On a sleepy Friday morning at a county seat nestled in Pennsylvania’s Endless Mountains two commissioners, their chief clerk, and the county’s treasurer met for two minutes of special meetings. The meetings accomplished the exact goals for which they were held - with minimal public attention. The county seat’s local paper, a competitor of this paper, reported in its next edition a straight-forward nondescript account: commissioners acted to accept Michael Gathany’s resignation from the county solicitor position; commissioners acted on January 6 to appoint attorney Thomas Meagher; and starting pay for the position had been increased to $25,000 with no benefits.

That initial report, consisting of less than 90 words, likely raised few eyebrows among the general public. It appeared nothing more than another “ho-hum story” that only those in the legal community or those involved in the intricacies of government might take note of for future reference. Just another “inside-baseball” story to dutifully report - to fill out the paper - may have been the reaction of most readers scanning for “real” news.

A paradigm shift occurred at the County Commissioners’ Meeting of January 11. Minutes of meetings that had occurred on January 6 were attached to the Agendas for the January 11 Commissioners’ Meeting and Salary Board Meeting. They vastly expanded knowledge of what had taken place - both by what they stated and what they left unstated. Those minutes very clearly showed that two Special Meetings were held: one for the Commissioners and one for the Salary Board. Alarm bells sounded ever more loudly when the motion to approve the minutes of the January 6 Commissioners’ Meeting failed. The motion had to be withdrawn due to Commissioner Giangrieco’s abstention (as he had absented himself from the meeting) from voting; and Commissioner Warren, who had been present then, was absent now, and therefore unable to supply the key “aye.”

The exact goal of the Special Commissioners’ Meeting of January 6 had been to “accept, with regret” the resignation of Michael Gathany as County Solicitor effective January 4, and to appoint Thomas F. Meagher County Solicitor effective on January 6. The Salary Board’s exact goal was to raise the pay of the solicitor position. The minutes of the January 6 Special Salary Board Meeting were approved at the January 11 Salary Board Meeting only because Treasurer Cathy Benedict was present to provide the necessary margin for quorum and passage. The Salary Board’s exact goal was to raise the pay of the part-time county solicitor to $25,000, without benefits.

At the January 25 Commissioners’ Meeting, this reporter posed a few questions to Commissioner Giangrieco and to the Board of Commissioners. What follows is a transcript of that exchange:

Reporter - (To Commissioner Giangrieco): “Did you support the hiring of the new solicitor?”

Giangrieco: “I had nothing to do with it. I stayed out of it.”

Reporter: “Do you support that hiring now? Do you have an opinion now?”

Giangrieco: “No, not really.”

Reporter: “One question for the board then: what was the pressing business that required hiring on that Friday?”

Warren: “We had gotten his resignation on the fourth.”

Reporter: “But it’s a part-time position. What was so pressing that you needed to call a special meeting, rather than wait for the following week?”

Warren: “There was paperwork to be looked at; contracts to be reviewed; we need to continue the business of the county.”

Reporter: “Including over the weekend?”

Warren: “Things that we gave him to take with him.”

Reporter: “Okay? …”

A minute later, I picked up questioning about the solicitor’s change in pay during the period of the Salary Board meeting. The following exchange occurred:

Reporter: “I just have one question for the salary board. What was the previous starting pay for the part-time county solicitor before it was raised to 25,000 (dollars)?”

Chief Clerk Beamer: “I’d have to go look. I don’t know off the top of my head.”

Hall: “It was 27 something dollars.”

Beamer: “Yeah.”

Hall: “Right.”

Reporter: “So that’s more money.”

Hall: “Right.”

Reporter: “So actually it was lowered.”

Hall: “It was lower, but included benefits, so actually it was higher.”

Reporter: “No, what I’m saying is ‘you lowered them‘.”

Hall: “We lowered them.”

The exchanges during the Commissioners’ Meeting and Salary Board Meeting raised unanticipated questions. The matter about pay is a bit confusing, but resolvable. Starting pay for County Solicitor was evidently lower than $25,000 before January 6. Starting pay as of January 6 is $25,000. The previous solicitor, Michael Gathany, had been on the job as solicitor for nearly four years, and as such his pay was substantially higher than the starting rate of pay before or after January 6. Attorney Gathany’s ending rate of pay was $27,475.25 per annum, plus his benefit package. How much that benefit package was worth is still an open question awaiting answer of a Right-to-Know request by this reporter. Elimination of those benefits unquestionably provided cost savings to county taxpayers.

The arguably propitious resignation of the Attorney Gathany set in motion the Special Meetings of January 6 which led to the county’s windfall savings of $2,475.25, plus the annual expense for benefits. Curiously, the county never calculated these cost savings, nor did any of the commissioners trumpet the “favor” done for the county’s taxpayers. How unusual. Attorney Gathany was contacted by this reporter for comment regarding his resignation as the county’s solicitor. While he appreciated this courtesy, his response came in these words, “I think it best I have no comment.”

The “non-comment” of Attorney Gathany, combined with the “odd” responses of Commissioners Giangrieco and Warren to questions only spur more questions. Many more questions! Questions that put curious minds on a tireless quest for answers to those questions. With pay questions resolved, the questions remaining concern timing, motive, and concentration of power. How these questions are resolved say as much about those who govern as they say about us whom they govern.

Readers still with me at this point will want to put on their thinking caps. They will be provided with questions for thought and can come to their own conclusions. Critical thinking will be required - in large doses - to consider carefully what is presented, and what, if anything, should be done. Herewith, this article continues with the Socratic Method.

Attorney Ray Davis was fired in January 2008 when the Democrats took over the Courthouse; is it possible that Attorney Michael Gathany’s “resignation” was compelled by the Republicans, rather than voluntary? Is it possible his fate was already sealed prior to January 3? If his resignation was “contrived” by the new board of commissioners, is it possible they had already decided his replacement prior to their formal takeover on January 3? If his replacement had already been picked prior to his resignation, did it violate Sunshine Laws? Were any other attorneys in the county considered for the position of county solicitor? If so, who? If not, why not?

The Special Meetings of January 6 were advertised not in any of the three weekly papers printed in this county, nor in either of the weeklies published in adjoining Wyoming or Bradford County, nor in The Binghamton Press and Sun-Bulletin, but exclusively in the Scranton Times-Tribune edition of Wednesday, January 4. Does it matter that the county met the letter of the law, but practically precluded the possibility of transparent notification and public attendance at the meetings? Does it matter that Special Meetings must be advertised at least 24 hours in advance, and the paper in which the meeting was advertised had the most advantageous deadline to get the legal ad(s) published in as short a time as possible? Does it matter that the County held a Special Meeting to install a new County Solicitor, rather than going through the normal process of regularly-scheduled meetings?

To advertise legal notice in the January 4 edition of the Scranton Times-Tribune requires submission of said notice by 3 p.m. on the day prior. It serves as a prima fascia clue commissioners knew on or before January 3 Attorney Gathany was resigning. Did Attorney Gathany “suddenly” find reason to resign on the third of January, or was he compelled/told/“asked” to resign on that day, effective January 4? If Attorney Gathany did submit his resignation of his own free will on January 3, did commissioners undertake or consider undertaking a search for the most qualified attorney for the position? If so, for how many nanoseconds did they consider making such a search? And how many law firms did they canvass in those nanoseconds?

Had commissioners already decided to hire Attorney Meagher before they advertised the Special Meetings of January 6? What distinction particularly qualified Attorney Meagher to be County Solicitor, being that, to my knowledge, he has not previously served as borough or township solicitor for any jurisdiction in Susquehanna County? Was the fact that Attorney Meagher was, and is, an associate of Commissioner Giangrieco, at the same law firm a compelling reason for his hiring as County Solicitor? Is that relationship a conflict of interest, or does it just look really, really bad? Did it ever occur to Commissioner Giangrieco that it may be difficult to get a legal opinion independent of his own from a subordinate at his own law firm? Did Commissioner Giangrieco ever voice the passing thought that it would be a good idea for the County to look for a new solicitor outside of his own law firm? Did it occur to Commissioners Hall or Warren that by engaging Attorney Meagher as county solicitor, they were essentially concentrating more power in the hands of Commissioner Giangrieco and in so doing were undermining their own power and position?

Asked if he supported Attorney Meagher’s appointment, Commissioner Giangrieco could not answer “yes” or “no.” Did he really have absolutely no opinion of a man he has worked with for some number of years? Or was Commissioner Giangrieco protecting himself only in a legal sense since, in fact, he does have a direct or indirect interest in Attorney Meagher’s appointment as solicitor? Did he purposely absent himself from the Special Meetings of January 6 in hopes of having deniability and to shield himself from any allegation of conflict of interest?

Commissioner Warren volunteered her high regard and confidence for Attorney Meagher at the Democratic Breakfast at the Montrose VFW on January 28, and in so doing she cited his background as a Harvard graduate. Attorney Meagher’s scholastic achievement is certainly of considerable estimation, but was that the factor which outweighed consideration to the exclusion of all other candidates, or was there a quid pro quo which locked in her support for his selection? Did her answer on why the County Solicitor position had to be filled before the weekend convince you? Do you think those contracts and papers would have expired by waiting until the following week? Seriously?

Newly-installed Chairman of the Commissioners Alan Hall presided over the Special Meetings of January 6. Did he seriously consider the appointment of Attorney Meagher, or did he merely consider a favor to his Vice-Chairman Giangrieco in a division of the plunder of government? In so doing, did he show himself to be a patsy for Giangrieco and Warren, or did he merely show a tin-ear to the appearances of conflict of interest and favoritism?

Have the questions raised in this article led you, dear reader, to any conclusions? Is it time you got involved in holding officeholders in county government, and government at all levels, accountable for their actions? Many loose ends hang from Solicitor-gate. Pulling those ends could cause an unraveling - or transparency reforms. The truth matters, perhaps more than you used to think. Twice-monthly meetings are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room of the Courthouse at 9 a.m. If you feel the need to hold government accountable, do so. If not, you’ll get the government “they” give you. If you can’t attend meetings, the Courthouse phone number is 278-4600; ask for Commissioners Hall, Giangrieco, or Warren to voice your thoughts, concerns, opinions, or views on government.

There appears to be continued reasons for the need of dairy farmers to receive a price for their raw milk based on the cost of producing milk.

Ever since the Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act was developed and introduced in the US Senate by Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA) and former Senator Arlen Specter in 2007, and subsequent years, some people have down-played the need of dairy farmers having a cost of production formula.

Certainly, the spiraling cost of feed should be reason enough to warrant a cost of production formula.

Some people say every farmers' costs are different, therefore a cost of production formula cannot be achieved. Let's look at that argument. Let's recognize that the value of milk used for manufacturing dairy products is the same in all Federal Milk Marketing Orders. No one seems to complain about that. However, the cost of production on our dairy farms varies under the present system. So what's wrong with a cost of production formula?

S-1640 establishes a price for milk used for manufacturing purposes based on the National Average Cost of Production. The difference between the pricing formula used in S-1640 and the present pricing system is simple. S-1640 gives the average dairy farmer a chance to survive, and when you add the Class I differentials to the manufactured milk price, than the average dairy farmer has a chance to make a profit.

As most people know here in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (PMMB) establish minimum prices into the store and also the minimum retail price. My understanding is the PMMB's formula covers the value of raw milk and the bottlers' costs. Also I understand there is a value added to the minimum price to cover the costs experienced by the bottler and the retailer. (This is done by existing statute.)

Somewhere along the way our legislators in Pennsylvania felt it was prudent to maintain bottlers of milk and having stable retail outlets. We agree whole-heartedly with this philosophy. However, the price of raw milk is a National situation. Therefore a National pricing formula is needed.

Some people say no other industry covers their cost, so why should dairy farmers have a formula to cover their costs? Think about this: when you purchase a food product in a store or any dry goods, the majority of these items have a bar code on them indicating the selling price. Do you know at what point the bar code is placed on the item? My understanding is that the bar code is placed on the item during packaging or before the item is distributed to the local stores. And this is probably all right. However, the bar code price is high enough to cover that packaging and distributing cost plus a price that allows your local stores to cover their cost, plus a profit. Again, nothing wrong here.

Your local store owners do have the privilege of changing the bar code price. This could be done on certain items for different reasons. It all makes sense.

I just explained this to one of our dairy activists, Donna Hall, from Muncy, PA. Donna said, so let's place a bar code on our milk! Donna is right. Our bar code is S-1640!

Let's all realize that we are missing a great opportunity if we don't get behind S-1640.

Remember, some people say S-1640 would command a big price increase to consumers. I just worked with officials in the PMMB. If we eliminate the complete so-called premiums on fluid milk in Pennsylvania, (wouldn't this make the dairy co-ops praise us?), and return to just using the Class I price (for fluid milk), which is contained in S-1640 at $25.25 per hundred weight and using the PMMB's formula, the price of one gallon of milk in Northeastern Pennsylvania would be $3.81 a gallon. (This again is the minimum price.)

Recently the gallon price did reach in the vicinity of $4.00 per gallon. The best part is all of the dairy farmers would benefit under S-1640. So let's get it passed.

Pro-Ag can be reached at 570-833-5776.

Sincerely,

Arden Tewksbury

Manager, Pro-Ag

In 1992 PA U.S. Senator Robert Casey, Senior was denied his freedom of speech and religion to talk about pro-life issues at the Democratic National Convention!

Now, we have his son - Robert Casey, Jr., a Catholic also - given a chance to speak at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. We pro-life people hope and pray that Senator Casey, Jr. will speak up and respect his faith in God to denounce President Obama’s attack on religion and life.

The Obama Administration has announced that abortion drugs and items must be provided to all employees free of charge to all religions organizations in the year 2013. That means hospitals, colleges, social services, etc. have to provide baby killing drugs and devices.

Last Sunday over 120 U.S. Bishops read from their pulpit how brazen and terrible this new Obama law would be. A Bishop’s letter got a standing ovation from the people attending mass in another state. Finally the Bishops are speaking out about how bad abortion is. Our own Bishop, Joseph Bambera, of Scranton, wrote a letter to encourage people to contact our senators and representatives to tell the Obama people, “We won’t let you shut down our beliefs!”

You probably know that when Barack Obama was an Illinois State Senator he opposed, three times, the law that if a baby survived an abortion and was struggling for life, Senator Obama said he would let the baby die and not try to save the baby’s life. Of the 100 Senators in the state of Illinois, 99 voted to save the baby - Senator Obama was the only Senator to vote against saving the baby!

We have to speak up to respect life! Senator Robert Casey, Jr. now is your chance.

Sincerely,

Bruce Moorhead

Susquehanna, PA

It cuts through the Hindu Kush Mountain Range like the chop of an ax creating the oldest and most famous pass on Earth - the Khyber Pass. It is the main corridor connecting Pakistan with the landlocked nation of Afghanistan.

Through the ages the Pass has become steeped in romance and soaked in blood. It is said that every stone in the Khyber marks the grave of a would-be conqueror. Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, and Genghis Khan, left their footprints in and then out of the Pass.

In recent times, it was the Soviets who marched through the Pass into Afghanistan in 1979. They left by the same route nine years later in defeat. The U.S. took its turn in the Khyber in 2001 to target Afghanistan. Now it confronts its historically unique venerability as Pakistan has sealed the Pass.

Getting to the Khyber is no easy task. It is a 5,000-mile sail across the Atlantic Ocean, through the Strait of Gibraltar to cross the Mediterranean Sea. Then through the Suez Canal, into the Red Sea, then into the Arabian Sea to reach the port of Karachi in southern Pakistan.

From the port it is an 800-mile trek northward to Peshawar, an area of Pakistan where national control gives way to tribal warlords. Here only the vestiges of what is commonly thought of as civilization are known.

Most striking are the roadside bazaars stocked with assortments of AK-47s, RPGs, machine guns, rapid-fire shotguns, ammunition, and hand grenades. And if you have the cash, a Stinger missile.

At Peshawar the traveler turns east and sees two pylons, one on either side of the road, marking the entrance to the famed Pass and entrance into Afghanistan.

The Pass is a 33-mile stretch of a one-way road that twists and turns relentlessly slowing traffic to a crawl. But now there is no traffic, no trucks carrying supplies to foreign troops. It is empty and silent. The government of Pakistan closed the Pass three months ago choking off one-third of the supplies needed by 100,000 U.S. and 20,000 NATO soldiers.

The icing of U.S. and Pakistani relation stems from a botched air strike on November 26 that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Rather than offer an apology and a conciliatory explanation, the U.S. chose to defend its action as one taken in self-defense, an explanation that rung hollow with Pakistani officials.

They responded by closing the Pass and there is no sign when, or even if, they will open it. Trucks are now backed up from the entrance to the Pass all the way south to port of Karachi. More than 5,000 vehicles loaded with much need food and fuel are stranded and left abandoned.

The vehicle-packed Karachi road has become a shooting gallery for the Taliban, a loose organization that objects to foreigners in their land.

This leaves the U.S. with only the northern route of passage through Uzbekistan on Pakistan's northern boarder. The re-routing of supplies is six times more expensive costing $100 million a month, but the U.S. has no alternative.

In addition, there is the cost of foreign aid (read bribes) to Uzbekistan. The annual $30 million has been upped to over $40 million and this doesn't include the extra millions that Uzbekistan demands for increased access to its land.

Two-thirds of NATO supplies pass through Uzbekistan. The remaining third is flown in.

Depending on the kindness of strangers.

Uzbekistan was formerly a member of the Soviet Union but is now independent. However, it has chosen ties with both the Russian Federation and the West. Doubtless, in her pivotal role she will play her cards well.

Russia also realizes the precarious position of the U.S. and will exercise her influence to use Uzbekistan as a lever to achieve her goals.

And the U.S.? She is committed it stay until 2014. It's a gamble that the situation will at least not get worse.

But it is a peculiar gamble. Of the three nations, only the United States has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Afghanistan, the graveyard of conquerors.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA