The LuLac Edition #255, July 2nd, 2007

PHOTO INDEX: GRILLING AS A SUMMERTIME EVENT (BUT WATCH YOUR STEP IN FORTY FORT) PLUS WILK'S SUE HENRY AND BLOG EDITOR.

GOVERNMENT GRILLING

No, I'm not talking about a Senate committee asking a ne'er do well politico pointed questions, nor am I talking about the FBI trying to get information to break a case. WBRE TV reports tonight that the Borough of Forty Fort, (where the first 40 settled and are presumabley buried face down so as to look down their noses at the rest of us common folk) is putting restrictions on backyard grilling because residents are complaining. Now I ask you, who would complain about the smell of a great burger or ribs simmering on the grill along with husked corn on the cob or a beautiful baked potato. (Oh I know, those whitebread devotees of cheese and mustard sandwiches on what else, Wonder bread!) I believe government should be in the lives of people for health care, civil rights advocacy, national security and police protection, some parts of social services and catostrophic illnesses. That's it, that's the list. But government interfering in a person's right to grill in his or her backyard? I don't know who is worse in this deal, the tight ass complaining neighbors of "snoot land" or the testicular challenged council that is leaping like a lapdog to put together an ordinance! When Mrs. LuLac and I drive around, she marvels at the beauty of the houses in Forty Fort. I agree, if only those homes were inhabitated by someone with a brain, and a soul. In the meantime, if you grill in Forty Fort, do so at your own peril. Or else the ghosts of the "First Forty" will come and steal your meat!

STIRRINGS

It's nearly the fourth of July and already local politics is inching toward a rejuvination after a busy primary. Greg Skrepenak is being criticized by some for cronyism for giving a county contractor some business. It doesn't matter that the contributions he got were more than the business, the fans are flaming. Joe Valenti, Sunday Dispatch columnist also has complained that Skrep doesn't return his or anyone else's phone calls and predicts political doom for the former linebacker.

In the meantime, Council candidate in District C, Peter Gagilardi got all excited when he saw a Mike McGlynn column calling for a more bi partisan government in Wilkes Barre. He expressed his comments in a letter to the editor. Peter has been talking about bi partisan government in all shapes and sizes for more than three deacdes. Whether that will help him in his race with Kathy Kane is open to conjecture.

And the Citizen's Voice did an editorial a few weeks back regarding how the Recorder of Deeds office is being run given the recent investigations which resulted in two indictments. A reader responded to that editorial as well as a letter from a member of the Recorder of Deeds staff. Here is that letter:

Editor: I read with great interest the letter to the editor from Joan Hoggarth, the Deputy Recorder of Deeds /Senior Accounts and Operations Manager," concerning the recent shortcomings in the office she is employed in. In her letter she states "anyone who takes the time to read the audit report could see I the thefts were going on long before Mary K. Dysleski took office. Well, I can tell you that as a taxpayer in Luzerne County I have taken the time to read the reports - and the criminal complaints that have been filed, and let's just say Ms. Hoggarth has not presented the facts, surrounding the ineptitude in the Recorder of Deeds office in an accurate manner.If Ms. Hoggarth's statement about the thefts occurring prior to Mary K. Dysleski's tenure in the Recorder of Deeds office is true, why does the official criminal complaint filed say that the violation of the penal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania occurred on or about 1/1/1998 - 1/31/05? If this is the window of time that the thefts have occurred and Mary K. Dysleski has been in office since January of 2000 it appears that Ms. Hoggarth's opening paragraph in her letter from May 23, 2007 is in error.Obviously these thefts were occurring in Dysleski's office also. If the office is run as "efficiently and with great integrity" as Ms. Hoggarth stated in her letter, wouldn't these thefts have been detected in much shorter window of time than five or more years?Some of the findings in the criminal complaint are clear:1. Not all receipts processed through the Recorder of Deeds Office were deposited in a timely manner.2. Not all deposits were for the FULL and complete amount of receipts collected for the day.3. Some deposits were made-to the bank accounts that did not correspond to any particular day's receipts/collection record.The forensic auditors in this case came to several conclusions:1. An unusual or increasing time lag between the receipt of funds and when the funds were actually deposited.2. Thefts may have resulted from inadequate segregation of duties, lack of oversight, and/or collusion.These findings and conclusions are factual and in the criminal complaint. They are not my opinion, but the result of countless hours of hard work by our law enforcement agencies.It is also interesting to note, that one of the defendants in the recent scandals surrounding the Recorder of' Deeds Office has stated that checks were often made out to "cash" in the office and a rubber stamper was used to sign Mary K. Dysleski's name as the endorsement on the checks. I would hope that the Recorder of Deeds would have better institutional control of who is stamping her signature on checks made out to “cash.”Another detail about the Recorder of Deeds Office that I found unbelievable when researching this case was the fact that there were four different times when more than one hundred days elapsed without a deposit being made. In fact, one of the periods was almost 200 days without a deposit being made. We are talking about large sums of money in these periods, sometimes as much as $45,000. Does this sound like a prudent business practice?In the Auditor General’s “Findings and Recommendations” for the period January 1, 2002 to January 31, 2005 (Mary K. Dysleski is in office at this time), some of the conclusions were:1. “We believe that if the Recorder of Deeds would have taken the appropriate action to investigate the reason for these discrepancies noted in our prior audit reports, the conditions cited in this audit report could have been prevented or detected on a timely basis.”2. “In addition, good business practice dictates that it is management’s responsibility to establish and implement an adequate system of internal controls over receipts.”Translation of the above conclusions is simple, the Recorder of Deeds Office did not follow the findings and recommendations of previous auditor general reports which would have prevented or at least detected the theft occurring in the office in a timely manner, not years later. Also, that the responsibility of internal controls falls on the recorder of deeds who has their name on the door at the time of the auditor general’s findings.It is easy to comprehend why Joan Hoggarth wrote the response to your editorial of May 9 that she did. She is a politically appointed employee of Mary K. Dysleski and she is trying to protect not only the office, but her own job as well. I just wish she would have been more truthful and accurate with her portrayal of the office and the many scandals surrounding it as of late.Just as a matter of record, if anyone would like to check the facts I have stated in this letter, please log on to:www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Reports/County/CountyOffices/ctyRecorderofDeedsLuzerne042706.pdfThis easily accessible link will take you to the report on the Recorder of Deeds Office for the period of January 1, 2002 to January 31, 2005.If the Recorder of Deeds office is run in the unclear fashion that Joan Hoggarth penned her letter on May 23, 2007, it is no wonder why there is close to $500,000 dollars or more missing from the office.As a taxpayer I can only hope that in the future that something like this occurring due to the incompetence, lack of institutional control, and safeguards in the office of Recorder of Deeds will not happen again in Luzerne County.Thank you to The Citizens’ Voice for your editorial on May 9 and for having the courage to point out when there is clearly something wrong in an elected office that harms the taxpayers of Luzerne County.

Joseph F. Oprendick

Pittston

THE POWER OF SUE

Three true stories. I'm on my cell in the lobby of my workplace. After I finish, a woman sitting in the area asks me if I'm David Yonki. Now given my past history with women, this is a scary question. I own up anyway. She then tells me she recognized my voice from my appearance on the Sue Henry show back in February. I'm getting my car washed and an older gentlemen hears me talking to a mutual friend. When I am paying my bill, the guy says, "you're Yonki, right?" Thinking he was a contemporary of my late father or uncles I say yes. He says, "Miss you on that Sue Henry show, where've ya been?" Friday night I'm in the Sunshine Supermarket buying junk like licorice and pizza from an unheard of place in Nanticoke. I swing around the aisle and a guy says to me, "Heard you on Sue Henry today, been a while, did they ban you?" Nope, I told him, I've been working during the time her show was on. Three unsolicited incidents in a matter of a week. The woman has an audience and if I were a politico, why wouldn't I want to be on her show! The POWER OF SUE, being recognized when you aren't even trying.