When this reporter arrived at the October 27th meeting of the Mountain View school board, the boardroom was empty. The meeting was moved across the street to the high school auditorium, to accommodate a larger than normal crowd. Members of the crowd lined up outside the door to the school, some carrying picketing signs. When everyone finally filed into the auditorium and the meeting began, the board acknowledged why most of them were there, requesting that those present to discuss the fact finding please wait until after they conducted other board business. Mrs. Voigt noted that those who had signs could not display them during the meeting.

While Ms. Ross couldn’t be at the meeting to discuss the business curriculum as planned, Mrs. Voigt announced, she had left a statement, which Mrs. Voigt passed on to those present. This statement spoke to the value of the curriculum (which the board approved later on that evening) and identified courses in it- including entrepreneurship and small business management.

During the first hearing of visitors, a woman, who self-identified as a parent and a representative of other parents, asked how much the district had paid in regards to Mr. Shea’s lawsuit. Mr. Patchcoski replied that it would be difficult to give this number, as the district’s legal bill was not itemized in such a way that made it possible to easily differentiate particular charges. To date, it was related, the district had spend $11,000 in legal fees overall, but it would not be possible to determine what of that was for Mrs. Shea without going back and picking the bill apart.

The parent then read a statement aloud, saying that she and other parents were concerned about the legal situation with the former superintendant, and felt that Mrs. Shea had been wrongfully terminated. She read an item on that night’s agenda, which said that although the board felt they had properly terminated Mrs. Shea, in order to ensure that no court order would result in her automatic reinstatement they moved to issue a notice of nonrenewal to her. Mr. Stoddard responded to this by explaining the motion, saying that under state law if they didn’t issue a statement to this effect a staff member would be reinstated automatically.

When the parent tried to push the matter further, she was requested to sit down as it was in litigation and the board could not talk about it. Attorney Gaughan confirmed that this was his legal advice to the board.

The business portion of the meeting proceeded much as it normally would. The wood fuel bid was awarded to RGM, the same company who had done it for nine years. Mr. Taylor said the company did a good job, and gave the district premium chips. Mike Daniels Construction received the snow removal bid, the same company who had received it the last two years. Mirabito was awarded the fuel oil bid, with Ms. Stine opining that this company had been good to the district and she thought they should stick with it. Mr. Taylor suggested considering going with the fluctuating price option. The board agreed against this, with Mr. Barhite suggesting that the district go with the firm price since “this isn’t a slot machine”.

Various other items were approved that evening. When they came to the point of approving the notice of nonrenewal of the former superintendant’s contract, the visitor asked for a roll call vote. This occurred; all board members present voted affirmatively on the motion.

A field trip for the baseball and softball teams to attend spring training at the Cal Ripken Experience in Myrtle Beach was voted upon. Six members voted for it, and three against it. Mr. Griffis stood up and asked what the three no votes were for. He stated that they did fundraising throughout the year for this trip. Mrs. Aherne explained that she thought it was a good experience, but didn’t think they needed to go every year. Mrs. Stine said that she was concerned about the sub cost, and about the students missing four days of the year. Mr. Griffis told the board that it wasn’t a vacation. He said the experience was hard work, and that he and the other chaperones made sure that the schoolwork got done. Mrs. Stine suggested he could come back from the next trip and report on it with pictures to the board, so that they better understood what occurred. Mr. Stoddard, the final no vote, said that he had good reasons for voting against it, nothing personal, but he didn’t think he had to explain them.

A motion was made to eliminate the graduation project as it existed, beginning with the graduating class of 2017. A visitor asked what this meant. Mrs. Voigt explained that the state had eliminated the need for the graduation project as it currently was. The staff still saw a benefit in a project, and planned to meet to revise the project.

It was reported that the SGA was working on Feed a Friend. Mountain View had won the can sculpture contest the last two years. The students had been invited to do a Feed a Friend show on WNEP with Ryan Leckey.

Mrs. Voigt noted that they were working with the Community Foundation to get money to restore the artist in residence program and to start Project Lead the Way. Also, the Ag Lab was scheduled to come in December; an author was scheduled to come to the district November fourth.

Finally they reached the point of discussing results of the Fact Finding Report. It was said that the report and the district rebuttal were available both on the web and in hard copy from the business office.

Jamie Janesky came to the microphone to speak. She had a question on the mapping process, and asked if it could be brought up on the screen; the board complied with this request. The document on the screen showed the proposed column step tracking. Ms. Janesky said that she would be in step eight had there not been freezes over the last few years. Currently she was therefore on step five. Her concern was that she had been at the district eight years, and if the proposed mapping went into effect someone there only four years would be making the same money as she would be. Some colleagues, she suggested, would go back so far in step that they’d owe money. Mr. Stoddard disagreed with this assertion. Ms. Janesky said that unless you knew the system, it was confusing. She asked where her four years went. She understood that they were trying to even things out, but asked how it evened things out to have years taken away. She said she put a lot of time into those years and wanted them acknowledged. She thought four year staff were awesome, but she had put four more years in.

Mr. Stoddard mentioned those who had sat on the top step for fifteen years. Ms. Janesky responded that if the district kept adding years on with contracts, she would never reach the top step, and that to continue to add steps would take away from earning potential.

She and Mr. Stoddard continued to discuss this, with he asking her how this was “moving money down”, and she maintaining that to add steps did so. She asked how the board would feel if their bosses said that with the raises they were getting the new guy would make the same amount of money as they did.

Mr. Richmond asked if it was true that someone with eight years was being paid the same amount as someone with four years experience. The staff said that it was true. Mr. Stoddard said it was not. He kept talking about steps, while Mr. Richmond kept asking about years. Mr. Stoddard stated that years of service were not reflected, that the mapping went by steps. He said if someone had been there eight years, they should currently be on step eight. However, Ms. Janesky reiterated that there had been a step freeze, and she was on step five. She repeated her assertion that board members wouldn’t accept being paid the same as the new guy. Mr. Stoddard rebutted that his company had been bought multiple times, and he knew changing schedules.

He pointed out that the staff would be receiving a 4% raise. Ms. Janesky said that the raise was based on the lower step, and that she was losing money. The raise, she asserted, was not based on the salary she had now.

Rebecca Ihlefeldt joined Ms. Janesky, introducing herself as a member of the Math Department. She said she was a step nine who would be going back to a step six under the new system. She also spoke about the fact that the 4% was based not on what they were currently making, but on the new amount- a lesser amount. Mr. Stoddard tried to explain this. She reiterated that the raise was 4% of less than their current salary, suggesting that they were trying to make the public think the staff was getting a 4% raise and this was not true.

Ms. Janesky said that if they both lost money and had to take the 11% health insurance premium increase proposed under the contract offer, she wouldn’t be able to afford to work there anymore. Mr. Stoddard continued to assert that they were not losing money under the system with the raise. Ms. Janesky argued that yes, they were to receive a payment of the gap money, but it was a one time thing. Mr. Stoddard didn’t understand how they could lose money if they received a raise every year. Ms. Janesky opined that unless they looked at every case the proposal was a ridiculous idea. Some made out under it, others did not.

Mr. Casselbury asked to confirm that Ms. Janesky was technically losing six steps, as she should be a step eight and she was going back to a step two. She confirmed that this was true. Mr. Stoddard said that they were not mapping based on years, but on money and the difference between the two schedules.

A visitor asked if other board members were involved in making the schedule, because some of the board members didn’t appear to understand it. Mr. Stoddad said it was made by consensus, and that it had been started three years ago.

Someone wondered why the educators weren’t getting paid right. He said that when staff were not paid right at other districts they had a strike, which was the last thing they wanted. An educator called out from the audience that this was the last thing they wanted as well.

Mr. Stoddard related that under the old contract some people had gotten huge percentage raises, while others, particularly those at the top tiers, had not. Mr. Griffis stood and said that he was one of the people who had gotten a 30% raise. He had also gotten two masters during this period. He said he would still trade with the person at the top tier, as they were making more money. He said that they tried to get to that top location.

Mr. Twining thought that what they were saying was that they didn’t think the board appreciated what they were doing. He said that he did. He said he didn’t feel good about losing years, but that he also didn’t feel good about one person getting a 5% raise and another a 20% raise.

Ms. Janesky spoke about the proposal staff had submitted to the board. She said that it was not the broken uneven system that was alluded to; she felt it was fair.

Mr. Twining spoke also about the health insurance, saying that most people in the community paid $500 to $800 a month for benefits. Ms. Janesky suggested that they needed to compare like with like however, saying that, compared to educators in the area they already had one of the highest contributions in the IU, and this increase would bring that to about double.

Mr. Stoddard said that they had offered (like) $20 a month. He wished he could do it. Ms. Janesky rebutted that they had expenses like continuing education requirements, and maintained that they were comparing different industries. He said they worked 52 weeks a year. She said that they worked 10 hours a day. He said they were comparing it to the real world. She said it was the real world. He said that it was not. She replied that she was taken aback that he didn’t think it was the real world; it was how they supported their kids.

Ms. Ihlefeldt spoke again, noting that 4% of $30,000 and 4% of $60,000 were different numbers. The details were discussed further. Mr. Stoddard concurred that the 4% raise was not on their current salary.

A visitor asked how much had been spent on negotiation. Mr. Patchcoski quoted the rates of the lawyer, who was also the negotiator. Mr. Griffis asserted that what the staff asked for was the average, not the highest and not the lowest. He also said that they didn’t need an attorney to be the negotiator.

A visiting parent spoke up, and said that she wanted to give perspective from a parents’ eyes. She said both her kids had gone through Ms. Janesky, and she spoke highly of her. She opined that top tier wouldn’t be enough for such educators, and she wanted to applaud them.

Joe Cerra, a senior at the school, asked if the board was concerned educators might leave. Mr. Richmond said he was concerned. Mr. Stoddard said he wasn’t concerned, that it was their choice if they weren’t happy and felt they had to make an occupational decision.

Ms. Stine said she wanted the contract settled, and settled right. Dr. Plonski-Sezer said that as an educator she understood the work they put in and wanted it settled in a fair way.

Mr. Stoddard said that half the people on the board were not on it when the schedule was made. Ms. Stine said that the salary schedule had been presented to the board.

Ashley Kilmer spoke up, saying that she had been to multiple school board meetings over the last three to four months, and she felt there was a broken gap between the administration and staff. She felt this was a distraction from the education. She asked if the board would consider reassigning the negotiation committee.

Deanna Stoddard stood up, asking a question to the board members who didn’t understand what her dad had supposedly made. She asked if they had comparable solutions. Mr. Barhite said he commended Mr. Stoddard’s work, but he had thought the staff was making out under it. He wished the staff had brought their concerns to negotiation however. He felt both sides were wrong in that. He was embarrassed, he said. He had seen the schedule but had really thought it was better for the staff. He said sometimes this kind of thing had to happen, and he hoped they were moving forward. Mr. Twining had also thought the suggested schedule change was fair and equitable across the board. Mr. Stoddard had worked hard on the schedule and needed to be commended. He thought that the matter could be worked out, if each side was flexible for the kids.

Dr. Plonski-Sezer said that Mr. Stoddard had worked hard. They cared about all of them, valued them, and were trying hard to be fair and equitable to all of them. She thought they should do their best to work together to resolve and fix the issues.

Teri Kelsey from the Science Department spoke up and said that this was her third contract negotiation. She had been there 10 years, was on a step six and the new schedule would take her back to step 3. She said they had also been working on making it an equitable process.

Darren Bain was the last staff member to speak. He said that he had been on the negotiation team. Their mantra had always been to keep them on an average with other counties contiguous to them. This time they were being asked to do things other districts were not. He believed the staff should get a fair shake and be equitable to other districts. He didn’t think it would be difficult to fix. He said the mantra would stay the same, make a reasonable and responsible offer that was comparable to other districts.

Harford’s Township budget will pass the half-million mark for the first time, in 2015.  The spending plan, worked over by the Supervisors on October 28th and being prepared for formal proposal in 2 weeks, anticipates expenditures totaling just over $508,000, about $130,000 more than for 2014, with no increase in property tax rates.

This second session of a 2-part budget workshop compared spending figures developed the week before with expected income.  All parts of the budget – township, state, sewer, and the newest section reflecting money available from the Act 13 “impact fees” from natural gas drilling in the township – are in balance.  The sewer budget, however, is strained.

The biggest single chunk of the township part of the budget is wages paid to the employees.  The amount allocated for next year – $124,000 – is the same as for the current year.  Asked how that could be, Supervisor Conrad Owens offered a graph and explained that the Roadmaster has been instructed to minimize overtime, except for snow removal.  Other large items should be reimbursable, at least in part, in particular some $110,000 earmarked for “Dirt & Gravel Road Grantwork.”  Two major projects, at Tyler Lake and on Deer Trail Road, will be subsidized from state grants; the reimbursement may not arrive in 2015, but grant income is accounted for in the budget.  Other major increases are for legal expenses, and a large contribution to the Harford-Lenox Baseball Association for a new softball field.  Still, in all, the township budget is projected to end 2015 with a balance of almost half a million dollars in the bank.

The state-subsidized part of the budget, also in balance, will see a major increase in funds for dust control.  In 2014 dust control materials were paid for in part from impact-fee funds.  The Supervisors are a little nervous about carrying a balance of over $125,000 into 2016, so as much as possible is being loaded into the state section of the budget in order to get the most out of a modest increase in funds from the state.

The new impact-fee part of the budget appears to be the most frangible, with income expected to be over $350,000 with a balance on hand to begin the year of some $238,000.  Yet the Supervisors are aware that these funds could be cut considerably from Harrisburg at any time, so they expect to spend only about $216,000 on such things as tree trimming, extra road materials (stone) including hauling, and contracted work on special road projects and associated engineering.

The sewer system budget is the most troublesome.  It is balanced for 2015 but only by drawing on modest leftover balances.  An increase in subscriber rates by $2 per quarter will bring in only about $2,300.  Expenses are not expected to increase by much if any, yet the system is not accumulating a reserve for future maintenance or major breakdowns in the 20-year-old system like what happened on Tingley Lake Road in July 2014.  That event cost more than $15,000 without rupturing the sewer budget; the cost to replace burned-out pumps is covered by insurance, but not basin pumping or labor.

The Harford Supervisors will vote on November 11 to offer the new budget to the taxpayers.  It will be formally adopted at the December meeting on the 9th.

After opposing sides waged a four-hour slugfest of wits and dueling strategies President Judge Kenneth Seamans made an instantaneous decision. Vera Scroggins, alternatively hailed a heroine by her anti-fracking supporters, branded a menace by opponents, was found guilty of having violated an injunction to maintain her distance from Cabot Oil & Gas lands and drilling operations. She had--on October 9th 2014--Judge Seamans declared, traveled to and upon an access road covered by the injunction in force, and in so doing had committed a technical violation of the injunction.

But any pleasure Cabot supporters may have found in a finding of guilt was quickly dashed when Judge Seamans continued his ruling. Miss Scroggins should not be penalized. Instead, Judge Seamans issued a clarification which left no doubt Costello Road’s confluence on either side with SR 3023 IS geographically off-limits to Miss Scroggins.

Vera Scroggins coming out of the Courthouse after the verdict

Susquehanna County’s Main Courtroom was packed with some 70-odd onlookers for the Wednesday, October 29 hearing. The facts of the case were these. On Thursday, October 9 Miss Scroggins, self-described “Gas Tour Guide,” led a tour of interested individuals on a “tour” of gas-drilling well pads and staging sites. The tour group consisted of at least two dignitaries--Green Party gubernatorial candidate Howie Hawkins and former Binghamton Mayor Matt Ryan--as well as at least half a dozen members of the NY Green Party, as well as some members of the media following in passenger vehicles.

The tour party gathered at the green adjacent to the Susquehanna Courthouse circa 11 to 11:30 and departed some 15 minutes later. With a caravan of one bus and three cars, the tour first passed a gas drilling area identified as the Meade Site. The tour party never stopped at the Meade Site, because to do so would have created an unsafe situation or a violation of the injunction against Miss Scroggins. She conveyed that information to the bus driver and directed him to drive on to a church parking lot where all parties disembarked, talked, and decided to where they might next proceed.

Their next destination was the Kimball Property on SR 3023. With sufficient parking on Mr. Kimball’s land the party eventually proceeded on foot across SR 3023 to Bill Ely’s property and the grassy area at the confluence of Costello driveway/access road. At this point stories diverge and definitions vary. Where did Miss Scroggins cross the road? Did tour members stand in the road and cause a hazard and/or impediment to vehicular traffic? When is Costello road a driveway, and when is it an access road? Can Costello road be duel-purpose?

Testifying for Cabot Oil & Gas were two security services personnel and a Cabot Production Foreman. Each had come into contact with Scroggins’ tour party on October 9th and testified as to what he had personally seen. The plaintiff’s lead attorney, Ms. Amy L. Barrette, used the trio’s testimony, as well as photos taken by security personnel to good effect to make Cabot’s case that violation of the 100 foot buffer zone had occurred. Attorney Barrette’s closing summation for Cabot argued that it was “very clear” Miss Scroggins was in contempt and that she was “intentionally pushing the limit.” Ms. Barrette further claimed that Miss Scroggins should be found guilty in the interest off “protecting the general public.”

Mr. Witold “Vic” Walczak, lead attorney for Respondent Vera Scroggins, presented a very different picture. With Miss Scroggins taking the stand shortly after 10 a.m. direct examination proceeded for more than an hour. Under Mr. Walczak’s questioning, Miss Scroggins recounted that she familiarized herself with the terms of the injunction obtained by Cabot against her, first in October 2013, and as modified on March 26, 2014. She went on to testify that she “has not knowingly violated” and “will not knowingly violate” the injunction. She “suffers it” and “is not happy.” Since the original injunction in October 2013 she has not, she stated, been on Cabot access roads or property where she is not allowed.

Much of the defense mounted by Attorney Walczak focused on “the constellation of signage” which existed at numerous other Cabot access roads. Under lengthy detailed (tedious for court observers) questioning Miss Scroggins identified two particular types of signage generally found at the base of Cabot access roads. Comparison to the particular signage found at the base of Costello (driveway) well pad access road was then made. The point of the lengthy points of comparison was to show reasonable doubt to Miss Scroggins’ ability to conclusively determine from the signage if the area on which she had trod was included in the 100 foot buffer zone.

Further testimony in defense of Miss Scroggins was provided by former Binghamton Mayor Matt Ryan. He stressed in his testimony Miss Scroggins’ conscious attention in seeking to maintain compliance with the 100 foot buffer zone and her concerted efforts to keep all tour members in compliance with the injunction’s provisions. Attorney Barrette, on cross examination, pushed Mr. Ryan assertively with photographic evidence in an attempt to discredit his testimony. Mr. Ryan pushed back equally hard.

In the end Cabot had its victory. Judge Seamans had ruled in their favor, Miss Scroggins was in technical violation of the court’s March 26, 2014 injunction. But Cabot attorneys were visibly displeased that injunctive clarification was the only outcome. Attorney Barrette had made allusions to Miss Scroggins having previously violated the injunction in June; yet she offered no proof and Judge Seamans sustained Attorney Walczak’s objections to those allusions.

Miss Scroggins’ supporters, overwhelmingly the majority of onlookers, were elated with the outcome and Miss Scroggins herself appeared greatly relieved. Miss Scroggins states she will continue to comply with the injunction while it is in force and continue to fight for full restoration of her civil rights. While guilty of a technical violation, Miss Scroggins’ activity on October 9th was clearly, in the Judge’s view, one neither intentional nor meant to push the limits.

One thing is for sure, this round is over, but it’s fodder for the next battle. The larger issue of the present injunction had previously been scheduled for hearing this date. It was not. That issue remains to be aired, possibly as early as December.

A Blue Ridge School Board workshop on October 27th opened with a free-ranging discussion of a policy change that would impose a new requirement for graduation: community service. The proposed policy would require 4 hours of community service per year during a student’s high school career, or 20 hours overall. The new policy has not yet been formally proposed, but is expected to come before the Board for adoption before the end of this calendar year. It was offered by Board Member Michael Detwiler’s Policy Committee, so it already has that much support.

One of the complications involved with such a policy would be the definition of “community service.” Who is to decide what type of activity qualifies under the policy? Superintendent Robert McTiernan said that a list of some 25 worthy objectives is abroad in the county and could be used as the basis for the requirement; otherwise, decisions on the merit of a chosen activity would be at the discretion of the High School principal. But should students be forced to choose only from among the listed opportunities?

While all Board members encourage students to take an active role in their community as volunteers, at least two do not support making such activity a requirement for graduation. Christina Whitney would prefer that community service activities be part of a class. But then, asked Board President Laurie Brown-Bonner, would that class be required? Ms. Whitney said that community service could be recognized with a “good character award,” be celebrated and advertised. But, she replied, “it’s not an academic endeavor,” which should be the focus of the schools. It’s “not our responsibility to require character education.”

Board Member Chris Lewis also objected to making community service a graduation requirement; such activity is not for everybody. Ms. Whitney noted that many of the best students already burdened with homework, sports and such also already have many community activities. They need some down time.

Other than Ms. Brown-Bonner, most of the other Board members seemed to have no strong opinion on the issue. Superintendent Robert McTiernan, however, said that “some people have not had the opportunity to get the satisfaction that comes with doing something for someone else without payment.” He said that all students should at least be “exposed” to community service; he related a couple of stories of youngsters in trouble who had been turned around by forced exposure to community service.

If the policy change is adopted, according to Mr. McTiernan, the requirement would be “pro-rated” for seniors graduating next June.

In other matters, reporting for his Facilities & Grounds Committee, Harold Empett said that the original plan to install generators to backup the power supply for the servers may be expanded. He said that the designation of the campus as an emergency response center may mean that enough generating capacity would be needed to keep the buildings operating in the event of a major power loss. The idea will come up again during budget discussions for the next fiscal year.

For her Athletics & Activities Committee, Christina Cosmello said that she would be recommending a payment of $500 to one of the volunteer coaches. Ms. Brown-Bonner, acknowledging that the Board set a precedent by doing this in the past to reward especially valuable coaches, asked why the District keeps paying volunteers. Chris Lewis wanted to know what the cutoff would be: who decides who gets the bonus, and for what? These items will probably come before the Board at a business meeting.

Mr. McTiernan reported that Sally Lewis Busing, a new incorporation that the Board had asked for clarification before signing a contract, has not been able to find enough drivers and has withdrawn its services to the District. The Superintendent said that the District is pursuing various alternatives, including “self-transport” contracts. Under a “self-transport” contract, a family would be paid about 25¢ per mile to transport their own children to and from school; such an arrangement would cover only the children in the one family.

Mr. McTiernan also said that he will be requesting the promotion of a part-time custodian to full-time status. He said that the extra hours should mean that it won’t be necessary to hire another part-time custodian to fill the slot.

The Superintendent also reported having received about 12 applications for the open position of Business Manager. The Board will be arranging to interview 6 of them.

And Ms. Brown-Bonner asked her colleagues for a brief executive session following the workshop to hear the latest in negotiations with the teachers on a new contract. The teachers are working under the contract that expired at the end of last June. From all reports there have been few face-to-face negotiations since that time.

The Blue Ridge School Board will meet next for a business session on Monday, November 3, 2014 beginning at 7:00pm. All meetings are held in the cafeteria in the Elementary School. But they don’t all come complete with delicious chili, sour cream, onions, taco chips and corn muffins with butter. Thanks Linda!

The Susquehanna County Commissioners announce the Courthouse will be closed on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 in observance of Veteran’s Day. All court related offices will be available.

ATV Complaint: On 09/01/14 at 5:00 p.m. a resident located on Crowley Road called to report ATV’s running up and down the roadway all day. Chief Timothy Burgh took the report. Case is still active.

Misc. Investigation: On 09/01/14 at 7:00 p.m. A resident located on Britton Road reported that someone was trying to scam them on facebook. The resident stated that someone used their friends name on the social site and tried to get them to send money to another web site. The resident just wanted people to be aware of the scam. Chief Timothy Burgh took the report.

Littering/Scattering Rubbish: On 09/02/14 at 9:00 a.m. Silver Lake Township Police received a report of someone scattering garbage on the Laurel Lake Road. The caller reported that the garbage had just been picked up and someone threw it along the roadway again. Chief Timothy Burgh took the report. This case is still active.

Suspicious Vehicle: On 09/06/14 at 6:00 p.m. Silver Lake Township Police took a report of a suspicious vehicle that was parked on Mahoney Road. Information was collected about the vehicle and the vehicle was checked out. At the time of the investigation nothing illegal was found to be going on. Chief Timothy Burgh took the report.

Noise Complaint: On 09/07/14 at 4:35 p.m. a resident located on John C. McNamara Drive called to complain about their neighbor shooting off tannerite and causing loud noises during the afternoon hours. Chief Timothy Burgh took the report.

Theft: On 09/09/14 at 12:20 p.m. a resident called to report that her cell phone was stolen while at a residence on Longford Lake Road. The caller stated that she believes the cell phone might have been taken from her purse. Chief Timothy Burgh took the report.

Suspicious Person: On 09/10/14 at 11:45 a.m. Silver Lake Township Police were dispatched for a report of a suspicious person that was driving on Arrowhead Cottage Road. The caller stated that he thought that it might be the vehicle seen in the area a couple weeks earlier near the scene of a burglary. The vehicle and the person were checked out by police. It was found that the person was trying to contact police on their cell phone to report being the victim of a burglary .Chief Timothy Burgh was the responding officer.

Burglary: On 09/10/14 at 12:15 p.m. Silver Lake Township Police while investigating a report of a suspicious person on Arrowhead Cottage Road, were informed that a burglary had occurred on the same road at a cottage. The victim reported that they had been doing work on their cottage and when they showed up today, they found the door forced open. The victim stated that multiple items were stolen from the cottage. Chief Timothy Burgh is the investigating officer. This case is still active.

Suspicious Vehicle: On 09/12/14 at 1:50 p.m. Silver Lake Township Police took a report of a suspicious vehicle that was located at the scene of a home that had recently had a burglary occur. The caller stated that the vehicle was backed into the driveway with the doors open on the back of the vehicle. The vehicle and the person were checked out and it was found that it was a contractor working on the home. Chief Timothy Burgh was the responding officer.

Miscellaneous Investigation: On 09/15/14 at 8:40 p.m. Silver Lake Township Police were contacted by a resident who was concerned when they received multiple text messages from an unknown person on their cell phone. The resident stated that they didn’t recognize the number that was contacting them and asking if they were home. The person also called the resident to ask what time they would be home. Chief Timothy Burgh took the report. This case is still active.

Animal Complaint: On 09/17/14 at 9:25 a.m. Silver Lake Township Police were contacted about a deer that was hit by a car. The caller stated that the deer was still alive after being hit. Silver Lake Township Police responded to State Route 167 where the deer was located and dispatched the deer. Chief Timothy Burgh was the responding officer.

Criminal Mischief: On 09/17/14 at 3:00 a.m. Silver Lake Township Police took a report from a caller who reported that their car had damage done to it while in the parking lot at the Brackney Inn. The caller stated that an individual followed them out of the bar and started kicking her vehicle. The caller stated that the altercation started inside the bar and she tried to walk away from the incident. Chief Timothy Burgh took the report. This case is still active.

Traffic Stop/Drug Arrest: On 09/23/14 at 7:40 a.m. Silver Lake Township Police conducted a traffic stop on Hawleyton Turnpike Road. The vehicle was pulled over for speeding on the roadway. After the conclusion of the traffic stop and upon further investigation, the driver was arrested for possession of over an ounce of marijuana. Chief Timothy Burgh was the arresting officer. Case is still active pending court action.

Any information or questions for Silver Lake Township Police, please call 570-278-6818 or email us at silverlaketwppd@epix.net, all information will be held strictly confidential. You can look at the Silver Lake Township Website at www.silverlaketwp.org, to see all Silver Lake Townships' news, profiles, and resources, including the police reports.

BENCH WARRANTS

The Susquehanna County DOMESTIC RELATIONS Section has outstanding BENCH WARRANT’S for the following individuals as of 10:30 a.m. on October 31, 2014: Kristina M. Baker, Brett F. Barnes, Brent V. Birtch, Edwin Blaisure, Jennifer Blassingame, David A. Calla, Anthony M. Choplosky, Tina M. Clark, Christopher J. Clark, Anthony Cokely, David J. Fischer, Justin T. Giberson, Randy Gregory, Charles Groover, Jeremy W. Hall, Jeremy Halstead, Timothy M. Holmes, Lyle J. Hugaboom, Todd J. Layton, Charlie J. Legere, Casey M. Lehman, Derrick Lezinsky, Jennifer L. Martel, Thomas M. Mellor, Joshua Perry, Vincent J. Petriello, Veronica D. Phelps, Marita J. Sellitto, Desiree L. Shifler, Courtney M. Sterling, Joseph W. Sutton, Frederick Swingle, III, Tessa E. Thomas, Kurtis Tracy, Robert J. Twilley, Steven G. Warner, Jamie L. Williams Sr. Please contact the Domestic Relations Section at 570-278-4600 ext. 170 with any information on the location of these individuals. 

DEEDS

Edward & Suella Kamenitzer to Crystal Lake Estates, LLC, in Clifford Twp., for $1.00.

Eileen R. Kern (nbm), Eileen R. Vanwert & Joel Vanwert to Donald C. & Barbara L. Robbins, in Lathrop Twp., for $75,000.00.

George Walker to Jamie Kozoil, in Oakland Borough, for $68,900.00.

Bald Mountain Sportsmans Club LLC to Charles M. Harris, Wilber F. Reynolds Jr., Carl A. Tugend, Joseph A. Tugend, Carmen P. Verdetto, Dennis A. Urso, Richard A. Fagerlin Sr., Scott Robert Smith, Joseph B. Sibio Jr., Charles J. Parry, Willard R. Herne, Albert J. Patchoski, Shawn P. Walsh, Daniel J. Walsh, Michael D. Cammerota, in Oakland Twp. & Great Bend Twp., for $1.00.

Virginia Solomon & Jan Kenneth Wioncek to Robert W. Holeva & Karen J. Urso, in Herrick Twp., for $38,000.00.

Pamela Ciarlariello to Pamela Ciarlariello (trust), in Apolacon Twp. & Bridgewater Twp., for $0.00.

Marilyn Deutsch to Kenneth W. & Mary Beth Rudnell, in Clifford Twp., for $125,000.00.

Martin J. & Debra D. Honeychuck to Jay T. & Elsa Kerr, in Bridgewater Twp., for $127,650.00.

Amy L. & Randy Palmer to Randy Palmer, in Jackson Twp., for $1.00.

Erick & Kelly Stone to Weldon C. & Ruthann Flewelling, in Hallstead Borough, for $25,000.00.

Cornelia Flower to Flower Farm Family Trust, in Springville Twp., for $1.00.

Cornelia Flower to Flower Farm Family Trust, in Springville Twp., for $1.00.

Cornelia Flower to Flower Farm Family Trust, in Springville Twp., for $1.00.

Sharon S. & John Burner to Sally & Ronald Zahora, in Forest Lake Twp., for $1.00

Alfred Place to Eric J. Place, in Auburn Twp., for $1.00.

Randall C. Smith, Jacqueline Smith (aka) Jacqueline L. Smith to Randall C. & Dale R. Smith, in Thompson Twp., for $1.00.

Crazy Quilt Hunting Lodge Inc. to Crazy Quilt Resources LLC, in Choconut Twp., for $1.00.

Timothy M. Smith (by sheriff), Thomas J. Bolles (by sheriff), BS Rocks Inc. (by sheriff), TNT Services Corp (by sheriff), TNT I Limited Partnership (by sheriff), AJN Tumblers LLC (by sheriff), M&S Blasting (by sheriff), JAAM Maintenance Company (by sheriff) to WM Capital Partners XXXIX LLC, in Lanesboro Boro, Harmony Twp., New Milfrod Twp., for $206,316.47.

Anne W. Cameron to Thomas W., Colleen M., David W. & Donna Cameron, in Silver Lake Twp., for $1.00.

Anne W. Cameron to Thomas W., Colleen M., Ronald W., Pamela F., David W. & Donna Cameron, Joseph & Joanne Herman, in Silver Lake Twp., for $1.00.

Gerald M. Torka to Frank & Helen K. Lutkiewicz, in Franklin Twp., for $1.00.

Virginia A. & William D. Kahrl to Virginia A. & William D. Kahrl (trust), in Forest Lake Twp., for $1.00.

Virginia A. & William D. Kahrl to Virginia A. & William D. Kahrl (trust), in Forest Lake Twp. & Jessup Twp., for $1.00.

Michael A. Yourkawitch (estate) to Mark J. Yourkawitch, in Harmony Twp., for $1.00.

David S. Denu & Theresa Hetzler Denu to Dennis & Mary Anne Ryan, in Thompson Twp., for $260,000.00.

Jeffrey Stauffer (aka) Jeffrey T. Stauffer to CSW Stauffer Family LP, in Springville Twp., for $1.00.

Chestnut Rehabilitation Services LLC to Joseph S. Horne, in Choconut Twp., for $100,000.00.

Ireno & Mary Monteforte to Ireno & Mary Monteforte, in New Milford Twp., for $1.00.

Second Star Hunting Club to SSHC LLC, in Bridgewater Twp., for $1.00.

Raymond F. & Shirley A. Gillen to Working Dog Investments LLC, in Bridgewater Twp., for $345,000.00.

Jean Loomis to Jeffrey Loomis & Chrissan Loomis Rowe, in Bridgewater Twp., for $1.00.

Timothy M. Towers to Brad M. & Heather Krayeski, in Oakland Borough, for $74,500.00.

Myron Denney III (aka) Myron R. Denney III to Joseph L. Rogers Jr., in Lanesboro Borough, for $30,000.00.

John Joseph Brennan, Patricia Mavoureen Brennen (aka) Patricia Mavourneen Brennan to Heather Koitzsch, in Uniondale Borough, for $1.00.

Edward M. & Laurel Pardo to Marjorie Pardo, in Forest Lake Twp., for $1.00.

Robert & Caren Henry to Jason Trevarthan, in Oakland Borough, for $8,000.00.

Bremer Hof Owners Inc. to Harry & Clara Grewal, in Herrick Twp., for $100.00.

Geraldine D. Trommald (trust by trustee) to Bremer Hof Owners Inc., in Herrick Twp., for $100.00.

G D Trommald (trust by trustee) to Bremer Hof Owners Inc., in Herrick Twp., for $100.00.

Gary W. & Geralyn M. Bonavita (by sheriff) to Selene Finance LP, in Auburn Twp., for $2,562.32.