From the BCCT.
Bucks man testing open records
By GEMA MARIA DUARTE
Dave Cahill is the first Bucks County resident to take the state's new Right-to-Know law for a test drive.
He submitted two appeals to the state's Office of Open Records after he said Penndel denied his requests for public information in early January.
A year and two days ago, Gov. Edward Rendell signed the new Right-To-Know law, changing the way Pennsylvanians access public records from state and local governments. The new law became fully effective Jan. 1.
Cahill said he hopes his challenge, received by the state Jan. 23, will pay off with copies of third-party reports paid for by the borough that detail the results of inspections of two privately owned properties in the borough.
Penndel's denial letter dated Jan. 7 states that the investigation reports were conducted by Building Inspection Underwriters based in Feasterville.
"The inspections and reports were paid by taxpayer money, so it should be public information," the borough resident said.
The company inspected two homes on the 400 block of Cynthia Avenue after complaints were filed that allege those properties have apartment-like structures, also known as equivalent dwelling units, in addition to the main house on the property. If that's the case, and the EDUs are rented, those property owners would be required to pay separate fees for garbage collection, sewer service and a renter's tax.
Penndel tax records show that one of the property owners is former council president Janet Myers, who earlier this month resigned as tax collector due to health concerns. She had been appointed to the position in 2008. Myers has said that she doesn't have a rental unit on her property.
The other property is owned by James and Susan Anderson. Susan Anderson is a member of the borough's Long Range and Finance Committee. The newspaper was unsuccessful in reaching the Andersons for comment Friday.
Penndel council President Ward McMasters said he didn't want to comment on the issue, saying that it's a matter between Cahill and the state.
Under the Right-to-Know law, a record is presumed to be public unless a government agency can prove otherwise by citing specific reasons detailed in the law.
Penndel did that.
In its denial letter, the borough said the law "does not mandate the disclosure of records of an agency relating to a non-commercial investigation including investigative materials, notes, correspondence or reports. In addition, it discloses an unwarranted invasion of privacy."
The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records has 30 days to determine whether the information Cahill requested is public or private, office deputy director Barry Fox said last week. The office's appeals officer, Dena Lefkowitz, contacted Cahill and Penndel in a three-paragraph letter dated Feb. 6, advising them of the procedure.
Since Cahill's appeal, the state has received four others from county residents, including one from Fairless Hills resident Jihad Ali, who has requested information from a nonprofit group in Philadelphia. Two appeals are from Chalfont resident Mitchell Meyerson. And the other was submitted by Allison Dukes of Warwick.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Supervision or Snoopervision?
From the BCCT.
Officials discussing student drug testing
By CHRISTINA KRISTOFIC
A decision may come before the end of the school year.
Central Bucks School District psychologists have spent the past three months meeting with focus groups to discuss the possibility of implementing a random student drug testing program.
They will continue the meetings through March and school district administrators will likely share the information with the school board in late spring. Superintendent N. Robert Laws said this week, "We just don't know yet how we're going to do this and if we're going to do it."
"We're coming on this at a time when our budget doesn't allow for a lot of frills, either," he said. "This isn't free. We're going to have to contract with a lab. No matter how much you invest in it, if you save a life, it's worth it."
Central Bucks has lost graduates to drug overdose in recent years. Jeramiah Seger and John H. Warren IV, both graduates of CB East, overdosed in 2006 on heroin laced with fentanyl. And Kyle Houck, a CB West graduate, overdosed on heroin about a year later.
Laws said the decision to discuss random student drug testing wasn't directly related to those deaths, but they were an influence.
"The unfortunate part is when you deal with young people, there are always cases," he said. "The motivation for us is that we want to put everything in place we can to help students make better decisions. A lot of kids tell us that if they know they might have to pee in a cup and they never know when that's coming, that's a deterrent."
School district officials started talking last spring about implementing a voluntary random student drug testing program in the high schools. They brought Christina Steffner, principal of Hunterdon Central Regional High School in New Jersey and an advocate for random student drug testing, to speak about how drug testing has worked at her school. And they surveyed parents.
The drug testing discussion was put on hold over the summer months and resumed in the fall with the focus groups. Laws said school administrators have met with "just about anyone who would talk to us," including officials from other schools, chiefs of police and business leaders.
Students from Hunterdon Central Regional High School will come to Doylestown early in March to share their thoughts on random student drug testing with students at Central Bucks.
If school officials decide to pursue a random student drug testing program, school officials will also have to research the legality of such a program, negotiate a contract with a lab, seek funding (Laws said the district will apply for grants) and draft a policy to be approved by the school board.
"At this point, I don't know what I'll even be recommending to the board," Laws said. "We want this to be something the community wants us to do. We don't want it to be talked down. We don't want it to be something we're forcing on people. If it's a benefit to keep the kids clean, then we'll provide it as a service."
Laws believes a random student drug testing program could be good for the community if the community wants it.
He said, "It's not about supervision or snoopervision; it's about getting into our kids' lives and protecting them."
Officials discussing student drug testing
By CHRISTINA KRISTOFIC
A decision may come before the end of the school year.
Central Bucks School District psychologists have spent the past three months meeting with focus groups to discuss the possibility of implementing a random student drug testing program.
They will continue the meetings through March and school district administrators will likely share the information with the school board in late spring. Superintendent N. Robert Laws said this week, "We just don't know yet how we're going to do this and if we're going to do it."
"We're coming on this at a time when our budget doesn't allow for a lot of frills, either," he said. "This isn't free. We're going to have to contract with a lab. No matter how much you invest in it, if you save a life, it's worth it."
Central Bucks has lost graduates to drug overdose in recent years. Jeramiah Seger and John H. Warren IV, both graduates of CB East, overdosed in 2006 on heroin laced with fentanyl. And Kyle Houck, a CB West graduate, overdosed on heroin about a year later.
Laws said the decision to discuss random student drug testing wasn't directly related to those deaths, but they were an influence.
"The unfortunate part is when you deal with young people, there are always cases," he said. "The motivation for us is that we want to put everything in place we can to help students make better decisions. A lot of kids tell us that if they know they might have to pee in a cup and they never know when that's coming, that's a deterrent."
School district officials started talking last spring about implementing a voluntary random student drug testing program in the high schools. They brought Christina Steffner, principal of Hunterdon Central Regional High School in New Jersey and an advocate for random student drug testing, to speak about how drug testing has worked at her school. And they surveyed parents.
The drug testing discussion was put on hold over the summer months and resumed in the fall with the focus groups. Laws said school administrators have met with "just about anyone who would talk to us," including officials from other schools, chiefs of police and business leaders.
Students from Hunterdon Central Regional High School will come to Doylestown early in March to share their thoughts on random student drug testing with students at Central Bucks.
If school officials decide to pursue a random student drug testing program, school officials will also have to research the legality of such a program, negotiate a contract with a lab, seek funding (Laws said the district will apply for grants) and draft a policy to be approved by the school board.
"At this point, I don't know what I'll even be recommending to the board," Laws said. "We want this to be something the community wants us to do. We don't want it to be talked down. We don't want it to be something we're forcing on people. If it's a benefit to keep the kids clean, then we'll provide it as a service."
Laws believes a random student drug testing program could be good for the community if the community wants it.
He said, "It's not about supervision or snoopervision; it's about getting into our kids' lives and protecting them."
Tobacco Tax Trivia
From the BCCT. Who knew that tobacco was so vital to the Pennsylvania economy?
Debate over cigar tax smoldering in Pennsylvania
Posted in Arts and Entertainment, Business, News on Sunday, February 15th, 2009 at 1:07 pm by Web content assistant editor David Rauch
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that makers and sellers of cigars worry this will be the year that the Legislature and the governor are finally able to win passage of a new tax on cigars and smokeless tobacco.
Foes of tobacco usage have the opposite concern — that the tax will again be sandbagged. Cigars, snuff, pipe filler and other types of loose tobacco are subject to an excise tax in every other state, including tobacco strongholds North Carolina and Kentucky.
But in Pennsylvania, attempts to place a “sin” tax on cigars and loose tobacco have been thwarted time and again by cigar-loving politicians, wholesale retailers, snuff manufacturers, convenience store lobbyists and a small but oddly powerful bloc of tobacco farmers from Pennsylvania’s midsection.
Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell proposed a snuff and cigar tax in 2007, and the proposal was defeated. His Republican predecessor, Gov. Mark Schweiker, proposed the same, with the same results.
When Rendell proposed the tax two years ago, Pennsylvania was one of just three states that didn’t collect an excise tax on cigars, smokeless or both.
Today, it is the only holdout.
This year, Rendell pitched the tax anew in his budget address — 36 cents an ounce on loose tobacco and 36 cents per 10 cigars — and said it could raise $50 million in a full year.
The proposed tobacco tax was the subject of a Senate Finance Committee hearing last week.
Why have cigars and snuff enjoyed special status in Pennsylvania? Partly it’s because of the state’s historical role in tobacco production. At one time, it was one of the top three tobacco producing states, and the word “stogie” is derived from the small Pennsylvania town of Conestoga.
Farmers still do a robust business here, and last year harvested an estimated 17.6 million pounds of tobacco, up from 2007 and 2006 harvests.
Partly it’s because as other states approved excise taxes on cigars, Pennsylvania became a more attractive state for big cigar distributors to do business, and politicians don’t want to scare that business away.
And partly it’s because of the rural culture here — Pennsylvanians consume more moist snuff than any state but Texas. Seven percent of men use snuff here; the U.S. average is 3 percent.
-------------------------------------------
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Debate on cigar tax continues to smolder
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Given the state's sinking revenue returns, makers and sellers of cigars worry this will be the year that the Legislature and the governor are finally able to win passage of a new tax on cigars and smokeless tobacco.
Foes of tobacco usage have the opposite concern -- that the tax will again be sandbagged.
Cigars, snuff, pipe filler and other types of loose tobacco are subject to an excise tax in every other state, including tobacco strongholds North Carolina and Kentucky.
But in Pennsylvania, attempts to place a "sin" tax on cigars and loose tobacco have been thwarted time and again by cigar-loving politicians, wholesale retailers, snuff manufacturers, convenience store lobbyists and a small but oddly powerful bloc of tobacco farmers from Pennsylvania's midsection.
Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell proposed a snuff and cigar tax in 2007, and the proposal was defeated. His Republican predecessor, Gov. Mark Schweiker, proposed the same, with the same results.
When Mr. Rendell proposed the tax two years ago, Pennsylvania was one of just three states that didn't collect an excise tax on cigars, smokeless or both.
Today, it is the only holdout.
Cigar purveyor Keith Meier wants it to stay that way. His company, Cigars International, moved to Northampton County a dozen years ago because there's no cigar excise tax here. It has grown into a $90 million company, the second-largest handmade cigar retailer in the United States, employing 150.
"That would all evaporate were we to swim to sunnier shores, such as Florida," the CEO said.
"Florida is a safer state because most of the industry is located there, and besides, it may make more sense for us to be there -- close to others in the industry, close to our manufacturing partners in the Caribbean basin and Central America," which reduces shipping.
This year, Mr. Rendell pitched the tax anew in his budget address -- 36 cents an ounce on loose tobacco and 36 cents per 10 cigars -- and said it could raise $50 million in a full year.
The proposed tobacco tax is to be the subject of a Senate Finance Committee hearing today.
"Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation that does not tax chewing tobacco, snuff or cigars, and our citizens overwhelmingly support a tax on smokeless tobacco, just as they strongly support increases in the state cigarette tax," the governor said in his budget address last week. (Florida taxes snuff, but not cigars, because the cigar industry is big business there.)
Popular support aside, the governor can expect a fight from the usual suspects, said Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, who sits on the finance committee.
"This will certainly be a controversial, contentious issue," he said. But he also noted that there's an element of fairness at stake -- cigarettes are already taxed at $1.35 per pack and the governor would like to increase that tax to $1.45, an increase Mr. Ferlo said he wouldn't vote for.
"It's continually unfair to always tax smokers of cigarettes," but not the smokers of those "fancy" cigars, he said.
Why have cigars and snuff enjoyed special status in Pennsylvania? Partly it's because of the state's historical role in tobacco production. At one time, it was one of the top three tobacco producing states, and the word "stogie" is derived from the small Pennsylvania town of Conestoga.
Farmers still do a robust business here, and last year harvested an estimated 17.6 million pounds of tobacco, up from 2007 and 2006 harvests.
Partly it's because as other states approved excise taxes on cigars, Pennsylvania became a more attractive state for big cigar distributors to do business, and politicians don't want to scare that business away.
And partly it's because of the rural culture here -- Pennsylvanians consume more moist snuff than any state but Texas. Seven percent of men use snuff here; the U.S. average is 3 percent.
"From a public health perspective, it's wise to tax other tobacco products," said Jennifer Ebersole, state policy director for the American Heart Association. In Pennsylvania, "We're seeing some of our youth switching to other tobacco products because it's cheaper and easier to get" than cigarettes, she said.
The tobacco industry itself has dug in and doled out thousands in campaign contributions.
Altria Group Inc., parent company to Philip Morris USA and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co., has contributed thousands to state House and Senate campaigns over the last two years, including Sen. Pat Browne, R-Lehigh head of the Senate Finance Committee. Cigar distributors and small vendors have done the same.
Cigar vendors here feel especially bombarded by the latest proposal. If the state tax goes into effect, it would come on top of the federal cigar tax increase included in the recently passed State Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill. That tax is effective April 1.
Debate over cigar tax smoldering in Pennsylvania
Posted in Arts and Entertainment, Business, News on Sunday, February 15th, 2009 at 1:07 pm by Web content assistant editor David Rauch
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that makers and sellers of cigars worry this will be the year that the Legislature and the governor are finally able to win passage of a new tax on cigars and smokeless tobacco.
Foes of tobacco usage have the opposite concern — that the tax will again be sandbagged. Cigars, snuff, pipe filler and other types of loose tobacco are subject to an excise tax in every other state, including tobacco strongholds North Carolina and Kentucky.
But in Pennsylvania, attempts to place a “sin” tax on cigars and loose tobacco have been thwarted time and again by cigar-loving politicians, wholesale retailers, snuff manufacturers, convenience store lobbyists and a small but oddly powerful bloc of tobacco farmers from Pennsylvania’s midsection.
Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell proposed a snuff and cigar tax in 2007, and the proposal was defeated. His Republican predecessor, Gov. Mark Schweiker, proposed the same, with the same results.
When Rendell proposed the tax two years ago, Pennsylvania was one of just three states that didn’t collect an excise tax on cigars, smokeless or both.
Today, it is the only holdout.
This year, Rendell pitched the tax anew in his budget address — 36 cents an ounce on loose tobacco and 36 cents per 10 cigars — and said it could raise $50 million in a full year.
The proposed tobacco tax was the subject of a Senate Finance Committee hearing last week.
Why have cigars and snuff enjoyed special status in Pennsylvania? Partly it’s because of the state’s historical role in tobacco production. At one time, it was one of the top three tobacco producing states, and the word “stogie” is derived from the small Pennsylvania town of Conestoga.
Farmers still do a robust business here, and last year harvested an estimated 17.6 million pounds of tobacco, up from 2007 and 2006 harvests.
Partly it’s because as other states approved excise taxes on cigars, Pennsylvania became a more attractive state for big cigar distributors to do business, and politicians don’t want to scare that business away.
And partly it’s because of the rural culture here — Pennsylvanians consume more moist snuff than any state but Texas. Seven percent of men use snuff here; the U.S. average is 3 percent.
-------------------------------------------
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Debate on cigar tax continues to smolder
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Given the state's sinking revenue returns, makers and sellers of cigars worry this will be the year that the Legislature and the governor are finally able to win passage of a new tax on cigars and smokeless tobacco.
Foes of tobacco usage have the opposite concern -- that the tax will again be sandbagged.
Cigars, snuff, pipe filler and other types of loose tobacco are subject to an excise tax in every other state, including tobacco strongholds North Carolina and Kentucky.
But in Pennsylvania, attempts to place a "sin" tax on cigars and loose tobacco have been thwarted time and again by cigar-loving politicians, wholesale retailers, snuff manufacturers, convenience store lobbyists and a small but oddly powerful bloc of tobacco farmers from Pennsylvania's midsection.
Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell proposed a snuff and cigar tax in 2007, and the proposal was defeated. His Republican predecessor, Gov. Mark Schweiker, proposed the same, with the same results.
When Mr. Rendell proposed the tax two years ago, Pennsylvania was one of just three states that didn't collect an excise tax on cigars, smokeless or both.
Today, it is the only holdout.
Cigar purveyor Keith Meier wants it to stay that way. His company, Cigars International, moved to Northampton County a dozen years ago because there's no cigar excise tax here. It has grown into a $90 million company, the second-largest handmade cigar retailer in the United States, employing 150.
"That would all evaporate were we to swim to sunnier shores, such as Florida," the CEO said.
"Florida is a safer state because most of the industry is located there, and besides, it may make more sense for us to be there -- close to others in the industry, close to our manufacturing partners in the Caribbean basin and Central America," which reduces shipping.
This year, Mr. Rendell pitched the tax anew in his budget address -- 36 cents an ounce on loose tobacco and 36 cents per 10 cigars -- and said it could raise $50 million in a full year.
The proposed tobacco tax is to be the subject of a Senate Finance Committee hearing today.
"Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation that does not tax chewing tobacco, snuff or cigars, and our citizens overwhelmingly support a tax on smokeless tobacco, just as they strongly support increases in the state cigarette tax," the governor said in his budget address last week. (Florida taxes snuff, but not cigars, because the cigar industry is big business there.)
Popular support aside, the governor can expect a fight from the usual suspects, said Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, who sits on the finance committee.
"This will certainly be a controversial, contentious issue," he said. But he also noted that there's an element of fairness at stake -- cigarettes are already taxed at $1.35 per pack and the governor would like to increase that tax to $1.45, an increase Mr. Ferlo said he wouldn't vote for.
"It's continually unfair to always tax smokers of cigarettes," but not the smokers of those "fancy" cigars, he said.
Why have cigars and snuff enjoyed special status in Pennsylvania? Partly it's because of the state's historical role in tobacco production. At one time, it was one of the top three tobacco producing states, and the word "stogie" is derived from the small Pennsylvania town of Conestoga.
Farmers still do a robust business here, and last year harvested an estimated 17.6 million pounds of tobacco, up from 2007 and 2006 harvests.
Partly it's because as other states approved excise taxes on cigars, Pennsylvania became a more attractive state for big cigar distributors to do business, and politicians don't want to scare that business away.
And partly it's because of the rural culture here -- Pennsylvanians consume more moist snuff than any state but Texas. Seven percent of men use snuff here; the U.S. average is 3 percent.
"From a public health perspective, it's wise to tax other tobacco products," said Jennifer Ebersole, state policy director for the American Heart Association. In Pennsylvania, "We're seeing some of our youth switching to other tobacco products because it's cheaper and easier to get" than cigarettes, she said.
The tobacco industry itself has dug in and doled out thousands in campaign contributions.
Altria Group Inc., parent company to Philip Morris USA and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co., has contributed thousands to state House and Senate campaigns over the last two years, including Sen. Pat Browne, R-Lehigh head of the Senate Finance Committee. Cigar distributors and small vendors have done the same.
Cigar vendors here feel especially bombarded by the latest proposal. If the state tax goes into effect, it would come on top of the federal cigar tax increase included in the recently passed State Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill. That tax is effective April 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)