ISSUES REPORTED

 

 

 

By Larissa Theodore, Times StaffPublished: Wednesday, December 10, 2008

 

ECONOMY —

The state attorney general’s office has closed an investigation of a former borough police

officer receiving more than $80,000 in military-leave pay and health insurance over

several years while serving full time in the military.

 

Now Economy Council is asking the retired officer to reimburse the borough the excess

wages he received, previously estimated at nearly $20,000.

 

Solicitor Dale Fouse said Tuesday that he sent a letter, as council requested last month,

demanding that retired police Sgt. Ronald Heitzenrater, who is in Iraq, repay any excess

 pay he received from the borough.

 

But not even council knows how much Heitzenrater owes.

 

Council President Ron Rock couldn’t give a definite amount, but assured he would report

 it as soon as he knew.

 

After an internal audit last year, council learned of excess pay being given to

Heitzenrater, who was deployed in March 2003. The issue was turned over to the

 Beaver County district attorney’s office, which referred the case to the state.

 

In a July letter addressed to the district attorney, the attorney general’s office said it was

 closing the matter. The office found that council members were divided on how pay was

 to be given to Heitzenrater, some either not understanding the policy or not

remembering what action they took.

 

A few council members believed they approved paying 15 days a year, while others

 thought the law required 30 days’ pay.

 

The attorney general found that Heitzenrater received 30 days’ military-leave pay

per year and medical benefits. Police Chief Thomas Harrington previously estimated

Heitzenrater wrongly received nearly $20,000 pay while he was deployed.

 

Heitzenrater also remained on the borough’s health plan for 4½ years during his

deployment and received health insurance, valued at $1,300 a month, or more than

$62,000, according to the attorney general’s office. But council never reviewed

 Heitzenrater’s medical benefits during his military activation, the attorney general said.

 Neither he nor anyone in his family used the medical benefits while he was deployed.

 

Heitzenrater retired from the force in October 2007 after about 30 years.

 

The attorney general’s office ultimately determined the borough’s policy regarding

 military pay and medical coverage while on military leave is unclear.

__________________________________________________________________

 

Comment Blog - Note: All Comments Subject To Approval

wrote on Dec 12, 2008 10:22 AM:

" My question is WHO??????? signs the checks???????? maybe they need to start there.

should not blame the vet, should look at person signing the checks "

 

 

mimi00 wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:45 PM:

" I see nothing but a cover up.All council had to do was take a look at the police contract.

This would tell them what they needed to know.They played dumb to cover up for

 someone.This took the AG off their back.Someone in the boro office took it upon their

self for what ever reason to pay this.Now council is protecting them.Its time for a change

 in Economy Boro goverment.What else our they covering up ? "

 

 

politically wise wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:19 PM:

" An investigation by the state attorney general's office named Rochester borough

officials in a case of alleged theft of misappropriation of funds in they're municipality.

How is Economy Borough off the hook? Legislation of council voted on a 15 pay period,

 This is clear and public information. Someone paid this ex police officer for four

and one half years while on military leave. As a tax payer we demand to know who paid

 the officer and how much of our tax dollars went to unauthorized disbursements. This is

 as illegal as what happened in Rochester. The AG needs to serve due process and

 re open the investigation. Why was this really closed is the real question? Tom Corbett

needs the total facts in Economy Borough. "

 

 

watchdog wrote on Dec 11, 2008 6:20 PM:

" What a joke.Mr.Heitzenrater served our boro for 30 years, then went on to risk his life

 to defend our country. Economy council has no idea what he should have been paid.

The boro manager paid him.Now they want their money back.The manager should

be fired and pay the money back himself.If council cant figure this one out think about

 the mismanagement that is going on in other issues. "

 

 

4020SE1PL wrote on Dec 11, 2008 3:42 PM:

" WOW!! What a Patriotic community. They really know how to support our troops

 serving in Iraq. Who is running the show in that Borough? I thought there was a

 Borough Manager to over see the operations in Economy. Hard to believe that no one

on council even knows what benefits this soldier was suppose to be getting and

now they want it back. "

 

 

somecommonsense wrote on Dec 11, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Hey, is anyone surprised, its only taxpayer money "who cares" how much!!!!!!!

I thought it is up to council to approve money spent, sounds like the open check book

policy to me. We have people going to jail for this in Rochester, sounds like same thing

 to us. maybe AG needs to look at economy again!!!!!!!! "

 

 

WHATSthe TRUTH wrote on Dec 11, 2008 9:40 AM:

" Where are the meeting minutes? The article states, "A few council members believed

 they approved paying 15 days a year, while others thought the law required

 30 days’ pay." BCTimes, please request the minutes. It should be on the record.

 This is investigative reporting that would serve the public. Were these payments

approved at all? Who is holding the purse strings in Economy Borough? "

 

 

emt425 wrote on Dec 11, 2008 8:34 AM:

" Let's also have the attorney general look into the paid flu shots we tax payers paid

for council. I have to pay for my flu shot. How can council not know what is owed

 back to them. "

____________________________________________________________________

  RECORDING ISSUE HAS COUNCIL'S EAR

 

 By Larissa Theodore, Times StaffPublished: Thursday, December 11, 2008

 

ECONOMY — Economy officials are considering a policy covering audio recordings for public meetings and how long they should be kept before they are destroyed.

 

Councilman Larry Googins recently raised questions about the recordings after he and other council members received an e-mail from borough Manager Randy Kunkle asking how the recordings were to be handled.

 

Kunkle questioned council after Mayor David Poling tried to access a copy of a November meeting to hear what he had said about a veto. Before handing over the tape, Kunkle wanted to know if there was a policy.

 

Poling said he felt he should have been able to listen to the recording. Sometimes, he said, a word or two has been changed in the minutes, and having a recording helps eliminate errors.

 

“If someone from the public wants to listen, then they have that right, too,” Poling added.

 

Councilwoman Audrey Mutschler agreed that Poling had that right.

 

Solicitor Dale Fouse said the recordings are to assist the borough secretary with the minutes.

 

Googins said meeting minutes would be considered an unofficial document if the borough began using recordings as official statements.

 

Council has asked Fouse to draw up a formal policy in the matter. In the meantime, Fouse suggested that council agree on a reasonable time before a recording is destroryed.

 

Comment Blog - Note: All Comments Subject To Approval

wrote on Dec 12, 2008 4:37 PM:

 

" HEY!!!! Whats next up there?????? NO Public allowed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe if they did not destroy the tapes they would remember how much money that they shouldn't of payed out to the war vet. Our non-profit club tapes ALL meetings and each board member is given a copy, what is wrong with that???? These are the things that happened to us in Rochester before the " CRASH " time to keep close watch on your goverment, because the residents will be responsible for the "BAIL OUT" "

 

 

politically wise wrote on Dec 12, 2008 3:03 PM:

" My sediments as well, why would this Googins insist on destroying tapes and against recorded meetings? Has to be 1 reason, he is worried about being held accountable. The unofficial minutes should be word for word as the official minutes, unless however "someone" wants the ability to "Change" the minutes - which I believe is putting a fine line in legal issues in municipal law. Some members of this council seem to want to re write municipal government and do things they're way as they see fit. Totally unbelievable! "

 

 

watchdog wrote on Dec 12, 2008 11:01 AM:

" What is Googins afraid of ? Maybe he wiil say something he will not be able to change.They should record the meetings and the public needs to have the right to review them.The only reason not to record these meetings is that your hiding something.Or could it be the way tax payers are treated at council meetings when they ask a question ? "