member of the parking authority. "Why these things (occurred) -- hasn't been our focus. After we've dealt with the fines, we may try to go back and figure out why this happened. ""
I mean if you don't know if the fines were written off, actually collected or collected and not logged - do you claim there is $800,000 in unpaid fines?
What is the municipality hoping they hit the unpaid fine lottery?
Is this an example if how they'll run the field sign advertising? Sorry, I know off topic.
The District publishes a list of delinquent taxpayers every year. Why is the list of persons with unpaid parking tickets any different from the list of persons with unpaid taxes?
The District charges a penalty for unpaid taxes. Commissioner Brumfield and Co. think it is OK to give special treatment to delinquent parking tickets. So if I paid the extra fine for a late ticket fee the dead beat ticket payer gets off the hook for less and I end up with a tax bill for his late fee and for legal fees on on a RTK request just like I ended up paying the delinquent YSA fees in extra taxes.
BOO!!! David Brumfield. We had a better commission president last year - you need remedial instruction on how to treat the folks you represent.
John Ewing
There is no statute of limitations on outstanding traffic tickets in Pennsylvania - as well as in most states. As long a municipality continues to pursue collection, you are responsible. This also apply(sic) to parking tickets and toll violations."
Don't you just love this kind of mumbo jumbo: "as long as a municipality continues to pursue collection, you are responsible."
What does that mean? Let's say your parent that died 10 years ago had 50 parking fines in Mt. Lebanon. But the authority never sent any weekly notices ever. The estate was divided up among the heirs and closed long ago. Does the fact that the muni is now pursuing the fines mean the estate needs to be reopened? Are the heirs responsible?
I know probably a goofy example, but because the parking authority didn't do their jobs it opens a whole multitude of problems.
Say I have 50 fines, and they come after me. OK, but why should I pay and that guy's estate not. Or the guy that moved to Philly five years ago get off scott free?
Is it we'll collect because it's convenient or we'll collect because it's the law?
I don't like it, because I was a good citizen and paid my fines promptly... But in this instance I think it's - municipality you snooze, you lose!
But I do want to know who screwed this up and whether they still work in or have anything to do with running municipal operations.
From what I understand, some of the people have passed away. Others have moved. So your scenario is quite plausible.
Stay tuned to this blog. Something is in the works and should be posted in the next day or so.
Elaine
My take on this affair is the person with the 156 tickets is someone that regularly parks in the same location and regularly either parks in an illegal spot or let's the meter expire often. So who could that be?
A Beverly or Washington Road business owner?
A renter or condo resident with no or inconvenient private parking?
A municipal building employee?
Or a Lincoln, Washington or Mellon administrator or teacher?
Or a regular patron of the Saloon.
Who else would rack up that many parking tickets? The occasional diner at Little Tokyo or Bistro 19?
It's certainly someone who thinks they're above the rules or they were told to ignore the tickets.
I'm betting the meter maid was DOING THEIR JOB and probably the lowest manager/employee on the parking authority totem pole.
Something in the works... it better not be amnesty without a public outing of names.
No, nothing like that. Or there better not be. I will be posting it as a brand new post tomorrow or so. The outstanding tickets are just the tip of the iceberg.
Elaine
Just an FYI, a couple of people have a copy of it. Just putting that out there...
Elaine
"Experience is the best teacher!"
Some of you may be old enough to remember that line, used as it was in a cigarette commercial. I employ it now to my own admission of guilt with respect to some parking tickets.
In 1971 I lived in New Haven, Connecticut. In the Fall of that year I left the city for upstate New York, having acquired a wife, a daughter, two cats, and three unpaid City of New Haven parking citations. Living in a New Haven apartment with limited parking facilities made for some "cat and mouse" games with the local constabulary. When I left town I thought I left my parking ticket problems behind. I was very young, and very wrong.
Two years later an impressive letter arrived at my New York address, sent from the "solicitor" of the City of New Haven, demanding I pay my outstanding parking ticket. Note that I used the singular, because New Haven only wanted paid for one of the three I had collected. To my great relief I was offered "forgiveness" if I paid promptly, as no additional penalty would be assessed. I paid promptly. I also requested, and received, a "receipt."
All of these unpaid Mt. Lebanon parking tickets remind me of a saying by the Roman poet, Ovid: "Adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit, or "Add a little to a little and there will be a great heap."
Please read the update that I added to this post. It was emailed to me and the person wishes to remain anonymous.
Elaine
Faulty math again! We have said this before but ok, lets try one more time-
Yes some employees would be paid more by becoming town employees. This was estimated to be about $56k more annually.
The elimination of the ED and Raja’s campaign staffer was estimated to save $100k annually.
Net annually employee savings $43k!
Let’s assume Raja had “no influence” on the MLPA (a massive stretch). Well then- thanks for doing a great job over there! Sounds like they were doing a fantastic job. You must've been impressed by the EDs great work on the internet, or his close supervision of Morrison's predecessor, or his great on-time work ethic, or how he made sure the tickets were collected... that explains why such a "conservative" constantly tried to stop the consolidation despite obvious financial benefits. Excuse me if I expected better from Raja then at best, incompetent supervision and at worst, crooked cronyism. Maybe he wanted their help with another TIF?
I think you need to concentrate on the make up of the authority board who spent the most time working with Raja. Sure there were other people around but the “leadership” of the authority during that time were long time RCML members. Thanks for minding the store everyone.
That is an interesting update and this anonymous blogger never insinuated that this was a republican vs. democrat issue. Raja vs. Mr./Mrs. X.
The updated makes some good points, especially on the transfer of employees from the PA to the municipality payroll and benefits system.
That doesn't though explain the $800,000 in missing fines.
Nor does it completely explain Ms. Morrison. Her employment may be just as innocent as described. Maybe not though since the position didn't go thru the usual advertised posting. All the more reason to figure out if the PA was mismanaged, intentionally mismanaged.
The letter also does not whisk away the performance of the auditor. I mean seriously, isn't this why you run audits?
When you delve deeply into the affairs of MTL it seems odd that the same names pop up all the time. It might be pure coincidence that these are the people that seek out public service, volunteer etc and just happen to be in the right place, at the right time. Nothing more diabolical than that. On the other hand, is there more than average quid pro quo going on here?
Getting to the bottom line would certainly blow away the fog.
Seriously, on top of this issue we have about $2.5 million in field purchases that NO ONE seems to have an affordable and practical use for.
But we will keeping raising taxes, floating bonds and living with crappy fields and pool.
About the $800 thousand in unclaimed parking fines, the anonymous contributor writes, “How this got past the Auditors is beyond me. They had been the Auditors for several years so I would have thought that they would have noticed this kind of discrepancy.”
Is it not obvious? The reason the $800-thousand problem “got past the Auditors” is that they were used for several years, instead of being changed frequently.
When an auditor gives you a clean bill of health, there are only two possibilities: (1) that you truly have no problems, or (2) that your problems are hidden in the auditor’s blind spots. The only way to be sure which it is, is to change auditors. Frequently.
Any board that doesn’t change auditors as a standard practice is asking for trouble. In my book, it’s negligence.
I have to admit that I don't know who the board members and staff were, so I found the Parking Authority's old website.
MLPA Board and Staff
An agenda dated October 11, 2011, I see Bill Lewis asking how much money there was in outstanding parking tickets. October 11, 2011 Agenda
Elaine
Let's try that agenda link again.
http://www.mtlparkingauthority.com/boardmeetings/Minutes%2010.11.11.htm
Elaine
Sorry Elaine, got to go off topic for just a sec!
Your "anonymous update writer" takes a
snarky swipe at anonymous bloggers: "Some of the things people have written are way off base and I am disappointed that they have been allowed to post them anonymously."
Well this anonymous poster is disappointed that record straightening letter writer straightened the record anonymously!
One person contributing here does make sense. Tom Moertel is absolutely, positively correct when he says: "Any board that doesn’t change auditors as a standard practice is asking for trouble. In my book, it’s negligence"
Now what other board in MTL doesn't change auditors regularly?
Mr. Moertel's advice ought to be made a rule in any revisions of the Home Rule Charter-
ANY BOARD, ORGANIZATION, AUTHORITY MUST CHANGE AUDITORS ON REGULAR BASIS.
I'll leave it up to the pros - CPAs, accountants, to tell us what regular basis should be- every year, every two, three?
I knew someone was going to pick up on that. In this person's defense, he or she emailed me and signed the letter. Not quite the same as what you and others are doing. I wish more would sign their names, but in order to get to the bottom of this, I feel that this is the way to go. If more people would come forward and add another piece to the puzzle, we might get somewhere. Where else can they go?
Elaine
Granted Elaine, and assumed you had the letter writers name. So the next obvious question is----- why hide your name?
It may be part of the reason why people post anonymously?
Back to the PA.
Your letter writer mentioned: "The MLPA was non-union. So the maintenance people made much less then the Muni employees. The Muni would even have the MLPA do work to help save money from time to time."
Ah, the muni union employees sat still for this? I thought unions didn't stand for this? Odd, could the commissioners, municipal manager and parking authority pulled a fast one on the union employees? Looks like it.
"The board can't act on information it isn't given."
Very true. But poor excuse.
The board and its liaison can ask questions and demand answers.
The board and its liaison can act upon issues raised (and Lord knows they were raised by concerned citizens countless times).
The board can fire the authority director. The board can fire its solicitor. The board can fire the auditors.
The board can assure that the authority operates transparently.
The board and its liaison can remember their actions should be in the public interest 100% of the time. It is a very hard sell to say that the actions of the board, and the votes of the commissioners who opposed consolidation, were in the public interest. While I am pleased the authority no longer exists, one has to wonder if we have discovered all there is to know about its incompetency.
As I said previously, more is on its way. Hopefully, it will be posted tomorrow.
Elaine
What the _ _ _ _!
"The board can't act on information it isn't given."
OK we'll accept that one for now, but if we do accept that excuse...
if the questions were asked and everybody said: hey boss everything's just fine" which we know now they weren't heads should be rolling. First, the auditor! Do they work anywhere for the municipality now?
Then cut 'em off cause they didn't do their job.
Gee on the union-non union work does this apply?
The Allegheny institute has this on Prevailing wages:
"Issue Summary (Reviewed January 2011)
Mandated Wages: Prevailing Wages--State
The Issue:
In 1931, the federal government passed the Davis-Bacon Act which requires all contractors working on federal government projects (with a value of at least $2,000) to pay their employees the “prevailing wage” for that particular occupation. This was done to protect local laborers from cheap migrant labor. Promoters of the Act claimed it would enable American workers to spend the economy out of the Great Depression. They also claimed that those workers would be more productive which would, over time, drive down the cost of government construction projects.
Prevailing wages are set at or near the union-scale level. Under Davis-Bacon, contractors using non-union employees must pay them union level wages, raising the cost of a project. The Congressional Budget Office claims that if this wage mandate were lifted, it could save taxpayers about $1 billion per year. However, this problem is not relegated to the federal government—31 states have enacted state-level prevailing wage laws, including Pennsylvania.
It has been estimated that prevailing wage laws add about 10 to 15 percent to the cost of a construction project. The elimination of this requirement could amount to substantial savings not only for the state (which spends more than $2 billion per year on construction projects) but for counties, municipalities, and school districts (which spend more than a half a billion dollars on projects subject to the prevailing wage). A savings of 10 percent would result in substantial relief for taxpayers.
What We Know:
Prevailing wage laws not only dictate the wage rate for each craft classification, it also mandates an hourly price for “fringe” benefits. Fringe benefits for union workers are programs that are paid from trusts that have been built from dues payments and are not subject to payroll taxation. However, for the non-union firm the absence of such programs means that fringes must be paid directly to the employee as a supplement to the hourly wage and thus subject to payroll taxes. Therefore not only are non-union firms required to meet the wage being paid by union firms, but must exceed them through fringe payments and then must pay more in payroll taxes than their union counterparts. This is enough keep non-union contractors from even bidding on government contracts— giving union contractors a monopoly on government projects."
If interested in viewing the old Parking Authority website which has minutes from 2007 to its final meeting in 2011, go to
http://www.mtlparkingauthority.com/boardmeetings.html or Meeting Minutes
Since this is the back door to the old website, it might be a good idea to save all those meeting minutes before they disappear too.
Elaine
According to the Parking Study done in Jan 2011, parking fines went down from 2009 to 2010. Here is the link to the Parking Study. http://www.mtlparkingauthority.com/Mt._Lebanon_Final_Report_-_small.pdf or Parking Study
Elaine
Those fines were listed on page 43 of the parking study.
Elaine
"Any board that doesn’t change auditors as a standard practice is asking for trouble. In my book, it’s negligence." - Tom Moertel
I posted that sentiment several posts ago, but who knows where it is now. In any case, with any audit the first year set up is intense, but after that it should work like clockwork so there is no reason to engage the same auditors year after year!
-Charlotte Stephenson
The Update June 10, 2012 3:24 PM bunkum submitted by a person requesting *anonymous* billing but criticizing anonymous comments was in fact obviously submitted, even though sanitized a bit, by a former board member and Chairman of the Parking Authority, fired by the Commissioners in 2011. This indidual pleads mea culpa of having any knowledge of or doings about anything wrong in the Authority. His profession is finance, and he acts as a business consultant....yet he sounds a bit off when he says he couldn't get answers to any questions about fines and believes a defined contribution retirement plan is not a pension plan, and that the plan had very little money in it (the MLPA contributed 7.5% of an employees salary/year as a benefit, and the employee could donate likewise from his/her salaty...Authority wages & salaries averaged about $450,000/year....many employees had 20, 25, 30, 35 years of service....do the math) ? And he claims the MLPA never took money from the Muni...lets go back and just start with the 1993 Finance Agreement where the Muni gave the MLPA $500,000 in taxpayer cash towards the construction of the Norh Garage as a hidden "to help them" taxpayer subsidy, plus an average of $84,000/year for 3 following years as an outright gift of hidden taxpayer money, plus a $250,000 line of credit for any further loans on top of guaranteeing the $7.7 million bond issue to finance the N. Garage and refinance the $3.6 million 1988 bond issue, of which $2.0 million had been squandered by 1993. How about the Muni giving the Authority all of the Muni Police non-meter parking ticket fine revenue as a subsidy gift (i.e. $85,000/year) ? I could go on and cite much more, but why bother.
A root cause of the problem with the Authority is clearly revealed when *anonymous* claims no-fault because the board job was a meeting once a month (usually 1-2 hours, 10-11 months/year) and he and others relied solely on the Ex. Director, Solicitor and auditors to tell them everything they needed to know and handle all administrative matters...Oh boy, did he trip over his underware on that one !
I think a couple of the board members were more concerned about the free meal menu than the actual meeting agenda itself. And then there was an issue about board attendence (truancy) from time to time.
More coming folks....
Bill Lewis
One other thing from Mr. Anonymous financial expert...he says the $800,000 in Authority "reserves" erroneously referred to as the missing parking fines was from the sale of Authority properties....lets see, (a) the sale of the property to Zamagias for the failed condo project yieled $520,000 for the Authority, and (b) the sale of the North Lot to Kratsas for the now stalled hotel project provided $450,000....(a) plus (b) = $970,000....what happened to the $170,000 difference ?
And what ever became of the $250,000 or more from the sale of the Authority property at Washinton Rd./Shady Dr. E for the Public Safety Center ? And why did it take 17 years for the Authority to pay off a large 10-year interest free loan from the Muni, and the Muni let the Authority get away with it unchallenged ?
Bill Lewis
Gee, I wonder if the above had anything to do with the Authority not actually imposing, even though approved, parking meter, permit and fine rates over a 7-year period ? You don't think it was done for political and/or business district influence reasons do you ? Or was it just laziness on the part of the Exec. Director ?
Come on you anonymous demanders for answers, get off your duffs, seek and make public under your real names the facts and truths !
Why did the Authority discontinue booting and towing of ticket scofflaws for uncollected fines several years ago even though permitted by law ? Who was behind and permitted that ?
Bill Lewis
Who wrote "Also the MLPA did not have a pension plan. It had a Defined Contribution plan."?
You can find the MLPA here:
http://www.pmrs.state.pa.us/pensions/memplans.html#allegheny
The Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System (PMRS) http://www.pmrs.state.pa.us/
is clearly a Defined Benefit, NOT Defined Benefit, plan:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/1038662/final_2010_status_report_-_color_version_for_internet_pdf
Why do readers of the blog continue to accept posted hogwash as fact?
Sam Adams
Sam Adams: I thought Bill Lewis confirmed that the PA did not have a Defined Benefit plan but instead had a Defined Contribution plan?
Believe the "..is clearly a Defined Benefit..." should have been *is clearly a Defined Contribution*, Sam.
Bill Lewis
The bottom line is that ML should be run like a BUSINESS, for the protection of both the municipality and the taxpayers.
I don't know exactly what happened with these apparent lapses in collections and lease renewals, but I do know it's not fair to ask the taxpayers to pay for employees who are not doing their work (this applies to all levels). It's also not fair to raise millage rates to make up for uncollected revenues.
I agree with Charlotte that changing auditors every few (and I mean few) is an absolute must.
Carole Brown
maybe some salaries should be cut and some pensions should be revoked for municipal mismanagement
batman
or maybe raja and joe d. can return some of the thousands of dollars they made as commissioners to offset the idiocy of their lack of supervision and accountability
Just for clarification, whoever posted that last comment as Sam Adams is NOT the real one. Time for you to do away with anonymous posts, Elaine.
Mr. James Allen of PMRS says, "The Mount Lebanon Parking Authority Pension Plan administered by the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System is a 'Non-uniformed Cash Balance Plan.' The plan had been referred to as a Defined Contribution plan up until about three years ago. At that time PMRS began work on obtaining IRS certification as a 'tax qualified' pension plan. That process lead us to more appropriately characterizing the plan as a 'cash balance plan.'"
Of course, a 'cash balance plan' is a form of Defined Benefit plan, NOT Defined Contribution plan. It's not Defined Contribution anymore. Who got the plan changed?
The second Sam Adams is correct. -Anon
By definition, a cash balance pension plan is a hybrid between defined benefit & defined contribution pension plans. It has features of both. Leave it at that.
Bill Lewis
Wow - they even heard about us in Seattle, Washington!
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/parking/docs/ParkingStoriesMay25June12012.docx
Elaine
Post a Comment