March 4, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Editor
The Reading Eagle
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the informative Article by Mary Young about the Court Hearing of Marino vs. The Borough of Kutztown February 27, 2011. The hearing February 8, was for the enforcement of a “Final Determination” of the Pennsylvania Office Open Records which ordered the Borough to turn over to me certain financial records of the Telecommunications business venture after investigating my request. The fact is Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl overturned the decision of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records even though the Borough presented the same argument they gave to the Office of Open Records. Judge Jeffrey ruled the Borough gave me what they have which was the Borough Audit of the Borough General Fund. This proves that the Borough has never published a financial report on Telecommunications since its inception in 2002, 8 years ago which I stated in Court. Judge J.L. Schmehl did not have grounds to overturn the “Final Determination” of the Office of Open Records which is a duly legislated Agency of the Commonwealth. I intend to appeal this decision to the Commonwealth Court.
Fax 610-371-5098
Faxed March 4, 2011 Gennaro A. Marino
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Attorney General Electric Bill 3-11-11
March 11, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Pa. Office of Attorney General
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Strawberry Square 15th Floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Dear Sir,
This is a follow up of my letter to you dated March 6, 2011 which included a copy of my electric bill for the month of February showing the Service Fee I complained about as SERVICE FEE $9.15 and this month’s bill March (enclosed) as NET MONTHLY RATE MINIMUM $9.74.
As I stated in my previous letter, “in the past this Service Fee has been called Net Rate Minimum and KW Usage”. The Borough is deceiving its customers by not only changing the terminology. It is also changing the amount from $9.15 to $9.74.
Aren’t the subscribers of the Borough entitled to a Council vote and a notice of title change and amount? Is the Borough trying to circumvent my complaint to you?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Pa. Office of Attorney General
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Strawberry Square 15th Floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Dear Sir,
This is a follow up of my letter to you dated March 6, 2011 which included a copy of my electric bill for the month of February showing the Service Fee I complained about as SERVICE FEE $9.15 and this month’s bill March (enclosed) as NET MONTHLY RATE MINIMUM $9.74.
As I stated in my previous letter, “in the past this Service Fee has been called Net Rate Minimum and KW Usage”. The Borough is deceiving its customers by not only changing the terminology. It is also changing the amount from $9.15 to $9.74.
Aren’t the subscribers of the Borough entitled to a Council vote and a notice of title change and amount? Is the Borough trying to circumvent my complaint to you?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Attorney General Electric Bill
March 6, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Office of Attorney General
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Strawberry Square 15th Floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Dear Sir:
I live in and purchase electricity from the Borough of Kutztown and in a Right to Know Request asked to see the Borough Ordinance, Resolution or Legislation that authorizes the Service Fee charged on all Borough Electric bills. The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records ordered the Borough to give me the documents and we eventually went to the Court of Common Pleas and Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney stated there is no Ordinance, Resolution or Legislation that authorized the charge. In the past this Service fee has been called Net Rate Minimum and KW Usage.
My complaint is if there is no legislation or Borough Council vote authorizing this charge it is illegal and should be refunded to all the customers. Attached please find page 2 of a letter from Kutztown Borough Solicitor Mooney to the Court.
I have also attached a letter to the Elected Borough Officials and have received no reply from the Borough and a copy of my recent Electric bill account no. 20084 showing the Service Fee.
My complaint is against:
Borough of Kutztown
45 Railroad Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-6131
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Office of Attorney General
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Strawberry Square 15th Floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120
Dear Sir:
I live in and purchase electricity from the Borough of Kutztown and in a Right to Know Request asked to see the Borough Ordinance, Resolution or Legislation that authorizes the Service Fee charged on all Borough Electric bills. The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records ordered the Borough to give me the documents and we eventually went to the Court of Common Pleas and Borough Solicitor Keith Mooney stated there is no Ordinance, Resolution or Legislation that authorized the charge. In the past this Service fee has been called Net Rate Minimum and KW Usage.
My complaint is if there is no legislation or Borough Council vote authorizing this charge it is illegal and should be refunded to all the customers. Attached please find page 2 of a letter from Kutztown Borough Solicitor Mooney to the Court.
I have also attached a letter to the Elected Borough Officials and have received no reply from the Borough and a copy of my recent Electric bill account no. 20084 showing the Service Fee.
My complaint is against:
Borough of Kutztown
45 Railroad Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-6131
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Editor The Reading Eagle
March 4, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Editor
The Reading Eagle
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the informative Article by Mary Young about the Court Hearing of Marino vs. The Borough of Kutztown February 27, 2011. The hearing February 8, was for the enforcement of a “Final Determination” of the Pennsylvania Office Open Records which ordered the Borough to turn over to me certain financial records of the Telecommunications business venture after investigating my request. The fact is Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl overturned the decision of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records even though the Borough presented the same argument they gave to the Office of Open Records. Judge Jeffrey ruled the Borough gave me what they have which was the Borough Audit of the Borough General Fund. This proves that the Borough has never published a financial report on Telecommunications since its inception in 2002, 8 years ago which I stated in Court. Judge J.L. Schmehl did not have grounds to overturn the “Final Determination” of the Office of Open Records which is a duly legislated Agency of the Commonwealth. I intend to appeal this decision to the Commonwealth Court.
Fax 610-371-5098
Faxed March 4, 2011 Gennaro A. Marino
Gennaro A. Marino
409 West Main Street
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Editor
The Reading Eagle
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the informative Article by Mary Young about the Court Hearing of Marino vs. The Borough of Kutztown February 27, 2011. The hearing February 8, was for the enforcement of a “Final Determination” of the Pennsylvania Office Open Records which ordered the Borough to turn over to me certain financial records of the Telecommunications business venture after investigating my request. The fact is Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl overturned the decision of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records even though the Borough presented the same argument they gave to the Office of Open Records. Judge Jeffrey ruled the Borough gave me what they have which was the Borough Audit of the Borough General Fund. This proves that the Borough has never published a financial report on Telecommunications since its inception in 2002, 8 years ago which I stated in Court. Judge J.L. Schmehl did not have grounds to overturn the “Final Determination” of the Office of Open Records which is a duly legislated Agency of the Commonwealth. I intend to appeal this decision to the Commonwealth Court.
Fax 610-371-5098
Faxed March 4, 2011 Gennaro A. Marino
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Court of Common Pleas Letter to Borough 2-27-11
February 27, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
kmayor@ptd.net
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
You are all sitting there watching Solicitor Mooney lie in Court, of course with your approval. Everyone knows you are all guilty of lying and squandering our taxpayer money and do not have the intestinal fortitude to admit how much Telecom loses every year. Solicitor Mooney states and Judge Schmehl agrees if I want to calculate the profit or loss of Telecom all I have to do sum up the expenditures and the revenue.
Doesn’t Telecom have payrolls, costs of equipment, expenses, advertising, billing, revenue, taxes, bookkeeping and other costs like any other business? Solicitor Mooney’s biggest lie was municipalities do not keep records like private firms do. If Wall Street sent out financial reports like the Borough gave me they would be arrested.
I repeat Telecom loses $1 million a year. The Budget is falsified. The financial reports are fraudulent. Foremen’s reports are altered.
The proof that you are stealing money from the Borough Utilities and illegally putting it into Telecom is that you are entertaining proposals from Financial Institutions to borrow $8.5 million dollars that will bring the Borough’s total debt to $21.5 million. The payments on this debt will be about 1.6 and 1.8 million dollars a year which is more than the Police Department Budget.
How can a Borough with a population of 5,000 that includes 1,300 students owe $21.5 million? This debt is insurmountable.
The Court Decision proves that the Borough does not have a clue as to how to keep financial records
Gennaro A. Marino P.E..
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
kmayor@ptd.net
Kutztown Mayor Green
Kutztown Borough Council
Dear Elected Officials,
You are all sitting there watching Solicitor Mooney lie in Court, of course with your approval. Everyone knows you are all guilty of lying and squandering our taxpayer money and do not have the intestinal fortitude to admit how much Telecom loses every year. Solicitor Mooney states and Judge Schmehl agrees if I want to calculate the profit or loss of Telecom all I have to do sum up the expenditures and the revenue.
Doesn’t Telecom have payrolls, costs of equipment, expenses, advertising, billing, revenue, taxes, bookkeeping and other costs like any other business? Solicitor Mooney’s biggest lie was municipalities do not keep records like private firms do. If Wall Street sent out financial reports like the Borough gave me they would be arrested.
I repeat Telecom loses $1 million a year. The Budget is falsified. The financial reports are fraudulent. Foremen’s reports are altered.
The proof that you are stealing money from the Borough Utilities and illegally putting it into Telecom is that you are entertaining proposals from Financial Institutions to borrow $8.5 million dollars that will bring the Borough’s total debt to $21.5 million. The payments on this debt will be about 1.6 and 1.8 million dollars a year which is more than the Police Department Budget.
How can a Borough with a population of 5,000 that includes 1,300 students owe $21.5 million? This debt is insurmountable.
The Court Decision proves that the Borough does not have a clue as to how to keep financial records
Gennaro A. Marino P.E..
Saturday, February 26, 2011
NEWSLETTER #4 2-26-11
NEWSLETTER # 4
February 26, 2011
It seems strange that after a 2 hour hearing in Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl’s Court of Common Pleas for enforcing the Final Determination of the Office of Open all the Judge’s decision was basically 2 lines.
In one line he granted me un-redacted records which the Borough already agreed to give me at the hearing and I received them before he rendered his decision.
The 2nd line states “the Defendant has turned over everything they have in their possession that is responsive to the Plaintiff’s request”.
After 8 years of the Telecommunications business venture all that was presented at the hearing was the Borough’s Annual Report which is available on the Borough’s website. This Audit was also presented to the Office of Open Records and was taken into consideration in rendering their Final Determination.
The fact is and I stated at the hearing February 8, 2011:
1) The Borough has NEVER published an Audit, Budget or Financial Report on the Telecommunications Business Venture in its 8 years of existence.
2) That Telecommunications loses about $1 million a year.
3) That the Budget is falsified, the financial reports are fraudulent and the Foreman’s reports are altered.
Borough Solicitor Mooney stated go into the Borough’s Audit and sum up the
expenditures and the revenue of Telecom and that is the profit or loss. Judge Schmehl agreed with him. I stated that is not how it is done in private industry and Counselor Mooney stated Municipalities do it differently.
When I stated Telecom loses $1 million a year Mr. Mooney waved a paper in the air and said it was $200,000, but did present any figures.
When I stated the Budget was falsified, the financial reports were fraudulent and the foremen’s reports were altered, there was no response from Solicitor Mooney or Judge Schmehl.
This hearing was for the enforcement of the Office of Open Records decision and not the merits of the request. The Office of Open Records is a duly legislated Agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Judge J.L Schmehl overturned their decision with basically 2 lines.
I am in the process of obtaining the transcripts of the hearing and I promise to pursue this until the records are made public.
Gennaro A Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
February 26, 2011
It seems strange that after a 2 hour hearing in Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl’s Court of Common Pleas for enforcing the Final Determination of the Office of Open all the Judge’s decision was basically 2 lines.
In one line he granted me un-redacted records which the Borough already agreed to give me at the hearing and I received them before he rendered his decision.
The 2nd line states “the Defendant has turned over everything they have in their possession that is responsive to the Plaintiff’s request”.
After 8 years of the Telecommunications business venture all that was presented at the hearing was the Borough’s Annual Report which is available on the Borough’s website. This Audit was also presented to the Office of Open Records and was taken into consideration in rendering their Final Determination.
The fact is and I stated at the hearing February 8, 2011:
1) The Borough has NEVER published an Audit, Budget or Financial Report on the Telecommunications Business Venture in its 8 years of existence.
2) That Telecommunications loses about $1 million a year.
3) That the Budget is falsified, the financial reports are fraudulent and the Foreman’s reports are altered.
Borough Solicitor Mooney stated go into the Borough’s Audit and sum up the
expenditures and the revenue of Telecom and that is the profit or loss. Judge Schmehl agreed with him. I stated that is not how it is done in private industry and Counselor Mooney stated Municipalities do it differently.
When I stated Telecom loses $1 million a year Mr. Mooney waved a paper in the air and said it was $200,000, but did present any figures.
When I stated the Budget was falsified, the financial reports were fraudulent and the foremen’s reports were altered, there was no response from Solicitor Mooney or Judge Schmehl.
This hearing was for the enforcement of the Office of Open Records decision and not the merits of the request. The Office of Open Records is a duly legislated Agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Judge J.L Schmehl overturned their decision with basically 2 lines.
I am in the process of obtaining the transcripts of the hearing and I promise to pursue this until the records are made public.
Gennaro A Marino P.E.
www.marinoreport.com
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Court of Common Pleas Judge J.L. Schmehl's Decision
February 23, 2011
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 W. Main St.
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Pennsylvania Office of Open Records
400 North Street, 4th floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120 fax 717 425-5343
Attention Mr. Nathan J. Byerly, Chief Counsel
Dear Mr. Byerly,
Docket No. AP 2010-0899
Today I received Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl’s Decision on my Petition for the Enforcement of the Office of Open Records Final Determination (attached).
It states GRANTED produce within 15 days un-redacted versions of all documents previously produced to the Plaintiff in a redacted form. Isn’t it strange that I have already received them, dated February 14, 2011, from the Borough before the Judge made his decision February 18, 2011. I have attached the Borough’s cover letter and a sample of the granted papers.
It then states DENIED insofar as, apart from the aforementioned un-redacted documents the Defendant has turned over everything they have in their possession that is responsive to the Plaintiff’s request. If this is true, it means the Borough does not have to publish financial reports or even produce or posses any financial records.
I am shocked by this decision which deprives the residents of reviewing what the Elected Officials are doing with our Borough revenue. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
409 W. Main St.
Kutztown, Pa 19530
610-683-7977
Pennsylvania Office of Open Records
400 North Street, 4th floor
Harrisburg, Pa 17120 fax 717 425-5343
Attention Mr. Nathan J. Byerly, Chief Counsel
Dear Mr. Byerly,
Docket No. AP 2010-0899
Today I received Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl’s Decision on my Petition for the Enforcement of the Office of Open Records Final Determination (attached).
It states GRANTED produce within 15 days un-redacted versions of all documents previously produced to the Plaintiff in a redacted form. Isn’t it strange that I have already received them, dated February 14, 2011, from the Borough before the Judge made his decision February 18, 2011. I have attached the Borough’s cover letter and a sample of the granted papers.
It then states DENIED insofar as, apart from the aforementioned un-redacted documents the Defendant has turned over everything they have in their possession that is responsive to the Plaintiff’s request. If this is true, it means the Borough does not have to publish financial reports or even produce or posses any financial records.
I am shocked by this decision which deprives the residents of reviewing what the Elected Officials are doing with our Borough revenue. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gennaro A. Marino P.E.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
