Statement. MISINFORMATION/MISLEADING.

Mr. Long is citing from the Borough’s Code of Ordinances, Chapter 181 entitled Records, adopted by the Borough of Bath on June 7, 1999, by Ordinance No. 1999-531, click here for more information.

Mr. Long fails to acknowledge or provide the public with Section 181-3 of the Borough’s Code of Ordinances which states the following:

“From and after the effective date of this article, each original document in the possession of any municipal official, solicitor, engineer, or other person or legal entity shall be delivered to the Borough Manager for maintenance in the official record of the Borough of Bath. Such documents shall be maintained in Borough Hall in accordance with state law, and the provisions of this article.” (Emphasis added in bold typeface.)

As Section 181-3 points out, “in accordance with state law” means, in accordance with the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Act. It also means in accordance with the Pennsylvania Municipal Records Act. All of which the Borough is following.

Section 181-4 does not support Mr. Long’s claim because of Section 181-3 along with the rest of Chapter 181. Citing legal provisions to prove a point can be very tricky if you are a non-attorney. This is because one legal provision of a Chapter may follow or enhance another. There could be inseparable concepts of the law that must be given consideration.

Beware of confirmation bias: Interpreting evidence as confirmation of one’s belief or theories. In this case, citing to one provision of law, claiming a position the Borough is violating its own ordinance, even though the position is founded upon ignoring the rest of the Chapter that help explain the law.

Statement: PATENTLY FALSE (MIS/DISINFORMATION)

From January 1, 2023, and as of December 14, 2023, the Borough of Bath has processed 38 Right-to-Know Requests, not “three Right-to-Know requests” as Mr. Long asserts. As of December 14, 2023, 10 of these requests have come from Mr. Michael Long; 26% of the Right-to-Know Request caseload.

Through November 30, 2023, the Borough has incurred expenses associated with some of the 38 Right-to-Know Requests related to Auditing, Bookkeeping, Legal, and IT services provided to comply with these Requests. Expenditures through (11/30/23): $88,488.69*. See Bath’s November Treasury Report for more information, review ‘Section 2’ General Fund Budget vs. Actual Report.

As it relates to “audits” forensic or otherwise. The Borough of Bath is mandated by state law to complete independent, third-party audits each fiscal year. Bath’s financial audits can be found on the Borough’s Website and online by checking the Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development municipal statistics data.

For more information about Bath’s Right-to-Know activity, click here.

*Does not include RTK matters mixed with General Borough Solicitorship found within General Fund Ledger ‘Legal – Other’. There were RTK matters that were not being tracked as separate matters at the beginning of 2023. Expenditures of $88,488.69 relative to RTK matters processed by the Borough is a conservative accounting of the activity to date.

As it relates to “failure to adhere to mandated records released as per my final determination and reconsideration findings” (since every other sentence is not backed up with any supporting evidence) Statement. FALSE (MIS/DISINFORMATION).

The Borough has not “failed to adhere to mandated records released as per [the Office of Open Records (OOR)] final determination. At OOR AP 2023-1598, which was issued on November 3, 2023, the Borough filed for a Petition for Reconsideration, not Mr. Long. The Borough contends OOR has made an error of law in their Final Determination that needs further review. OOR has granted the Borough its Petition for Reconsideration, something OOR rarely does. The OOR will issue a new Final Determination relative to AP 2023-1598 in the coming weeks. This new Final Determination will either reverse or affirm OOR’s original decision. In addition, the Borough has filed a Petition for Review of AP 2023-1598 with the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas (NCCCP) because of OOR’s error in issuing its Final Determination and because OOR could affirm its erroneous decision. Since the Borough has an active NCCCP filing at AP 2023-1598, the law creates an automatic ‘stay’ (places a hold) on any release of documents until a judge has had an opportunity to review and decide the matter, regardless of any new outcome decided by OOR.

As it relates to Mr. Long’s assertion of “reconsideration findings” Mr. Long has not filed a Petition for Reconsideration under review with OOR. OOR has not issued any findings as it relates to the Borough’s current Petition for Reconsideration at OOR AP 2023-1598.

Statement: PATENTLY FALSE. MISREPRESENTATION.

From January 1, 2023 to November 6, 2023, Mr. Long accounts for 26% of the Borough’s Right-to-Know workload. From 2022 to 2023, Mr. Long has filed four Office of Open Record (OOR) Appeals. One appeal has been withdrawn; three other appeals were decided by OOR. None of the Final Determinations indicate that the Borough acted in bad faith. In fact, the Final Determinations state the exact opposite.

Statement: MISREPRESENTATION.

The Borough has not made any missteps as asserted by Mr. Long.

Mr. Long references July 2018 Borough Council meeting minutes. First, meeting minutes are typically not transcriptions of everything that was said during a public meeting. The referenced meeting minutes contained 2 sentences of a broader discussion. At that time, Bath’s Pollution Reduction Plan (PRP) was newly drafted. There was a discussion generally concerning ‘funding relief’ from MS4 mandates, meaning different aspects of MS4.

Turning to Mr. Long’s comment that Manager Flynn’s July 2018 comment was “a blanket falsehood.”

Keystone Consulting Engineering (KCE) drafted Bath’s PRP on April 16, 2018. The initial draft plan contained recommended storm sewer capital improvement projects. The storm sewer capital projects evolved and increased during the course of drafting Bath’s PRP. To Mr. Long’s point, the PRP does contain the following language:

“FUNDING MECHANISMS: BMPs will be funded by the Borough general fund. Additional resources that may be pursued include grant funding through sources such as PennVEST or DEP Growing Greener.”

Meaning, Bath will pay for projects first and foremost from its general fund, its tax base (although not a recommended approach for many reasons, click here for more information). If and when a grant cycle is open to potentially cover storm water management projects, there could be money available. And both, PennVEST and DEP Growing Greener have a competitive application process with funding limitations. The Growing Greener grant program has priority for watershed projects in the central two-thirds of Pennsylvania–municipalities within the Chesapeake Watershed. PennVEST will typically run affordability analysis to see if Bath is even qualified for limited grant funding. Even if a grant was available through PennVEST, grants are normally reserved for 100% entitlement communities. PennVEST is geared more for providing low interest 20-year loans for projects related to stormwater.

Another important distinction: Capital project costs differ from continual operation and maintenance activity. Grants do not cover continual operational maintenance activity.

Mr. Long failed to take into account that in 2018, Bath’s PRP was not even approved by the PA Department of Enviornmental Protection (DEP). There wouldn’t be funding available for Bath if the PRP wasn’t even approved by the state.

So, in 2018, Bath would not have been eligible for grant funding relative to its draft PRP because, a) the PRP was not approved, and b) the borough did not have any engineered designed plans relative to the MS4 capital projects to competitively submit for a grant application.

DEP required revisions to Bath’s PRP on two occasions. Bath’s PRP was revised February 19, 2021, then again on July 22, 2022. Capital projects under Bath’s PRP changed and increased in total estimated project costs from 2016 through 2022.

Bath’s PRP was finally accepted by DEP in December of 2022. Bath’s PRP and renewed NPDES permit began January 1, 2023. Bath was not in a position to submit MS4 capital project for grant funding in 2023. Bath does not have engineered designed plans relative to its PRP MS4 capital projects, which are required to submit a grant application.

Bath is taking the necessary next steps to develop a stormwater management program to fund capital stormwater projects and long-term operational maintenance. This may or may not include grant funding. If Bath is eligible for grant funding, and a grant funding cycle is open, those opportunities will be explored at that time.

Manager Flynn’s statement during the July 2018 Council Meeting was true, given his experience, and available information at that time.

Statement: MISLEADING.

Why this sudden interest in creating a separate authority? In 2022, Bath’s permit to discharge stormwater into the Monocacy was recently approved. The permit requires Bath to ensure the continual maintenance and capital improvements to reduce the amount of rainwater runoff pollution into the entire storm sewer system, which drains into the Monocacy Creek. For more information regarding MS4, the Borough’s NPDES Permit and Pollution Reduction Plan, please click here.

The Borough is a mandated community to reduce stormwater runoff pollution into the Monocacy Creek Watershed. Bath cannot apply for any exemptions. See also counterstatement #37 below.

Where the post is misleading: this is not a Borough initiative or local special interest. Stormwater management has evolved into state and federal unfunded environmental mandates. The Borough does not have the financial resources to handle these new mandates, which have been handed down within the last year.

The writer of the post alleges the borough is conveniently escaping its responsibilities, when the exact opposite is true. The Borough is taking on this responsibility with prudence and a sense of urgency considering the steep consequences of failing to act within the time parameters set by Bath’s permit. Municipalities have been fined, heavily, on a daily basis for failing to comply with stormwater management requirements.

Truth about stormwater fees: If stormwater fees are adopted by Borough Council, all property owners (whether real-estate tax exempt or not) would pay an annual stormwater fee for accessing the Borough’s stormwater system.

This is not a new concept. Stormwater fees cropped up in 2010, when the City of Philadelphia became the first municipality to implement such fees. To date, some fifty municipalities or authorities across Pennsylvania have been created to assess storm sewer fees because of all the costs now associated with managing pollution reduction activities with storm sewer systems.

Bath wouldn’t be the first municipality to implement storm sewer fees. But it also shouldn’t be the last. Especially considering the Borough’s current permit will expire at the end of 2027.

Again, full details are still very far off. But generally speaking, stormwater fees are typically calculated by the amount of impervious coverage (how much land area stormwater runoff escapes) a property.

This information is calculated using geographic information system mapping tools. If a property owner manages to contain stormwater runoff, (i.e., using a rain barrel to collect rooftop storm water) there are typically credits available to help reduce the annual stormwater fee.

If Bath, does in fact, pass stormwater fees, there will be data-driven evidence to support the imposed rate in a fair and equitable manner for all property owners. This includes an appeal mechanism if a property owner decides to challenge impervious coverage or the fee.

There is still a lot to be worked out. Bottom line, there is NO stormwater fee being proposed or implemented in 2024.

Statement: MISLEADING/MISINFORMATION/FALSE.

The Borough isn’t pulling a tax increase “fast one.”

The Borough IS responsible for the capital improvement and operational maintenance of the entire stormwater sewer system. The Borough has been directed to reduce stormwater sewer pollution through ‘best management practices’ as per its DEP permit issued in 2022. The Borough has less than five years to comply with the permit directives.

Stormwater sewer system fees, if ever passed by Council, are not likely to take effect until January 1, 2025. Thereafter, fees would be billed yearly to all property owners for the Borough to continue managing the storm sewer system. This is the opposite of removing this responsibility from the “borough books” as writer claims. Stormwater management is an ongoing, unfunded mandate by federal and state environmental authorities.

In order to cover the Borough’s initial capital construction costs associated with storm sewer pollution reduction, call it $500,000 in improvements, Bath’s property tax would need to be increased by 9 mills, or 53% of 2023 tax rate, just to pay for the initial work. This doesn’t even consider ongoing operational maintenance.

Storm sewer fees are often considered by a municipality to minimize the impact to the general fund budget, which limits seeking higher property tax hikes for stormwater management activity.

For more information regarding MS4, the Borough’s NPDES Permit and Pollution Reduction Plan, please click here.

Statement: FALSE.

Writer of the post is jumping to conclusions and spreading conjecture about the concept of a Stormwater Authority. Writer is improperly assuming the conceptual Bath Stormwater Authority will need things such as its own building, employees, fixed and variable costs. All untrue.

First, the Borough Council MS4 Subcommittee has just started the initial research of a Stormwater Authority, modeling Fountain Hill Borough’s approach. Fountain Hill Borough has successfully established a Stormwater Authority without any of the things asserted in the writer’s post. Writer is not informed on this subject matter and is spreading misinformation/disinformation to create social anxiety. Second, no plan or full proposal to create a Stormwater Authority has been submitted to Borough Council for consideration at this time. It is being discussed, but there is nothing concrete at this time.

Stormwater Authorities are typically formed as operational or financing authorities under the Municipal Authorities Act. Authorities are served by a local Board but do not require infrastructure already established by the Borough.

The Borough encourages residents to stay informed and to check back frequently with the status of any potential development of a Stormwater Authority. Be careful on where you are receiving information about this subject. Information will be posted on the Borough’s website and social media pages.

For more information regarding MS4, the Borough’s NPDES Permit and Pollution Reduction Plan, please click here.

Statement: MISLEADING.

The Bath Public Works Department is responsible for the operational maintenance of the Borough’s storm sewer system. Crews will clean out storm sewer inlets and perform basic maintenance. The writer of the post doesn’t consider the initial capital construction of the Borough’s stormwater facilities under its new stormwater permit required by state and federal environmental authorities, which is conservatively estimated at $480,000 in costs. The post is misleading because the borough does not have the funds to perform these capital projects. The Borough is not receiving enough tax revenue to take on the entirety and scope of work required to manage its aging storm sewer system. The post falsely assumes tax revenues can handle all initial capital construction and yearly operational maintenance work of the Borough’s storm sewer system.

One plan under consideration is to begin funding stormwater projects through the General Fund. This requires a small property tax increase to begin building up the MS4 fund.

In addition, Bath is responsible for developing operational and maintenance programs of the overall storm sewer system going forward. Something the borough hasn’t done or been mandated to do in the past.

Storm sewer systems are now much like capital road projects. Long term asset management plans will need to be developed to assess aging storm sewer systems facilities requiring upgrade or replacement, and to continue with mandated pollution reduction efforts associated with future NPDES permits.

For more information regarding MS4, the Borough’s NPDES Permit and Pollution Reduction Plan, please click here.

Statement: FALSE/MISINFORMATION.

Writer attempted to publicly demonstrate using the Borough Financial Audit Reports, from 2018 and 2022, that employees of the Borough received an 80% wage hike. The argument is completely false.

Writer cited from the 2018 Audit Report, highlighting, ‘Total salaries, wages, commissions, etc. paid [in 2018] (including all employees and elected officials) was $248,490. Writer cited from the 2022 Audit Report, highlighting, ‘Total salaries, wages, commissions, etc. paid [in 2022] (including all employees and elected officials) was $356,407. Writer incorrectly assumed the difference from these two reporting years of $107,917 (2018 Audit Report – $248,490 and 2022 Audit Report – $356,407) was assigned to existing Borough employees on payroll.

First, the total compensation reported is for every hired employee and elected official of the Borough. Considering only employees of the borough and not elected officials: In each Audit Reporting year from 2018 to 2022 the Borough has gained and lost employees. There have been hirings, firings, and resignations causing a fluctuation in the total number of employees on payroll.

In 2018, the Borough reported W-2 earnings for four Full Time Employees and four-Part Time Employees, total of eight employees. The Borough finished 2018 with eight employees (there were no reassignments, terminations or resignations). In 2022, the Borough reported W-2 earnings for eight Full Time Employees, and seven Part-Time Employees, total of fifteen employees. The Borough finished 2022 with twelve employees (there were three resignations and five new hires). There were 50% more employees on payroll in 2022 than in 2018.

So, while employees on payroll did receive wage rate increases from 2018 to 2022, those wage rate increases are a small portion compared to the number of part-time to full-time reassignment and new positions added. The claim that Borough employees received an 80% wage increase from 2018 to 2022 is false.

Statement and/or Sentiment: FALSE/MISINFORMATION.

The Office Administrator’s position in 2022 was estimated to cost the borough $59,062.00 (fully loaded; wages plus benefits). This is low for a position with accounting/bookkeeping responsibilities, not to mention many other responsibilities. In 2022, the position was being re-evaluated for a salary increase. These positions can pay (fully loaded) around $70,000 and more.

After the Office Administrator resigned, Manager Flynn installed a professional bookkeeper. For the sake of argument, a snapshot between April 1, 2022, to April 1, 2023 (1 year), the professional bookkeeper cost the borough $28,217.50.

Some of the Office Administrator’s tasks were split off, which were classified under the part-time Office Clerk’s position. The mayor filled in for that position. During the same time period, April 1, 2022, to April 1, 2023, the mayor, as Office Clerk, cost the borough $17,142.69. The position carries no benefits. Factoring in payroll taxes (7.65%) is another $1,311.42 in borough costs. Total Office Clerk from April 1, 2022, to April 1, 2023, is estimated at $18,454.11.

Combining the Office Clerk’s position with the professional bookkeeping costs as follows: $28,217.50 + $18,454.11 = TOTAL $46,671.61

Office Administrator’s positional Cost in 2022 (full year salary & benefits) = $59,062.00

By hiring an outside professional bookkeeper and creating a part-time Office Clerk, eliminating the full-time Office Administrator’s position, has so far translated to a Borough savings of $12,390.39.

The borough will have a full fiscal year (2023) budget numbers to compare after the year closes.

Statement/Sentiment: MISINFORMATION.

Here is the subject post:

The writer mistakenly draws improper conclusions referring to a document the writer submits as evidence of the mayor being employed by the Borough on a full-time basis. This is where a conversation should be held between writer and the Borough, so that writer has an understanding what’s being interpreted from a borough document, before making public claims that are wrong.

For purposes here, it will be stipulated that the posted document is a Borough Employee Earnings & Compensation Report. The writer shares with the public that the report links Fiorella R. Mirabito to a 40-hour work week, using red arrows. The writer states, “[T]his says otherwise and considering it’s your payroll data, I’m gonna believe the paper.” The writer incorrectly assumes that the report code ‘Std Wrk Wk 40.00’ means Fiorella has worked 40 hours. That is not what it means.

The code ‘Std Wrk Wk 40.00’ is used by the Borough’s payroll company. Borough employees are paid on a bi-weekly basis, not weekly. What the writer doesn’t understand is that the left-hand side of the document contains important information relative to employee pay. The Borough has marked these areas of importance on the document in yellow.

At the top of the left-hand column (yellow box) there are three items: Check Date, Pay End Date, and Pay #. The ‘Check Date’ is the date the payroll check was actually cut (or deposited) to the employee for a specific pay run. The ‘Pay End Date’ is the last day of the pay period for that particular pay run. The ‘Pay #’ is the sequential order of pay runs. In reviewing the data within this column, and reading the codes in the column header, it becomes evident the pay periods are bi-weekly.

For example, the information highlighted in the yellow circle is read as follows: Check Date = 6/16/2022 (the day the check was issued), Pay End Date = 6/11/2022 (last day of the pay period). In reviewing the entry above the yellow circle, the Pay End Date is 05/28/2022. Therefore, the pay period in the example is for 05/29/2022 to 06/11/2022.

In the column to the right (within the yellow circle), under ‘Hours’ the number 49.00 is entered. This represents the total ‘Regular’ hours worked for the two-week pay period. During the week of 05/30/2022 to 06/03/2022, Fiorella booked 20 regular hours. During the week of 06/06/2022 to 06/10/2022, Fiorella booked 29 regular hours. Total hours booked for the pay period is 49.00 (Week 1 (20) + Week 2 (29) = 49).

Fiorella is not a full-time employee as the writer claims.

Writer has a pattern of failing to recognize, comprehend, or confirm with the administration the information received from the borough. Writer, given the repeated history, is with intent or recklessly, misusing that information for writer’s own purposes. The result is the public being misled, misinformed, or disinformed. This entry is a prime example.

Statement: MISINFORMATION.

Writer assumes Manager Flynn owns a smartwatch. Manager Flynn does not own a smartwatch.

The Office Administrator was authorized to purchase the office desk pedal wheel (pedal wheel that allows a person to cycle while sitting at their desk–for physical activity purposes).

The purchase was cleared by Manager Flynn because the Office Administrator researched and obtained a type of personnel wellness grant through the Borough’s healthcare provider. The Borough’s healthcare provider issues financial incentives to the borough encouraging employees to be more physically active. The Office Administrator was authorized to use the borough’s business credit card points to cover any balance not covered by the grant. Since office work involves many hours sitting at a desk; it is a sedentary lifestyle that can lead to harmful health effects. Manager Flynn encourages staff ideas that incorporate being more active and healthier at work.

The pedal cycle belongs to the borough, and it is not under Manager Flynn’s desk.

Please see the reimbursement grant information below:

Statement/Sentiment: MISINFORMATION.

Writer assumes to know the Borough Manager’s work schedule.

Manager Flynn produces informational YouTube videos for the greater Bath public. The Borough is using every tool at its disposal to reach out and connect with residents, business, and visitors. To that end, the Borough is using a variety of social media outlets.

Manager Flynn (as it is with any borough, township, or city management position) is responsible for connecting, brokering, and negotiating interests from outside and inside Borough Hall. Town Managers are educators informing the community through websites, social media, and public meetings about its local government responsibilities. These functions are very much a part of a manager’s job.

Part of Manager Flynn’s job and the work of local government is to reach residents beyond the Council chamber and those who may attend meetings. There is a segment of Bath’s population that cannot attend meetings for a variety of reasons, and Bath wants to connect with those residents, no differently than the residents who attend meetings. Bath can do that through its social media platforms.

Bath’s YouTube channel has been created as a way to bring its residents, business owners, and visitors closer to Borough operations, its elected leaders, and staff. To show viewers, we’re human too– we’re not robotic and unapproachable. It is also a channel where other local governments can review information that may be helpful to their own unique circumstances. As a way to show other municipalities struggling with similar issues, that they don’t have to re-invent the wheel. The Borough is returning, for the good of the public sector, experiences gained that may help to better serve other communities. Anyone is encouraged to review the Borough’s YouTube page @BoroughofBath.

Many videos that Manager Flynn has contributed to the Borough’s YouTube channel were created on Manager Flynn’s own time.

Statement: MISINFORMATION.

The Borough Solicitor does not work within the confines of the Borough Municipal Office. The Borough Solicitor has offices in Allentown. Manager Flynn, as AORO, is on the front line of every Right-to-Know (RTK) Request. Where Manager Flynn can answer a RTK Request, he will and does. Manager Flynn has not turned over the process of searching for writers RTK Request(s) documents to the Borough Solicitor to do, as writer maintains.

Writer oversimplifies the RTK process and the specifics of writer’s request. In some cases, writer’s RTK Request(s) were asking for tens of thousands of potentially responsive records, spanning several years. This requires the Borough Manager and office personnel (limited staff; 2 full time, 1 part time) to examine banker’s box upon banker’s box of stored records. This, in addition to performing their normal duties. This kind of record review leads to overly broad, excessive, and overly burdensome requests that cannot be answered simply by Manager Flynn alone. Each record is then compiled for responsiveness by Manager Flynn. The Borough Solicitor conducts legal review as may be necessary. If records pertain to a third-party vendor, those individuals/firms are also contacted to review the information for any potential exemptions under the RTK law they wish to pursue. In some cases, the vendor’s own attorney must expend time reviewing the records requested.

This process, especially given the scope of the records sought by writer (some cases of multiple requests per day in many different subparts), required significant man hours of review. Where man hours required vendor and or legal review, all of that time is billable to the borough.

Statement: MISINFORMATION.

Writer’s assertion that the “borough’s financials were in a complete and utter disarray” is writer’s perception.

Bath Borough is independently audited and is required to submit a ‘Municipal Audit and Financial Report’ to the Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development (state oversight). Bath’s financial audit and reporting is current through 2022. For more information, please click here.

Statement: MISINFORMATION.

The Office Clerk’s position does not have access to the Tab3 accounting software. Nor did the mayor, as Office Clerk, request access to that software.

Tab3 accounting software is used for trust accounting–in other words, professional service escrows. These are cash accounts for private developers who submit Subdivision Land Development applications requiring the Borough Engineer and Borough Solicitor, among others, to perform certain plan reviews. The developer’s ‘escrow’ account pays for those services. The Borough tracks payments of these services and account replenishments through the Tab3 accounting software. The Borough’s accountants/bookkeepers have access to Tab3.

In additional to writer’s commentary, writer posts a partial invoice from the Borough’s IT professional. Writer points out on the invoices that the mayor has access to Tab3 software, and requested access, because writer believed the mayor’s first name was on the invoice. The writer incorrectly assumed the name on the invoice was that of the mayor. The mayor’s name is ‘Fiorella’ Mirabito. The name listed on the invoice is ‘Filomena’ (as in Filomena Silvestri of FRS Bookkeeping) who is the Borough’s primary accountant point of contact. ‘Fiorella’ is not on the invoices represented by the writer.

Statement: MISINFORMATION.

The position of Office Clerk is a title created within the Borough of Bath. The Borough, as with any municipality, can create positions, titles, etc., as operational needs dictate.

The mayor was not ‘appointed’ to any position. The mayor was hired to serve as the borough’s part-time Office Clerk.

Statement: MISINFORMATION/JUMPING TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS.

Expanded from a previous entry. As previously covered, Manager Flynn can’t refuse a Councilperson’s request to file a grant, especially if the majority of Council agrees a grant application should be applied for.

Borough Council Meeting Minutes are not transcripts of council member(s) discussion(s) on every borough topic during a public meeting. Meeting minutes provide snapshots of information and discussion points. Because of this, context is missing in the posted meeting minutes. It can lead to improperly jumping to false conclusions.

First, writer posted the August 2, 2021, Regular Meeting Minutes of Council, and highlighted a section under ‘GENERAL COMMENTS OR ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON THE NEXT AGENDA’ (Emphasis added in boldface type). Under the discussion of that section, Council initiated a roll call vote as follows: “…to review the grant application for possible submission at the September meeting…” (Emphasis added in boldface type). The vote passed by a 4-3 margin. Council did not vote to place the grant proposal on the next agenda as the writer states. Council only approved to review the grant program through August and that it would possibly permit submission of the grant. It is Council’s prerogative to discuss or not discuss the grant again. Manager Flynn was not given a directive to place the grant program on the September agenda.

Statement from Manager Flynn:

The meeting minutes that are posted and referred to by the writer do involve a discussion former Councilwoman Carol Bear-Heckman had with council, regarding the submission of a Facade Grant Program. The public meeting was August 2, 2021.

The rest of Council and I were unfamiliar with the logistics behind setting up a Facade Grant program as Carol desired. The idea, well intentioned, was Bath had to apply for funding, and open an escrow account. Then the Borough’s Historic Architectural Review Board would design an applicant process. From there, applications would be reviewed, accepted, then the Borough Office was going to track and issue reimbursement payments to applicants from the grant fund account. There was also an issue of inspecting completed work, complying with county guidelines, etc. Adding more accounting and administrative responsibilities, in addition to the borough’s normal workload.

I simply suggested to council, at that point in time, I didn’t think our office should take on any more responsibilities. The Borough was finalizing the Rental License & Inspection Program, which was going live January 1, 2022. It was also during this time the Borough Administration was working with its OpenGov partner to build the borough’s online citizen services platform. On top of managing through the pandemic. I felt (in consultation with office staff) the borough’s plate was full. I did recommend council could certainly revisit the idea for a future grant round. Plus, it would give the borough time to thoroughly think about Carol’s idea and the logistics of making it happen. The borough had a short timeframe to make a decision on Carol’s request. In my opinion, the idea was jammed in front of Council to make a snapshot decision that some Councilmembers weren’t ready to make. The 4-3 vote is evidence of Council’s uncertainty.

The writer’s reference, that I “couldn’t provide the essential financial documents because the financial records were in utter chaos” as an excuse not to file Carol’s grant request is inaccurate. The writer also posted “The reality was that the application process would have necessitated the presentation of current financial records, which the borough manager was unable to provide. This was not due to any logistical issues but because [the] disclosure would have exposed the path of financial mismanagement…” False. Regardless of any financial bookkeeping errors, it had no bearing on filing grants. I’ve filed multiple grants, working alongside former councilperson Carol Bear-Heckman, in every year I’ve served the borough. In 2021, I was managing three grant programs. In 2022, I was managing four grant programs.

The writer goes on to post the August 2, 2021, meeting minutes, highlighting certain commentary. (I’ll include more of the phrase for context) to prove writer’s improper conclusion: “Manager Flynn noted that with possible adoption of the inspection ordinance as well as general workflow increase within the office, there is very little time to dedicate to following grant funding for proper reporting which would be required.” (Emphasis added; writer’s highlighted portion of the posted minutes). Meaning, as I stated herein, the Administrative Office was busy. Not that the borough’s financial records were so out of order, as the writer alleges, that the borough shouldn’t file a grant at that time.

Statement: MISLEADING/HERESAY.

Mr. Long is again speaking on behalf of another with or without third-party consent. Mr. Long continues to make claims from another person that cannot be adequately substantiated.

Manager Flynn does not have the right to refuse grant applications, if a majority of Council requests a certain grant be applied for. Manager Flynn can make recommendations as to whether a grant program is a good/bad idea, or as to whether the administrative office has the logistics to process a special interest request. Council can take Manager Flynn’s recommendation under advisement. If a majority of Council, however, demands a grant program be applied for, Manager Flynn is required to comply.

Statement: MISINFORMATION/DISINFORMATION.

Mayor Mirabito has absolutely no vote as to filling a councilperson’s vacated seat. She can certainly make suggestions and recommendations.

When a council seat is vacated, Council appoints a resident member to serve the remaining term of the seat vacated. It was Council’s decision to appoint the Mayor’s husband, Emmanuel Mirabito, to serve the rest of Mark Saginario’s term.

Mark Saginario indicated to Council months prior to his official resignation that he would be stepping down by the end of the year. Mark asked the administration for a recommended transition. The administration recommended the end of the year, so Mark could capture his final council paycheck. Mark was provided a resignation template letter. Mark filled out the letter and determined December 31, 2021, would be his last day.

Council follows the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act (Open Meetings Law). Council does not hold prearranged meetings, in quorum, outside of the public eye to take official action. Council does deliberate and discusses borough business in open lawful public session during a meeting open to the public. Council decisions are made by voting during a public meeting.

Emanuel Mirabito was aware of Mark’s resignation, given his affiliation with Mark, and he did submit a letter of interest to Council prior to Mark’s resignation letter. Council is not required to advertise an open council seat. Council is required to fill a vacancy when one occurs.

Emmanuel Mirabito’s Letter of Interest:

Statements: MISLEADING/HERESAY.

Statement from Manager Flynn:

Marena, the Borough’s Office Administrator resigned for personal reasons. Marena can speak to her reasons if she desires to do so. For her personal reasons to be published on social media from a third-party is not fair to her if she hasn’t consented.

Mr. Long has offered information from another person that cannot adequately be substantiated.

Marena’s resignation letter to me in no way indicated she was resigning due to a ‘toxic workplace atmosphere’ as the writer claims. There is no record of alleged workplace harassment. The Borough is also not going to engage in openly discussing conversations between personnel and management.

Statement: MISINFORMATION.

The borough has created a ‘public’ not ‘personal’ misinformation/disinformation webpage responding to Mr. Long (or any persons, group, etc.) that would continue to engage in misconstruing facts, distort context, mislead, misinform, disinform, and/or regularly provide Bath’s public with outlandish conspiracy theories about borough operations.

Mr. Long has been factually incorrect on numerous occasions as evidenced by several entries contained on this and other webpages of the Borough.

Statement: MISINFORMATION.

1. It is not nepotism in the context of Bath’s elected board. Nepotism more clearly occurs in the case where Manager Brad Flynn decides to hire his nephew for a public works position. Or where family members sit on Council, and they hire a close friend or relative as Borough Manager. (Persons in positions of power or influence favoring relatives, friends, or associates, especially giving them jobs.) The borough does have internal policies against that form of nepotism. However, mother/daughter, father/son, siblings, cousins, or distant relatives can sit together on elected or appointed boards. There is no local policy (in Bath) or state law that prohibits members of a family from serving together on an elected board or commission. If writer publicly claims nepotism as an opinion or philosophy of good governance, that is appropriate. In the issue at hand, writer claimed nepotism and a clear ethical violation was committed, without proof a law was actually violated, thus misinformation.
2. What ethics law has been breached? The State’s Ethics Commission investigates ethics violations when there are breaches of conflict of interest. But this is commonly misunderstood. A bona-fide conflict of interest or ethics violation can occur as follows (example for illustrative purposes): The Borough is seeking new health insurance coverage with another company. Councilman Smith’s brother is a health insurance broker. Councilman Smith may recommend his brother to Council. Councilman Smith must disclose the relationship. Council may consider Councilman Smith’s recommendation. If Council does consider Councilman Smith’s brother, Councilman Smith must abstain from the discussion because it is his brother for which a potential financial gain could be realized. Councilman Smith has an ethical conflict of interest. If Council, then votes to hire Councilman Smith’s brother to provide health insurance coverage, Councilman Smith cannot vote on the matter because of his conflict of interest. Councilman Smith abstains from voting and files a Conflict-of-Interest/Abstention form with the Borough. The Conflict-of-Interest/Abstention form is attached to the Council meeting minutes. If Councilman Smith neglects to disclose his brother’s relationship, participates in the public discussion, and also votes to hire his brother, then there exists a potential ethics or conflict of interest violation under the State’s Ethics Commission.
3. The mayor has the right to email with whom she desires on a variety of both borough and non-borough related matters. The mayor can email council suggestions or recommendations about filling a council seat, even if she is recommending her husband. Council makes the decision in lawful public session on whether to appoint the mayor’s husband. Not the mayor.

Statement: MISINFORMATION

First, the Borough ‘had been slick and outsmarted’ what process? Mr. Long has asserted on many occasions the borough has either done something illegal, which has been met with zero proof of any wrongdoing. Mr. Long, on many occasions asserts many different conspiracy theories that have no foundation in reality.

Second, the issue of office compatibility: There is no conflict of interest for someone to serve as Borough Manager and hold elected office, as long as it’s not within the same municipality–incompatible offices held. Former Councilperson Mark Saginario’s appointment to hold the office of Tatamy Borough Manager doesn’t negate his position as Bath Borough Councilperson. Nor did it vacate his seat on Bath Borough Council the moment he was appointed as Tatamy Borough Manager, as the writer asserts. Tatamy and Bath are two completely different jurisdictions. Mark, if he desired, may serve as a Bath Borough councilmember and Tatamy’s Borough Manager. There is no law restricting this.

Third, in PA a council seat vacation shall not be created by a resignation until the date that the resignation is accepted by a majority vote of a quorum of council at a public meeting or the effective date of the tendered resignation, whichever is later. A council must accept a resignation no later than 45 days after it has been tendered in writing to council, unless it is withdrawn in writing prior to acceptance. (Borough Code, Section 901, Subsection 901(a)(a.1))

Fourth, Mark Saginario’s resignation was tendered December 31, 2021 (see below). Council officially accepted Mark’s resignation at their public meeting January 3, 2022.

Mark Saginario’s Resignation Letter:

The mayor wasn’t hired as the borough’s bookkeeper.

The borough has maintained an accountant’s position in the front office for many years. The previous accountant (Office Administrator) abruptly resigned on April 3, 2022, giving notice on a Sunday the individual wasn’t going to return to work on Monday. This created an incredible and unexpected void in the front office and the handling of borough financial activity.

Manager Flynn immediately installed a professional bookkeeper by April 4, 2022. In the weeks that followed, Manager Flynn and the bookkeeping firm discovered incomplete financial accounting work. Corrections to financial records lasted through to the end of 2022.

After the departure of the Office Administrator, Mayor Mirabito volunteered to assist the operation of the front office until the financial record keeping could be brought under control. The borough came to a consensus Mayor Mirabito should be compensated for assisting the borough. Mayor Mirabito was spending many hours helping the front office.

Mayor Mirabito was eventually named the borough’s part-time Office Clerk, since the disruption of the front office by the unexpected departure of the Office Administrator. The borough code (state law) allows for the mayor to serve in other borough administrative positions for hire, verified by the Borough Solicitor.

The mayor doesn’t produce or maintain Borough Treasurer Reports. The mayor didn’t hide Treasurer Reports. Treasurer Reports through 2022 were missing because financial account reconciliations were lagging behind. Therefore, Treasurer Reports would be inaccurate if produced and given to Council. Treasurer Reports weren’t published as a result.

Manager Flynn has made advancements toward sterilizing the accounting department. With the assistance of a part time professional bookkeeper, the borough now has accurate account reconciliations, clean AP/AR records, and Council receives timely monthly Treasurer’s Reports, among other things.

These reports are now also available to the public on the borough’s website.

Manager Flynn and Borough Solicitor Kratz are both RTK Officials for the Borough of Bath.

Manager Flynn has the right to consult with the Borough’s attorney about RTK matters. The RTK law carries numerous legal exemptions to the release of records. The borough did not fight against any records as the writer asserts. The borough examined legally authorized exemptions to the RTK, and withheld records on a legal basis, while releasing a number of records as required under the RTK law.

The writer of the post is oversimplifying the issues and misinforming the public. The RTK requests filed were made, in some cases, on the same day, multiple requests at a time, and in multiple subparts for voluminous documents, hundreds and hundreds of documents. In some cases, the requests were overly broad and burdensome for the borough to respond.

The writer who submitted the RTK requests also appealed the borough’s decision on more than one RTK request. The borough solicitor is right to represent the borough during these quasi-judicial proceedings. As was the case in the writers Office of Open Records Appeal AP 2022-2675 where the OOR found the borough was right to deny certain records. If you follow the above link, click on the PDF file on the bottom of the webpage. These cases are not as clean cut as the writer suggests.

These appeals and requests are labor intensive, time consuming, and expensive for the borough. The borough is now isolating RTK legal expenditures for the public to examine. Please review the borough’s Treasurer Reports. NOTE: The mayor publicly stated an individual was costing the borough $50,000 in legal expenditures for RTK requests. This is incorrect. Since the borough is recently (within the last couple of months) receiving legal invoices tracking RTK matters separate from other borough legal matters, the borough can estimate RTK costs as a whole; meaning all RTK law matters and Requestors combined. RTK costs to the borough as of the June General Fund Reconciliation Report are estimated at $48,769.43.

As of July 10, 2023, the borough has turned over 2,200 documents to the writer. This has cost the borough an incredible amount of man-hours and tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars in legal expenses.

The borough is now publishing more documents online, Facebook, and YouTube in order to facilitate and streamline public information. In addition, there is a greater public interest in the borough sharing original documents, rather than the public receiving this information altered by a third-party and/or taken completely out of context.

The Borough of Bath would have caught the issue during the 2022 financial close-out and reconciliation, regardless of the RTK request. The RTK request brought the issue to the borough sooner rather than later. Previously answered under this webpage. Just a continued attempt to bring light to an issue for dramatic public effect that has been extensively and exhaustively explained by the borough.

Statement: MISINFORMATION.

Assuming Colonial Regional Police cost the Borough of Bath an average annual contract price of $400,000 a year from 2018 to 2023, the estimated savings is $2,000,000.

The Borough has not saved $2 million in cash by just removing the cost of contracted police services from its budget. Bath wasn’t adjusting the General Fund tax revenue millage and therefore was lagging behind. It’s estimated that up to one-third of the police costs immediately went to plug shortfalls in the budget. The costs of doing business continually rise; workers compensation, property, and health insurance costs, utilities costs, etc., all have been on the rise.

Eliminating the cost for police services allowed Borough Council to pursue other goals and objectives such as investing in the Public Works Department; increase personnel to handle more in-house road work. The Borough has also been able to borrow money for fixing many roads that were in terrible condition.

Borough Council had the financial flexibility of moving municipal operations to a newer location.

Though a tough move transitioning from regional police to PSP it has provided opportunities. The Borough has fund balances where in years past the Borough would have to borrow money to cover expenses, such as payroll. For the first time in its history, Bath has a capital improvement fund. Equipment can be purchased on a cash basis. Some capital projects can be properly planned and funded. (Exception: Stormwater Sewer projects will become part of necessary capital projects where no funding currently exists.)

While all these moves have proven to stabilize the financial condition of the Borough, it doesn’t prevent future tax increases. The Covid-19 pandemic has changed the economic landscape. Building materials, labor costs, and utility costs continue to rise. Incremental tax increases are still very much a part of the overall financial strategies used by Borough Council to continue tackling the challenges that lie ahead.

Statement is MISINFORMATION & DISINFORMATION. Patently false.

Borough Council from 2015 through 2017 was desirous of a more robust in-house Zoning and Code Enforcement presence. This first led to increased office hours for the Zoning/Code Enforcement Officer, contracted through a third-party vendor. Council has, for many years, wanted more proactive code enforcement, instead of waiting for complaints from residents.

This concept was further pushed after Bath switched from Colonial Regional Police to Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) on July 1, 2018. Council’s new priorities became increased zoning/code enforcement, in addition to parking enforcement because PSP does not handle local parking enforcement activity. Bath now has two part-time parking and code enforcement personnel to meet the goals and objectives of Borough Council. The Borough was delayed in program initiatives due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Since 2022, the Borough has managed to track parking and code enforcement activities across four (4) designated patrol zones of the Borough. The zones are as follows: Zone 1 (west of SR 512, north of SR 248), Zone 2 (east of SR 512, north of SR 248), Zone 3 (east of SR 512, south of SR 248), and Zone 4 (west of SR 512, south of SR 248).

Code enforcement officers are patrolling and conducting enforcement priorities in each of the Borough’s four zones. Please see the 2022 Year-In Review for further information: 2022 – Borough of Bath Year-in-Review! – Borough of Bath (bathborough.org) Distribution of enforcement activity in all four zones is occurring.

After a few years of developing the parking & code enforcement program, the Borough is consistently performing proactive patrolling activities, on top of responding to reactive, or complaint driven enforcement. One thing the public needs to keep in mind, there will be more violations/complaints/issues than there are enforcement officers available to catch every incident.

If you see something, say something. Please log on to the Citizens Services website to report a zoning/code or parking complaint: Home – ViewPoint Cloud

For emergencies dial 9-1-1. For non-emergencies, please call PSP Troop M Barracks at (610) 861-2026

Statement: MISINFORMATION. At this time, there is no evidence to believe The Fox, patrons of The Fox, or property associated with The Fox was involved in the gunfire event of Friday, February 3, 2023. There has been a lot of public conjecture, but no direct evidence has been shared with the public by the State Police suggesting the gunfire incident and The Fox are linked. And to continue with these statements until the facts can be provided is nothing more than speculation. The shots fired call was located at 107 E. Main Street. The Fox is located at 104 E. Main Street. The incident did not occur at The Fox.

Statement Validity: MISLEADING. The grant application process is highly competitive. Bath must compete with every other municipality in Northampton County depending on the type of project or program the grant is being applied for. The statement is an oversimplification to a complex issue.

Manager Flynn has been responsible for the administration of $3.4 million in grant funding requests between 2015 and 2022. Of that amount, the Borough of Bath has successfully received $1.4 million in total funding. The Borough is realizing an average grant award of approximately 50% from the grant amount requested. In other words, the Borough is typically receiving a little more than $1 for every $2 requested through a grant program.

Depending on the grant program, a local match is often required. This amount could range from a percentage of the total project cost or a flat 50/50 match. State grants are often reimbursement grants. In other words, the grantor desires the municipality to spend the money up front before being reimbursed. That means the Borough needs cash liquidity on hand. The Borough of Bath has historically not had enough or any local matching funds to submit larger cash award grant applications.

Grant work for public safety programs (police/fire) is highly competitive. Even so, the annual maintenance costs for operating a police department are expensive. There are no grant programs for funding police liabilities such as salaries, medical and pension benefits, which typically makes up 80% of a police department budget.

Finally, what is a fair share of receiving grant funds? The Borough isn’t concerned with another municipalities needs assessment and why certain projects are funded over another. Borough officials will continually evaluate community needs and look for funding options to help meet those needs.

Statement Validity: MISINFORMATION. Legal Services expended in 2022 for the Borough of Bath is estimated at $61,922.01, or approximately 89.1% of the budgeted amount, not $94,000.

To suggest that the Borough should re-route legal expenditures for a new police department places the Borough at a disadvantage for handling any number of legal matters as may be the case. The statement above is also an oversimplification to a complex issue.

Comparing one municipality legal expenditure against another based on total cost does not paint a complete picture. Each municipality has its own threshold for legal expenditures and how much involvement desired from their lawyer. Representing on one hand, a total legal expenditure that is much less than another municipality of similar size is not a measure of quality or really anything, other than one value is higher or lower than the other. It’s not representative of any proof the municipality spending less money on legal fees is better off than a municipality spending more money on legal fees. A municipality that does not seek guidance from their lawyer before taking certain governmental action, may be placing a community at more risk, legally.

Municipal legal fees also depend on the operational activity of the municipality, which could be numerous; is there new ordinances or ordinance amendments being considered by the governing body. Is there some other action(s) occurring requiring legal expenditures. Often times there may be employee issues that require extensive legal review. This activity varies widely between municipalities and legal expenditures can increase or decrease from one year to the next for any number of reasons.

The public comment and comparison made on this issue relative to Tatamy Borough isn’t a good one. Tatamy has budgeted $6,500 for legal services in budget years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, according to budgets posted on their website. Despite the Borough spending on average (from 2019-2021) $10,163, this according to Tatamy’s DCED-CLGS-30 State Audit Reports. Based on this information, it appears Tatamy Borough spends more than one and half times its budgeted amount in legal services each year. The Tatamy Budget isn’t being adjusted to account for spending averages. So, it’s not an accurate figure to compare, let along comparing it to the legal services costs of the Borough of Bath.

Statement Validity: MISLEADING. The 2023 General Fund Budget for Code Enforcement is expected to reach $191,197. The statement above assumes any of the costs within this line item can be reduced or transferred to a new police department budget.

Of the $191,197 budgeted, 48% or $93,600 is provided for the Borough’s Code/Zoning Officer to conduct plan reviews, issue permits, and manage the Borough’s Rental Licensing & Inspection Program (3 full-time days a week). The Code/Zoning Officer is a private vendor with Barry Isett. The 2023 hourly rate also increased from 2022. The next largest expense under this line item is the Borough’s code/zoning, citizens services database, which is 20% of the budgeted expense.

Between these two program lines, if eliminated or reduced, would cripple the Borough’s ability to track and manage licenses, permits, applications, and provide other client services relative to parks and recreation, code and zoning operations.

Statement Validity: MISLEADING. Manager Flynn contacted Tatamy Chief of Police, Keith Snyder, who said Tatamy is scheduled to hire more police officers in 2023, which will bring a total of number of officers to the amount stated above. But the hiring has not yet happened. Once the additional police officer is hired, this will only amount to approximately 95% patrol coverage, indicating there is still a gap in overall police coverage. While this is the most police coverage Tatamy has ever had, it is not 100% patrol coverage as stated above. State Police cover Tatamy’s patrol gap on a part-time basis.

Stockertown Borough, neighbor to the north of Tatamy, disbanded their police department toward the end of 2022, electing to operate with State Police on a full-time basis.

Manager Flynn has recommended against the Borough operating its own police department, especially any department that would staff at or less than 10 officers, which would be the likely scenario in Bath. There is empirical evidence as to why it’s not a good idea to have a police department with minimal staffing. For Bath to form its own police department would be a departure from the decades of conventional wisdom on this subject, considering small police forces should be consolidated or merged with other agencies, not reformed or rebuilt.

In 2015, Dauphin County Pennsylvania, officials commissioned the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to complete an overall Police Services Study for the greater Dauphin County region. In the 121-page report, PERF pointed out that police departments staffed at 10 or fewer should be consolidated, merged or regionalized. Here is what PERF reported on the subject in the course of their overall findings (pages 43-44 of the report):

“According to the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, ‘Pennsylvania has more police departments than any other state in the country, and many are too small to provide a full range of police services. In fact, 83 percent of the municipal police departments have less than 10 officers. The concept of regional policing is gaining favor among municipal leaders who are faced with stagnant or declining sources of revenues. Currently, there are 35+ regional police departments representing 125+ municipalities. Most regional police departments were created to strengthen existing police services in the areas of administration, supervision, training, investigation, patrol and specialty services.’ (‘Police Services‘ Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development)

The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1967 was one of the first national reports recommending that ‘each metropolitan area and each county should take action directed toward the pooling, or consolidation, of police services through the particular technique that will provide the most satisfactory law enforcement service and protection at lowest possible cost.’ The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in 1971 advised that ‘small local police departments, particularly those with 10 or fewer men, are unable to provide a wide range of patrol and investigative services to local citizens. Moreover, the existence of these small agencies may work a hardship on nearby jurisdictions. Small police departments, which do not have adequate full-time patrol and preliminary investigative services, may require the aid of larger agencies in many facets of their police work.’ The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals in 1973 suggested consideration of ‘the recombination and consolidation of police departments with less than 10 full-time officers…’ [. . .]

The number of U.S. police agencies and their general small size has been a continuing national issue for nearly 50 years. Public administrators, scholars, and some citizen groups have long advocated the merging of similar government functions as a method for reducing government overhead and inefficiency. The economic crisis that began in 2008 in the United States renewed the call for local government to find more effective and efficient ways to deliver police service to their communities [. . .]

In 2015, the Final Report of the President’s 21st Century Task Force on Policing made a recommendation similar to those of previous commissions in support of consolidation. Recommendation 2.14 states that “The U.S. Department of Justice, through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and Office of Justice Programs, should provide technical assistance and incentive funding to jurisdictions with small police agencies that take steps towards shared services, regional training, and consolidation.” The recommendation further notes that smaller agencies “often lack the resources for training and equipment accessible to larger departments and often are prevented by municipal boundaries and local custom from combining forces with neighboring agencies.” (Dauphin County Police Services Study, Dec 2015)

Please find below the full Dauphin County Police Services Study.

Statement Validity: FALSE and MISLEADING. There was no official misconduct or abuse of office. As extensively documented, health insurance payments and coverage extended to a sitting councilmember or mayor and their dependents by the Borough is legal under state law.

The arrangement in Bath was for the mayor to pay the health insurance premiums by the first week of each month. Some payments were missed (approximately 15% over a three-year period). There was no intent for the Mirabito’s to skip insurance reimbursements. It unfortunately happened and the Borough’s accounting practices at the time did not catch the mistakes. The accounting mistakes that were made on the part of Bath and the Mirabito’s doesn’t rise to automatic criminality. Once the issue was addressed with the Mirabito’s, the shortage was paid in full. Had the Mirabito’s failed to pay the reimbursement, Bath would have had a civil claim to collect payment.

While Bath attempted to book the insurance reimbursements through the General Fund Budget vs. Actual, not a wrong idea, the more appropriate way to track the reimbursements was to create another liability account or balance sheet that would have shown monthly bills entered, then the monthly reimbursement booked to effectively zero out the balance. In this way, it would’ve been easier to track than attempting to track via the General Fund Budget vs. Actual.

Statement validity: MISLEADING. The Borough’s accounts are reconciled through December 31, 2022; meaning bank statements match recorded activity within the Borough’s accounting software.

The Borough is independently audited, by state law, each year. The Borough is not required to have a third-party audit just because someone demands it.

Statement Validity: MISREPRESENTATION and MISLEADING. The mayor’s health insurance premiums and the mayor’s family restaurant are two completely separate issues. The mayor’s family restaurant never closed during the Covid-19 Pandemic. The missed insurance payments span prior to, during, and after the initial pandemic. One event has nothing to do with the other.

Statement Validity: MISLEADING. The Borough hired professional bookkeepers in the spring of 2022. The bookkeepers, by the end of 2022, would have executed a reconciliation of wages and insurance benefits. The reconciliation would’ve caught any over or under payments. The reconciliation would have identified insurance payment issues in 2021 and earlier years. The mayor’s missed insurance payments would have been recovered by the Borough. Since the right-to-know request submitted prompted a review of records within a required time frame, the missed payments were found sooner than later.

While true, Mr. Long’s Right-to-Know Request sped up the process, this was an identifiable issue the newly assigned Bookkeeper’s would have discovered regardless of Mr. Long’s Right-to-Know Request.

Statement Validity: FALSE. MISLEADING and MISREPRESENTATION.

The Manager’s 2023 General Fund budget is often prepared a few months prior to Borough Council adopting the official General Fund Budget. The Manager’s budget is an estimation document. The column entitled ‘2021 Final Budget’ lists the Borough Manager’s salary as $66,234.60. This is because the value was pulled from a QuickBooks Budgeted vs. Actual at a time prior to the closeout of 2021. The ‘final’ salary shown for the Borough Manager in 2021 is not accurate because it’s not including payroll data through to the December 31, 2021, reconciliation.

The 2023 estimated Borough Manager salary is $86,468.00. The appearance of a significant increase in salary is the result of restructuring the Borough Manager’s salary presentation on the budgets. For example, under former Council President Mark Saginario’s direction, he preferred the Manager’s part-time work as parking enforcement officer and vehicle allowance be shown in separate line items. Council President Michele Ehrgott executed a new Employment Agreement with Manager Flynn (December 6, 2021) eliminating the distributed approach to showing the Manager’s total compensation. Beginning 2022, the Borough Manager’s salary will be recorded as all encompassing; the vehicle allowance and stipend to oversee parking enforcement is included under the Manager’s overall compensation.

The 2021 Budgeted vs. Actual for the Borough Manager salary is recorded as $89,380.42. The 2022 Budgeted vs. Actual salary is recorded at $90,234.25. The 2023 Budgeted vs. Actual salary is estimated to reach $86,468.00. However, the 2023 estimate does not account for the 2022 pay raise. The Manager’s salary fluctuates due to vacation sell-back.

According to the Pennsylvania Association of Borough’s 2022 Wage & Salary Survey Report of Findings, Manager Flynn is paid approximately $7,161 under the regional average of $97,161 for full-time Borough Manager’s positions. The survey regional average includes boroughs from Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Lehigh, Montgomery and Northampton Counties.

To claim, imply, or represent the Borough Manager received a 31% increase in pay from 2021 to 2023 is patently false.

Statement Validity: MISLEADING and MISREPRESENTATION. Every municipality across Pennsylvania is required to file their Municipal Financial Audit Report (DCED-CLGS-30– the report number code is different for Counties) by April 1st of each year. The ‘penalty’ for an untimely audit filing is typically in the form of withholding the municipalities Liquid Fuels revenue. Municipal financial audits are publicly available here. The Borough’s 2021 DCED-CLGS-30 Audit Report is delayed with an expected submission during quarter 1 of 2023. This Borough’s 2021 Audit Report is untimely.

The Borough of Bath has had a history of filing untimely audit reports, spanning a few managers and Council administrations. Timely audit filings are dependent on several factors. Auditors can sometimes lag behind and file late. The Covid Pandemic has significantly caused audit filings to be delayed. However, the likely reason for the audit report delay from the municipality’s perspective is the talent and skill level of the person entering the accounting/bookkeeping for all the Borough’s financial transactions. If the bookkeeping is not kept current throughout the year, it will cause audit work to be delayed, which can translate to untimely state Audit Report filings.

The website link above provides a search function to review municipal audit reports. The system has audit report history from 2006 to 2020. Using the deadline date of on or before April 1st as a determinate of a ‘timely’ filing for this context, we can learn a lot. The ‘Received By’ date from DCED is indicated in the top left-hand corner of each DCED-CLGS-30 Audit Report. The Borough of Bath spanning a 15-year period (2006 to 2020) submitted the DCED-CLGS-30 Audit report timely just 47% of the time.

Is this a problem only with Bath? How do other Borough’s stack up in Northampton County?

The Borough reviewed a small sample of neighboring municipal DCED-CLGS-30 Audit Reports accessible from the DCED website from 2006 to 2020. The review included the following Boroughs: Stockertown, Nazareth, and Tatamy. Nazareth Borough has a great track record of filing timely DCED-CLGS-30 Audit Reports, hitting the mark 80% of the time. Stockertown Borough completed timely filings just 33% of the time. Tatamy Borough (missing a filing date for the 2007 DCED-CLGS-30 Report) hit the submission deadline only 14% of the time. All four Borough’s combined for an average timely filing of DCED-CLGS-30 Audit Report 70% of the time.

DCED confirmed that in 2017, considering a pre-Covid ‘normal’ filing year, out of 2,560 municipalities across the state, only 1,638 (just 64%) filed their DCED-CLGS-30 Audit Reports on or before the April 1st deadline.

Missed deadlines in submitting the Audit Report occur more often than the public thinks. It is not a problem unique to the Borough of Bath. Obviously, no municipality wants to file their Audit Report untimely, but it does happen.

Statement 11 Validity: FALSE. According to the Pennsylvania Governor’s Center for Local Government Services, Fifth Edition, July 2014 ‘Chart of Accounts’ Other Current Assets do include prepaid items such as insurance debits and reimbursements for government accounting purposes. Mr. Long’s assertion that mayor’s insurance reimbursements are not booked as an ‘Other Current Asset’ is wrong.

Statement Validity: MISREPRESENTATION. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 94% of the Pennsylvanian population has access to recycling. Of the approximate 2,700 municipalities in Pennsylvania, only 440 (or 16%) are mandated to recycle under Act 101 of 1988; that means 84% of municipalities in Pennsylvania are not mandated to recycle. Pennsylvania has 1,930 municipalities; 440 are mandated to recycle, 617 have voluntary recycling, and 873 have drop-off collection only (424 have curbside and a drop-off center recycling). This means Bath falls within the 29% of Pennsylvania’s municipalities that do not offer recycling, not 6%.