The Post:

Paragraph #1 – Michael Long claims in his post that he has filed a Petition for Review in Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, challenging the Borough of Bath’s refusal to provide public financial records. First, the Northampton County Court Portal indicates that Mr. Long filed his Petition for Review on October 16th, not October 10th as he claims he did. Second, the statement that the Borough refuses to provide public financial records is false. The Borough has turned over thousands of financial records to Mr. Long in accordance with the Right-to-Know Law and the Office of Open Records Final Determination at OOR AP 2025-1943. Mr. Long’s extensive use of Artificial Intelligence IS nonsense. Northampton County Court agreed and sanctioned Mr. Long $1,000 for his misuse of cases and case law that unnecessarily protracted the Borough’s Petition two years ago.

Paragraph #2 – Mr. Long claims his Right-to-Know Requests were straightforward under the Right-to-Know Law for audit trail reports within the Borough’s QuickBooks accounting system. Mr. Long’s requests were anything but straightforward. Mr. Long was asking for reports that the Borough does not ordinarily format, create or maintain under the Right-to-Know Law. While the Borough has appeased Mr. Long in the past, hoping he would move on with, by supplying QuickBooks ‘Audit Trail Reports’ that the Borough argued it was never legally obligated to do. It became clear that Mr. Long wanted employees to work for him on a part time basis creating years and years’ worth of audit trail reports, disrupting business operations.

The Borough decided to argue against this, denying his most request for Audit Trail Reports, which Long appealed to OOR. The Borough argued on appeal that Audit Trail Reports were not something formatted, created, maintained, or stored by the Borough and above all, the reports Mr. Long sought did not exist at the time of his request. OOR actually sided with the Borough on the issue of Audit Trail Reports not existing yet also ruled that the generation (creation) of Audit Trail Reports was not the ‘creation’ of a record and that the Borough would need to provide access and create those reports. Instead of arguing with OOR through another costly and time-consuming Petition for Review, the Borough provided Mr. Long with the Audit Trail Reports requested.

Long likes to argue that just because the Audit Trail Reports can be generated, that this also means those records existed and the Borough can’t take the position the records don’t exist. The Borough maintains that it was required to manipulate its QuickBooks software to create customized reports that did not exist at the time of Long’s request, which is true.

How Long can claim the Borough says on one hand Audit Trail Reports didn’t exist, then suddenly do exist, fails to acknowledge the timeline and OOR directing the Borough to make these reports accessible by generating them. (Again, the Borough’s position is that OOR is overstepping its authority under the RTKL.)

Section Entitled “What the Borough Did: A Pattern of “Don’t Exist” Followed by Production

These arguments by Mr. Long highlight why he is a complete fraud, discredited, and untrustworthy. There has been no pattern of claiming records don’t exist followed by production. This has been a longstanding fantasy of Mr. Long to manipulate reality. Long fails to mention that OOR acknowledged that the records of Audit Trail’s Long requested did not exist at the time of his Request. The Borough also argued that while it has the capability to generate Audit Trail Reports (something that it has done for Mr. Long in the past, as a courtesy) it was never under legal obligation to do so until OOR ruled the Borough would need to generate those reports (See OOR AP 2025-1943 issued September 10, 2025). After, OOR’s determination, the Borough was given its directive to generate/create new reports and complied with OOR’s decision.

The Borough didn’t produce records after Long allegedly filed a Petition for Review with Northampton County. This is a total fabrication. Long is overstating the legal process of Right-to-Know matters. Regardless of the records the Borough expanded access to for Long, Long didn’t need to wait until any records were released to him. The last day Long had to file a challenge with OOR’s Final Determination was October 10th. A Court of Common Pleas Petition for Review challenges the actions taken by OOR and has nothing to do with the records turned over to Mr. Long.

On October 10th (30 Days after OOR’s September 10th Final Determination becomes final and unappealable) Mr. Long gives his account of a timeline, stating at “1:00 PM I file a court appeal” and he goes on to state “5:52 PM the Borough produces over 1,000 pages of ‘non-existent’ records.” Mr. Long is falsely claiming or making it appear as though he filed a court appeal (the Borough had no knowledge of whatsoever) — that he strongarmed the Borough to produce records he was already entitled to as required by OOR’s Final Determination.

Fact: Long was required to pay for copy fees in a previous RTKL matter. Failure to pay fees in RTKL matters results in the withholding of any other records requested until the fees are paid. Long was made aware of this issue multiple times. During the afternoon of October 10th, Long finally paid the required RTKL fees.

About an hour after Long paid the fees, Flynn emailed Mr. Long around 3pm on October 10th. The email contained the Borough’s Final Response related to OOR’s Final Determination at OOR AP 2025-1943. Flynn’s email indicated that records would be released to him during the afternoon given the sheer volume of records that would need to be compiled and released. Mr. Long sent a follow up email to Flynn around 4:45 PM, saying he had not received his records yet. Between 5:50 and 6 PM, Flynn loaded records into the OpenGov portal for Long.

It wasn’t until after Long received this expanded access to records did he send Flynn a follow up email. In that email, which he sent at 7:23 PM Mr. Long simply said:

“First, thank you for the records. I honestly didn’t expect you to provide as many as you did. So I have a present for you. I was gonna make you wait till Tuesday. But let’s no get ahead of ourselves, first I just wanted to point out that you are a horrible listener, I have told you over and over again… the TRUTH shall set you free!!”

Long’s email had an attachment referring (in his mind to ‘litigation’) an undocketed document (meaning no court administration acceptance date/time stamp) with what he called a ‘Petition for Review of 2025-1943’. However, the document lacked any Court Docket indications. The Court would not refer to a Petition for Review as ‘Petition for Review of 2025-1943.’ Frankly, the Borough had no idea what Long was claiming or trying to submit. In most cases, Long’s emails are disregarded because of how highly inaccurate or how his communications do not contain factual information.

In no way can Long claim that he filed a court appeal at 1 PM and then all the sudden the Borough magically produced records. Long is purposefully misconstruing facts to serve his own agenda, which has been to misinform and disinform the Borough’s public for 3 years now. Long made these false claims throughout his October 19th Bath Community Hub Post:

• The Borough had 30 days (September 10 – October 10) to comply with the Office of Open Records’ order to produce records. They waited until the last day-and only produced after I filed a court appeal. Untrue statement verified by the email timeline exchange and between Flynn and Long on October 10th.
  

• The four-hour-and-fifty-two-minute gap between my court filing and their production tells you everything you need to know: The records were readily available. The Borough was simply waiting to see if I would give up. Untrue statement verified by the email timeline exchange between Flynn and Long on October 10th.
• But when government officials repeatedly claim records “don’t exist,” then produce them only after legal pressure, court oversight becomes necessary. Untrue statement verified by the email timeline and exchange between Flynn and Long on October 10th.

• This case will determine whether the Borough of Bath is subject to the same transparency requirements as every other municipality in Pennsylvania, or whether our Borough can evade those requirements by making false sworn statements, then producing records only when forced by litigation. Untrue statement verified by the email timeline and exchange between Flynn and Long on October 10th.

All verifiable lies by Long!

Section Entitled “Why the Office of Open Records Sided with Me”

Long says:

“However, the OOR accepted the Borough’s July sworn statements that the records “don’t exist” without requiring any explanation for how March capability became July impossibility. That’s why court review was necessary.”

The Borough has repeatedly made this point and its likely it will never sink in for Mr. Long: What the Borough did in another Request for him has no bearing on what the outcome of OOR AP 2025-1943 resulted in. The Borough never argued the ‘capability’ of creating Audit Trail Reports. The Borough created the Audit Trail reports in the past for Mr. Long in an effort to appease him, to no avail. Long just kept abusing process, constantly asking for more records.

The Borough’s position prior to OOR AP 2025-1943 Final Determination there was never an obligation under the Right-to-Know-Law to produce Audit Trail Reports. OOR disagreed. The Borough complied with OOR’s Final Determination that it would need to generate/create Audit Trail Reports, even though the Borough’s position on the issue remains unchanged. The Borough still believes the OOR has overstepped, even when OOR has acknowledged the Audit Trail Reports in question didn’t exist at the time Long requested them. Instead of driving up further legal costs to argue its position further, the Borough capitulated and complied.

Section Entitled “The Borough’s October 15 Attack: Retaliation, Not Explanation“

This section contains some of Mr. Long’s biggest whoppers. It’s amazing to the length Mr. Long will go to further his fantasies and misinformation/disinformation campaign.

The Borough explained in great detail, over the course of a couple years how Mr. Long has been trying to manipulate the Right-to-Know Law and frankly, cause the Borough to spend money in attorney’s fees to defend against his frivolous filings. The Borough’s October 15th article only highlights some of the case citations and legal theory Long attempted to use to persuade OOR Appeal Officers and Northampton County Judges of his lies. Meaning, there could be more instances of his use of fake case citations and unsupported legal theories. This wasn’t a case of improper citation format in just one filing, as Long contends. It’s been a situation of Long’s chronic use of fake legal theory and non-existent case law in multiple instances, through multiple filings spanning more than a 2-year period.

In OOR AP 2025-1943, the Appeals Officer may have sided with Mr. Long in the argument that generating Audit Trail Reports is not considered record creation under the Right-to-Know Law. OOR actually went out of their way, referencing other recent OOR Final Determinations, and providing their own case law and legal theory as to why they felt generating Audit Trail Reports should be accessible under the Right-to-Know. This is far from reaching their determination using anything Mr. Long provided as evidence other than the idea that exporting QuickBooks Audit Trail Reports is somehow not the creation of a record.

In OOR AP 2025-1943, the Appeals Officer actual entitles a section of the Determination, “Requestors preliminary arguments are not persuasive.” OOR cited to multiple instances where Long made citation references to cases that didn’t exist.

Section Entitled “What I Am Asking the Court to Do“

Prior to this section, Long meanders, making all sorts of legal claims about what a Borough Treasurer is and isn’t supposed to do. Long attempts to cite from other aspects of state law that have absolutely nothing at all to do with the Right-to-Know Law. Consequently, Long’s references to these other areas of law have nothing to do with a Petition for Review at the County level. In the different legal text Long refers to, none of these sources say what Long thinks it does. There is no mandate for the Borough to format, create, or maintain ‘Audit Trail Reports.’ The Borough is only required to have an annual Financial Audit completed by a third-party. The annual audit reviews the Borough’s audit trails, (not the same as Audit Trail Reports). The Borough absolutely has to show how money was received, spent, and that there is an attached origination of revenue and expense receipt.

Long says he’s going to ask a Court for the following:

• Find that the Borough’s sworn statements that records “don’t exist” were contradicted by the Borough’s own subsequent production of over 1,000 pages. Petition for Review is only a consideration as to how a reviewing agency applied certain rules in reaching a determination. Borough’s sworn statements have not been falsified as Long claims. Long provides no proof that the Borough’s sworn statements have been falsified.
• Order the Borough to provide records in the requested format (Excel, not PDF) as required by Pennsylvania law, which says records must be provided in the format agencies use internally. The Borough is only required to provide Long a snapshot (a copy) of records, should they exist, under the Right-to-Know Law. The Borough is not required to provide Mr. Long Excel formats of records. The OOR has held The RTKL provides requesters with the right to inspect and duplicate. Duplication is a snapshot, a static record that cannot be altered or modified, in other words, a “copy.” [Section 701(b) of the RTKL] specifically prevents access to an agency’s computer, evidencing intent to protect government records and files from any interference. By providing a pdf file, [the agency] complied with the RTKL by duplicating its spreadsheet and [the requester] received the “information” requested. It was provided in an electronic medium and there is no requirement to provide records in a manner that would subject them to alteration or manipulation. [The requester] received the record, as defined by the RTKL, which he requested. (OOR Dkt. AP 2009-0128, 2009 PA O.O.R.D. LEXIS 607)
• Recognize that the timing and pattern of denial-then-production demonstrates bad faith warranting fee awards to deter future obstruction. Petition for Review is only a consideration as to how a reviewing agency applied certain rules in reaching a determination. Bad faith is warranted where an Agency doesn’t comply with the Right-to-Know Appeals process. The Borough timely and thoroughly responded to the Request, provided responsive records where possible, and has participated on appeal.
• Ensure that Borough officials who swear under oath that records don’t exist face accountability when those records are later produced. Petition for Review is only a consideration as to how a reviewing agency applied certain rules in reaching a determination. Long has not proven the Borough’s sworn statements were falsified.

Section Entitled “Responding to the “Al Fraud” Allegations”

Long is admitting that he has “…no legal training representing himself.” Long also admits that his case citations had errors or didn’t stand for the legal proposition he claimed it did. Long minimizes the number of errors, which is highly debatable, and he makes a bold statement that he’s used 75 different citations with an accuracy of 96% without showing his sources. Yet Long glosses over the fact that he is filing verification forms, under penalty of perjury that the information he submits is true and correct, when he admits and knows it isn’t. Long said it himself, he has no legal training to be making legal arguments and citing to case law where the cases either don’t stand for the legal proposition he’s making or where the case citation doesn’t exist.

Mr. Long is flat out lying when he says: My prior filings contained correct citations for the same legal principles, they did not. OR The substantive legal arguments were validated by the OOR’s ruling, OOR’s Final Determination was quite narrow and did not find the Borough acted in bad faith as Mr. Long keeps claiming. Finally, I acknowledged and corrected errors when they were identified. During the Borough’s Petition for Review, the Borough had to send Mr. Long a written demand letter to retract his fictitious court filings loaded with false legal theory and non-existent case law. Long failed to comply, assuring himself his case citations and legal theory was correct when it absolutely wasn’t. Long is often overly confident and seldom is he right. It’s what led to Judge Kassis Ordering a $1,000 sanction against Mr. Long. At no time has Mr. Long ever acknowledged (except for this October 19th post) his misuse of case citations and case law. Although Long frames the problem in a different light to minimize the true damage he’s causing taxpayers, he has yet to apologized publicly for the Borough having to spend legal fees cutting through all of his blather.

What Happens Next

The Borough will vigorously defend itself against Michael Long’s abuse of process. Should Mr. Long’s fraud and perjury continue, the Borough will be forced into a position to file additional sanctions against him.

Transcript of Mr. Long’s comments from the August 11, 2025, Borough Council Meeting Audio File. The referenced Office of Open Records matter is docketed at OOR AP 2025-1943:

The posts:

Michael Long, and his Bath, PA – Community Hub Facebook profiles took to socials in another odd chat with Michael (himself) about the recent Court Order, denying the Borough’s Petition for Review in a Right-to-Know matter. Mr. Long is quite the artist with a deep imagination.

Mr. Long allegedly posted the Court Order. While, Long’s Bath, PA – Community Hub posted an AI generated video of a man, appearing to sniff court papers with the words “Appeal Denied” printed on them saying: “I love the smell of freshly printed court papers in the morning. Smells like victory.” The video doesn’t make any sense. Under the video there is a caption that reads, “When $100k and multiple attorneys rack up an L.” “L” meaning loss. But was it a loss the way Mr. Long thinks or even realizes?

What Mr. Long doesn’t disclose or share with his limited audience is that the Court Order wasn’t a victory for him. In fact, the Court didn’t refer to any of Mr. Long’s ridiculous motions and legal strategy (largely gibberish) to reach its conclusion. Had it not been for Mr. Long’s unnecessary conduct that only served to protract the issue for months on end, (led to him paying $1,000 in court sanctions) causing the Borough to spend money to legally defend against his nonsense, he and the Borough would have reached the same conclusion months to even a year earlier.

Mr. Long intentionally fails to represent that the Court actually granted the Borough discretion in this case. The Borough is to re-check the emails that have been determined attorney-client privileged, and if no other information can be divulged without disclosing privileged communications, then the Borough is not required to give anything to Mr. Long.

The real loser in all of this, as Mr. Long jokes with his posts, is the taxpayer. The taxpayer has to endure the Right-to-Know process, pay for the file searching, retrieval, and compiling thousands of documents; enduring all the different legal challenges associated with the process, and defending itself from Mr. Long’s fantasies. But hey, the artwork is cool!

The statement “When $100k and multiple attorneys rack up and L”. Absolute fiction. The Borough did not spend $100,000 solely on its Petition for Review. Through May 31, 2025, the Borough has spent $190,315.30 over 32 months (2022 through 2025) on Mr. Long’s Right-to-Know Requests, follow-ups, writing responses, and participating in state appeals as follows:

• RTKR #11.2022 – multiple subparts (2-page request); several years’ worth of data; led to Office of Open Records Appeal AP 2022-2675.
• RTKR #21.2022 – multiple subparts (2-page request); a months’ worth of Facebook data; led to Office of Open Records Appeal AP 2023-0032; Mr. Long later withdrew the appeal.
• RTKR #12.2023 – combined with RTKRs #13, #14, and #15 – multiple subparts (14-page request); several years’ worth of data; led to Office of Open Records Appeal AP 2023-1083.
• RTKR #13.2023
• RTKR #14.2023
• RTKR #15.2023
• RTKR #20.2023 – multiple subparts (3-page request); several years’ worth of data; led to Office of Open Records Appeal AP 2023-1598, then Reconsidered AP 2023-1598R, the Borough filed a Petition for Review with the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas.
• RTKR #24.2023 – multiple subparts (3-page request); few years’ worth of data.
• RTKR #32.2023 – multiple subparts (2-page request); meeting minutes from 2023.
• RTKR #33.2023 – multiple subparts (3-page request); meeting minutes and actions from 2021.
• RTKR #37.2023 – multiple subparts (6-page request); several years’ worth of data; Requests #37 and #38 were combined and prematurely appealed by Mr. Long at Office of Open Records AP 2023-2949. Both cases led to Office of Open Records Appeal AP 2024-0001.
• RTKR #38.2023 – multiple subparts (5-page request).
• RTKR #02.2024 – written email in multiple subparts stemming from mediation of AP 2024-0001; several years’ worth of data.
• RTKR #08.2024 – (1-page request); several years’ worth of data.
• RTKR #01.2025 – multiple subparts (6-page request); several years’ worth of data; led to Office of Open Records Appeal AP 2025-0522.
• RTKR #02.2025 – multiple subparts (3-page request); two years’ worth of data on more than 20 different cancelled checks.
• RTKR #05.2025 – multiple subparts (3-page request); camera footage on a single date and time.
• RTKR #09.2025 – multiple subparts (8-page request); several years’ worth of data.

This doesn’t even include Mr. Long’s separate document requests (searching, retrieval, and compilations) outside of the Right-to-Know Law.

For a complete breakdown of the legal expenses Mr. Long has cost Borough taxpayers, see this webpage.

For more information about the case Mr. Long is referring to, see Docket #2023-1598.

The post:

The statement: “So when are you planning to fully remediate 400 N Chestnut and return it to its original condition prior to your illegal use as a dump/transfer station?” The property was used for transferring material and stockpiling clean fill as far back as the early 1990s, before the property was deeded to the Borough of Bath. Clean fill dirt, which is what the property contains, does not require any remediation because there is no contamination at the site as Mr. Long has falsely claimed.

The statement: “…I’m prepared to file a lawsuit demanding such be done immediately under the Donated or Dedicated Property Act..” The deed transferring 400 N. Chestnut Street contained absolutely no restrictive covenants. There was no intended or specified purpose required of the Borough to use the land; nor has the Borough granted rights of the property to a third-party for commercial use. The Donated and Dedicated Property Act (DDPA) was enacted in 1959. There are relatively few reported cases discussing the statute, however there are numerous unresolved issues regarding the law’s applicability. If 400 N. Chestnut Street was acquired specifying that the property was intended for public recreation, then there could potentially be a DDPA claim. It’s a longshot. To file a DDPA claim with the type of fact pattern in Bath’s case would be at the petitioner’s own legal peril.

The post:

The statement: ‘[T]hey took dedicated park land and violated the law by turning it into a dump…” False. The Borough did not take dedicated park land and turned it into a dump. The land was transferred to the Borough for use as it sees fit. There are no protective covenants in the deed. (See the full deed under Notable Statements of 2025 Item #2).

The statement: “[I]n 2023 I requested the property records for the land from the borough in a RTK request. They conveniently only supplied a portion of the deed, leaving out the portion that shows this was dedicated land which provides the land with legal protections…” This is simply untrue. Michael Long, administrator of the Bath PA, Community Hub, requested and was provided a full copy of the deed per Borough of Bath RTKR #15.2023 (see under Notable Statements of 2025 Item #2). The writer is not being truthful about the contents of the deed. See point above.

The statement: “Which was when I saw it was a dedication deed and that their conversion of the property into a dump was illegal.” False. This is continued misinformation from the Bath PA, Community Hub. The Borough was not given the property from the Bath Water Authority restricted to open park space. There has been no ‘conversion’ of the property into a dump.

The statement: “I decided to skip the borough and make a second attempt at acquiring the deed and was able to obtain it 2 days ago.” Mr. Long knows that he can’t make a second request to the Borough for the same public record under the Right-to-Know Law. Had Mr. Long made a request for the same deed; the Borough would have denied the request because he would have sought a record he already received.

This entire post is false.

The post:

The statement: “Caught in Their Own Lie: Bath Borough Accused ME of Trespassing on Land They Illegally Turned Into a Dump”. First, the page writer (‘ME’, as in Hub administrator, Michael Long) DID trespass onto 400 N. Chestnut Street. Second, the Borough has not turned the site into an illegal dumping area.

This site has been used by the Borough for decades (not as the post claims between 2018-2020) as a material transfer area and off limits to public access; the area west of the existing tree line. The open area to the east was occasionally used for parking during the Bath Fire Department Community Days Carnival, and under supervision of the Fire Police. At no time was the public given access to the area photographed by the Bath, PA Community Hub.

This site has experienced theft, unlawful trespassing, and at one point someone set a fire to wooden pallets that were stored there.

For a number of years, the Borough has tried to make the point known the site was publicly off limits by planting tree screenings, installing concrete barriers, to include chains restricting the public from the access road. The site is and has been a public works maintenance area. There is construction debris at this location; to include larger pieces of metal, concrete culverts, and fill dirt. To make this point abundantly clear, the Borough added even more signage to discourage trespassing. For the public’s safety, please STAY OUT!

The statement: “The Smoking Gun: 1995 Deed of Dedication”. The lands of 300 and 400 N. Chestnut Street were deeded to the Borough by the Bath Borough Water Authority. The Bath PA, Community Hub posts one page of the deed, apparently twice, and provides an additional page of the deed, while excluding several other pages. Readers should be skeptical when the Hub only posts fragments of a document. The writer appears to have done this with intent to mislead readers. The writer is cherry-picking phrases of the deed without providing a full copy of the deed meant to only support the writer’s biased positions. It is a strong case of confirmation bias–favoring only information that confirms the writer’s existing beliefs or hypotheses.

For example, the statement: “It clearly states the land is for the “proper use and behoof” of the Borough, specifically for “public welfare”. No, it does not. This is an argument by splicing. The writer chose to take language from the deed on page 025141 (language toward the end of the document), connecting it to language on page 025138 (language toward the beginning of the document) splicing together this information in a new context to suit the writer’s narrative or defend a faulty position.

Bath (being the grantee) was given the property by the Water Authority “for and in consideration of the advantage to its accruing, as well as for diverse other considerations affecting the public welfare which it seeks to advance…” This is in the first ‘whereas clause’ of the deed, page 025138. The deed goes on to state, “premises hereby granted, or mentioned and intended so to be, with the appurtenances, unto the said Grantor, its successors and assigns, to and for the only proper use and behoof of the said Grantee…” (subject deed page 025141; emphasis added). In other words, if the Borough uses the property as a material transfer area, it may do so. The Borough may do what it pleases with 400 N. Chestnut Street because the property and the rights of the property were legally transferred for the sole benefit and ownership of the Borough. This is what the clause “only proper use and behoof of the said Grantee” means. The writer purposefully left out important context as explained above.

See full Deed below (This deed was originally obtained by Michael Long during Borough of Bath Right-to-Know Request #15.2023; the Deed was Attachment #16 in that matter):

The Bath PA, Community Hub also points to the Borough’s recent (as in 2024) Comprehensive Park & Recreation Plan as evidence to support its claims 400 N. Chestnut Street was intended for recreational space. The Park & Recreation Plan is PROPOSING future use of Borough property. It doesn’t mean 400 N. Chestnut Street IS a recreational space at the time of this writing. The site, at one point, was proposed to become a recycling transfer area for residents. So it remains to be seen how the site will be developed in the future.

Also, while the Plan may indicate Fireman’s Field is on both (the north and south) sides of Creek Road, there are two separate lots, being 300 N. Chestnut– known by the public as, Firefighter’s Field and 400 N. Chestnut, the Borough’s material transfer area. Even the Bath, PA Community Hub post acknowledges there are two separate lots at this location.

The remainder of the post is stating opinions that need no further explanation.

The post is meant to look official, using legal terminology and threatening violation(s), going on to state such violations could preclude the Borough from receiving grant funding. The messaging sounds believable, but the claims are baseless. Reader’s need to keep in mind the Hub’s administrator, Michael Long, has a history of hyperfixation with rules and laws for which he doesn’t fully understand. Mr. Long has frequently cited case law that either doesn’t exist or does not stand for the legal propositions Mr. Long asserts. As an example, Mr. Long was sanctioned by a Northampton County Court and the Borough recovered $1,000 for his assertions of false legal positions and fake case citations during a legal proceeding. Please see more information under Notable Statements of 2025 Item #1.

This post is once again, an attempt by the Bath PA, Community Hub and its administrator, Micheal Long to push a false narrative meant to unnecessarily cause public concern, distrust, or otherwise erode community cohesion.

The Post:

This post is largely mis/disinformation. Specifically:

The claim: the “Bath Borough Manager Caught in Repeat Enviornmental Violation–And He Must Be Terminated Immediately.” Attention popping headline, but false. The Borough has not been caught in repeat environmental violation(s). This is a false statement. In fact, the writer provides no evidence of a notice of violation. While the Borough does receive inquiry from the PA Department of Enviornmental Protection (PA DEP) when citizen complaints are filed, the Borough works with DEP to resolve any issues at the lowest possible level. Bath has not been fined in any circumstances.

The claim: “I caught a Bath Borough Public Works dump truck illegally dumping contaminated soil and household trash–including a gallon jug of Clorox bleach–into a designated floodplain at 400 N. Chestnut St, next to Firefighter Park.” The statement is largely false. The site is used by the Public Works Department as a material transfer area located at 400 N. Chestnut Street for storing soil and debris collected from stormwater inlets and street sweeping activity. Because of Bath’s size, the Borough is limited on where it can temporarily store material. Fill dirt and topsoil are also stored at this location on a temporary basis. This transfer area is legal and has an Erosion & Sediment Plan filed with the PA DEP. The debris photographed and appearing posted to the Bath, PA Community Hub was material collected (just this week) from the Borough’s stormwater inlets, to include recovered household trash, as part of ongoing MS4 maintenance activity. The Clorox bottle mentioned in the post (without context) was empty. In the future, the Public Works Crew will remove trash recovered in the dirt piles during their stormwater inlet cleanings instead of leaving on site with the soil for future removal. The area used by the Public Works crew is NOT in the designated floodplain, as further discussed below.

The material discussed (the smaller piles, not the larger piles in the background of the photographs) in the Bath, PA Community Hub post was placed on the site within a 24-hour period of the post. Material brought to the site from inlet cleanings and/or street sweeping activity is on a temporary basis until the public works crew can transfer the material to a disposal site–local landfill. Bath’s Public Works Crews can only work so fast. So, to photograph the pile and to sensationalize the issue within x hours of the material being dropped off at the site (and without submitting a complaint to the Borough Office) is rather trivial.

The comment about the soil being contaminated is unverified by the writer and untrue. PA DEP typically classifies contaminated soil as soils with high concentrations of a chemical compound. For example, if soil was excavated from a gas station underground storage tank project and fuel leaked from the tanks into the soil, portions of that excavated soil could be classified as contaminated. The chemical contamination must exceed limits determined by PA DEP.

The claim: “A site where the Borough was fined for the exact same behavior in 2022.” This is a false statement. The Borough has not been fined by any agency regarding activity at 400 N. Chestnut Street.

Logical Fallacy: The statement, “Council has a choice to make: 1. Terminate Bradford Flynn immediately for cause, or 2. Be complicit in his misconduct.” This portion of the post creates a classic false dilemma and is nonsense. The premise erroneously limits what options are available to Council surrounding the issue. Council can think for itself as a whole and as individuals because Council understands how to reason and evaluate objective facts. There is more than just the writer’s argument to consider. This portion of the post is meant to deceive readers. It follows clear aims by the writer to continue a mis-and disinformation campaign in order to destabilize Bath’s community. The Bath, PA Community Hub (both Facebook Community Groups; operated in large part by Michael Long) have consistently shared wrong or misinformation, disinformation, made false statements, or shared information that was completely fabricated. Please see Notable Statements of 2022, 2023, and 2024. See also a Court Order against Mr. Long.)

Further considerations: The post lacks context and purposely does not share information about the location of the soil photographed. The post is misrepresenting facts relative to the debris pile and the considerable forest and brush around it, etc. First, at no time has the Public Works Department dumped ANY soil or trash into the waterway of Monocacy Creek. Any statements made to the contrary (or funny comic strip illustrations representing this idea) are patently false. The debris is not within ‘feet’ of the creek as writer claims. Second, the material brought to the site is contained within a built-up and densely vegetated berm area the Borough had in place for decades, shielding it from Monocacy Creek. Third, the material brought to the site is at least fifty feet (50′) from the banks of the creek. Fourth, the material is not within the 100-year flood plain, as the writer falsely claims. Fifth, the Borough is not required to maintain a permit at the site because the earth disturbance at this site is under one (1) acre, however PA DEP does have an Erosion & Sediment Control Plan in place from Bath since 2019. Please see map below.

Certain portions of Bath’s Erosion & Sediment Control Plan may be active or modified depending on the work being done at the site. If, and when Bath is contacted by PA DEP about this issue, the Borough will make adjustments to field conditions and its Erosion & Sediment Control Plan accordingly.

The rest of the post is stated opinion requiring no further response.

---

Borough of Bath E&S Plan (400 N. Chestnut Street, Bath, PA 18014)