Williamsport officials must be held accountable for rate hikes

To the editor:

If you are a resident of Williamsport, before you turn on your faucet or flush your toilet, you will soon owe Williamsport almost $80 every three months, and this does not include the additional fees for your use of water and the treatment of sewage.

Future rate increases and high electric bills are on the horizon and it may soon be too expensive to live in Williamsport.

It's no secret that every municipality across the U.S., Maryland and Washington County is in need of water and sewer infrastructure repairs - and Williamsport is at the top of this list.

However, there is a responsibility assigned to all elected officials and to their respective offices to be diligent, effectively manage the costs, and to set spending limits and priorities.

According to the Williamsport charter with regards to power and duties, it clearly states it is the sole power of the office of mayor that has "complete supervision of the financial administration of town government. The mayor shall supervise the distribution of all money and have control over all expenditures to assure that all budget expenditures are not exceeded."

A Herald-Mail story dated Oct. 26 ("Hikes in water rates likely for towns," page A1) quoted Mayor James G. McCleaf II as stating the water/sewer fund suffered losses of $60,000 and $80,000 over the last two fiscal years.

As a former Williamsport town councilman, I was assigned to the Water/Sewer Committee from 2005 to early 2009.

I consistently urged and suggested routine cost-saving initiatives, but was reminded by town officials that my role was as "a legislator only" and that my offer of assistance and input was labeled as interference.

In 2006, as a councilman, I did bring to the floor of the council chamber a motion to increase the water rates by 5 percent. However, my motion included that 50 percent of that 5 percent increase be dedicated to a "reserve fund" to offset any future increase to soften the financial impact on our residents. The motion was passed.

Where is the reserve fund today? How much is in the account, and if it has been used, was there a vote by the council to approve the transfer of funds, which our charter requires?

My estimate reveals about $9,000 per year ($27,000 in three years) should have accumulated in the reserve fund. Combine this with revenue generated from a Cellular One contract ($25,000 per year, not yet completed) for use of our water tower would have eliminated the need for a water rate increase.

My questions to the town bookkeeper in regards to the water reserve fund received vague responses and remain a mystery today.

Washington County officials from the Water Quality Department, at a public meeting in 2008, recommended that the town's priority should be the pump stations, and yet town officials borrowed $4,400,000 ("Williamsport sewers to get $4.4 million facelift, Tuesday, Sept. 15, page A3) for other projects deemed less important with more money ($3.5 million) to be borrowed to replace the four aging pump stations and potentially placing a debt of more than $10,000 per household.

Our four pump stations should have been our top priority and if they fail, according to town officials, "it would take months to replace and repair." That has yet to be addressed, borrowing more money and adding more fees to your water/sewer bill and more debt to the citizens. Just think of the mess in your basement if the sewer lines fail due to a pump station being shut down.

If this priority is left unattended, a tragedy worse than the recent water main break in Dundalk, Md., is possible and will lead to the financial ruin of property and the personal finances of Williamsport residents.

Is there an emergency contingency plan on paper for procedures to implement in case of a failure of a pump station, as recommended by county officials?

In addition, very little action, if any, has been taken by the town to ensure that a properly licensed employee was to receive certification from the State of Maryland to oversee our water collection operations. A contract was to be negotiated with Washington County in the short term for compliance for our water collection system as required by state law to avoid Maryland Department of the Environment violations and state penalties.

In conclusion, it's not about placing blame and finger pointing. It's about holding our elected officials accountable for their decisions and encouraging transparency to ensure they are spending our money wisely, setting priorities and advocating for the people they serve. After all, they did ask for the job.

Earle Pereschuk
Williamsport

Current method of reviewing elected official salaries is inefficient

To the editor:

Since our meetings continue to go untelevised, it seems necessary to repeat two very clear points I made in public session during the joint county/delegation discussion of compensation for local elected positions, especially as it relates to recent stories and commentary on the elected treasurer's position.

First, regardless of whether the county treasurer position is elected or appointed, it is my belief that Todd Hershey has proven in every instance called upon by this board to be the best candidate to carry out this duty, a point I reiterated to the reporter in our phone conversation.

Second, the current process created by the delegation to evaluate local elected salaries is an inefficient method due to a lack of guidance, a point supported by members of the Salary Review Commission present at the meeting.

It is the second point that is the primary focus of my comments, which quite simply were, rather than waiting another four years to come around and knowing the system needs greater direction and clarity, why not proactively and comprehensively utilize the services of this commission between now and then to evaluate each county elected position and develop a consistent apolitical methodology to apply to those positions that might warrant it. One need only look as far back as last year's discussion and bills of confusion regarding the sheriff's salary to see this point.

This approach would provide the appointed Salary Review Commission the guidance and tools necessary to more fully carry out their charge well before their next report. If, at the end the day, that report meant recommendation for change in the formula, composition and criteria for any specific office, at minimum such direction would be better than the arbitrary and awkward process that currently exists. Knowing the speed at which government moves, instead of batting about politically appealing, vague comments, I believe we should begin actively working to improve the process now.

These remarks are not new to the delegation, as this is the second year in a row we have had this public discussion and it was a member of the delegation who first tossed this thought out and a majority of the board that considered putting it on the table simply to get some movement on the discussion. To now claim otherwise is simply not reflective of the public record that readily exists. With due respect to this process, regardless of how closely it aligns with an election cycle, the pendulum of entitlement to compensation for elected office should not swing at the hand of convenience in whichever case might suit. If that is the type of leadership the public seeks, I am certainly not it.

Kristin B. Aleshire
Washington County commissioner

Paper, school system are blameless on reporting SAT scores

To the editor:

Bob Brady's lengthy Nov. 8 letter to the editor ("Paper doesn't do a world-class job when reporting schools' test scores," page A8) chastised The Herald-Mail for praising our school system despite lower SAT scores, but both The Herald-Mail and Washington County Public Schools system are blameless.

The SAT has nothing to do with a school system's effectiveness. It measures an individual student's aptitude or intelligence. It measures reasoning abilities, critical thinking and problem solving. It's an IQ test. The only way to significantly improve your SAT is to improve your ancestry. And for most kids, it is too late to get smarter parents.

Smarter kids generally score better on the SAT than dumber kids, even if the dumber kids worked harder in school, studied more diligently and had better teachers.

That is why testing experts say the best preparation for taking the SAT is a good night's sleep. The test isn't going to quiz a kid on what they learned in school, anyway, so there is no point in cramming. Just eat a good breakfast and be sharp.

Is there a test that measures achievement and mastery of educational content? Yes, the ACT. If Brady wants to get excited about tests, he could start tracking ACT performance.

But even with the ACT, the deck is stacked in favor of smart kids. And when a batch of dumber kids takes a test, the cumulative score goes down.

Besides, scores on either the SAT or ACT are merely indicators of a general range of intelligence or achievement. If a kid is in a lousy mood or gets distracted by an attractive blonde in the next row, scores can plummet. As long as kids are human, variations will occur.

But Washington County Public Schools has nothing to do with it, so save the analysis and the vitriol.

Wrong target. Wrong issue.

Mike McGough
Hagerstown

'Tolerance crowd' turns hypocritical when it's attacked

To the editor:

First, let me state this is not a personal attack on Leonard Pitts, but addresses the hypocrisy of the so-called "tolerance crowd" that finds itself unable to tolerate those who disagree with them.

While they are quick to condemn anyone who disagrees with any topic that falls short of established Judeo-Christian morals and standards as being judgmental, mean-spirited and phobic, it seems they are quite capable of abandoning the "all cultures/religions are of equal value" attitude when their individual tolerance thresholds are exceeded.

Like Pitts, they will try to justify their criticism by saying, in most cases, they would not judge or condemn because of cultural or religious differences.

My question then is: By what standard does one then determine that there are exceptions to the rule of "all cultures/religions being equal" in order to justify any criticism or judgmental positions and who establishes this standard?

It appears to me there exists either a concealed basic disbelief in the equality of all cultures/religions, or situations can become so obviously wrong and unacceptable that hypocrisy cannot be avoided.

Bottom line: All cultures/religions are either "equal" or "not equal" regardless of what "political correctness" would have us believe.

George Rogers
Waynesboro, Pa.