I'm surprised to hear rather fervent support for John Fenton from today's listserv writers. When I was appreciating him for so quickly solving the problem with the missing sewer covers on a Saturday afternoon a couple of weeks ago, nobody jumped in to add their personal thanks to him. Ray noted then that John is on the listserv, almost as if it were an accusation, as if John *should* have taken care of the sewer covers on the weekend without anyone asking him to do it. I think that some of our knee-jerk UCD critics have been taking this UCD service for granted, not admitting how effective it is that the organization has a "go-to" guy available, eager and delighted to get things done. Now, when he is suspended, suddenly folks admit that they *liked* that service.
Where do we go from here? This seems to be a situation where there is no easy solution. It's under investigation, Karen tells us. When the facts are in, given the very germane points Al raised, how would any of you handle this situation, if you were in charge and if it turns out that the newspaper has it right? How would you justify involvement in a political rally, if questioned by someone from whom you were requesting a grant? If the IRS asked questions? If the courts asked what you were doing with someone they'd sentenced to community service? Does anyone have any suggestions? - Melani Lamond In a message dated 5/22/07 7:40:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > It's true that John is hard-working and seems to take seriously what should > be the mission of UCD -- and, by extension -- any proposal for a > taxpayer-funded offshoot. Namely, litter removal and enhanced security, as > opposed to > planning and development. > > Whether John is just being made a scapegoat for a policy decision reached > "higher up" and is now being covered-up, or if he's really is responsible for > what happened, we'll probably never know. But the fact remains that the use > of UCD resources for a political activity jeopardizes the tax-exempt status > of > the organization and could lead to the demand for back taxes and a penalty > by the IRS. And that the conscription of people sentenced to "community > service" for the same thing could jeopardize its contract with the Municipal > Court. > > So, whoever decided to do this made a very serious error in judgement. A > private company put into this much peril by a key employee would have taken > far > more serious action than a two week suspension with pay. So, if it was > really John, he got off the hook easy and the people who think highly of him > (including me) should be pleased that Lewis or his Penn puppet masters didn't > sacrifice him to save their own skins and precious ambitions. > Always at your service & ready for a dialog, > Al Krigman -- 36-year local resident, housing provider, curmudgeon, and > all-around crank, > > > Melani Lamond, Associate Broker Urban & Bye, Realtor 3529 Lancaster Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19104 cell phone 215-356-7266 office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113 office fax 215-222-1101 ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
