May 9, 2001

When explaining to people about the Brush Valley situation the question that BVPA (Brush Valley Preservation Association) is most often asked is "why". Why do certain people seem to think that the only possible solution is the total destruction of Brush Valley? Why won't they even consider investigating alternate prison sites? Why do they refuse to listen to other ideas or opinions? BVPA believes we may have found at least a partial answer to these questions.

The most ardent supporters of destroying Brush Valley are the Majority Northumberland County Commissioners. Allen Cwalina and Charles Lewis steadfastly cling to their reckless plan to purchase the entire valley for an inflated price, sell a portion to the Bureau of Prisons, and turn the rest into some kind of industrial park that will magically lure high tech industry. They talk in vague terms about some land being set aside for recreation. However, a bench near a tree in a parking lot will be a poor substitute for the awesomely beautiful preserve Brush Valley could be. These commissioners hold tight to this dream even though it has become apparent that the public (including prison proponents) is overwhelmingly against county involvement in Brush Valley. Community trust and confidence in our county government has been weakened by revelations about our sickly financial state and accusations of purposely limiting public inquiries into county matters. The Commissioners should be doing all they can to listen to the public at this time, not exclude them.

All this being said, BVPA wonders if the commissioners want their project just because they think it will really benefit our area, or do they have other additional influences.

The counties Brush Valley Project, like most other county undertakings, will either be financed by another bond issue, or from money that has, at least in part, already been obtained from current bond issues. Either way, the $7 million needed will certainly necessitate more borrowing and/or debt. (Many estimates already place Northumberland County's debt at over $40million) These financial dealings always include heavy fees that are almost always collected by the same people and/or companies. BVPA has discovered that often times substantial political contributions are made by the recipients of these fees back to the people who initiated the deals in the first place, the commissioners. Could this be influencing their judgment concerning issues such as Brush Valley?

Following are examples that may show a connection between county financial dealings and political contributions. This information is taken from county election office records and is accurate to the best of BVPA's knowledge. If anyone disputes this, we would be happy to hear from them. Other such connections may exist, but because of limited resources we have no proof of that at this time. BVPA is not insinuating that any of these contributions are illegal, but we think they may call into question the reasoning used to decide whether or not to pursue some of these expensive activities.

Using information from the 2000 bond issue of $10,250,000 we see that:

1. Public Finance Consultants received fees of over $26,000 Employee Robert Fowler contributed $1,000. to "Friends of Cwalina & Lewis" in 1999. Patrica Fowler of the same address also sent $250.

2. Pepper Hamilton received fees of over $32,000 and their consultant David Sweet contributed $1,000 to Cwalina & Lewis in 1999.

3. Zenenofske Axelrod received $3,120 Employee Patrick Kirk gave $625. in 1998/99. Financial Businessman Association, with same address as Zelenoske Axelrod and CBIZ Business Solutions gave $2,125 to Cwalina & Lewis in 1998/99.

4. Of the two solicitors who worked on the 2000 bond issue one received $10,058.00 while making contributions totaling $3,455.00 between 1995 and 1999. The other solicitor was paid $10,000.00 and donated $2,300.00 to Cwalina &Lewis. His father, who we are told lives out of state, gave $6,000.

Also, the firms Public Finance Consultants and Pepper Hamilton each provided services to the bond issues of 1992, 1996, 1999 A/B, 1999 C, and 2000.

The above was taken from records that we believe to be correct to the best of our knowledge. Anyone can check on this information at the county office in Sunbury.

Remember also that huge amounts of donations may have been made through hard to trace Political Action Committees (PACs), of which there are many. Many of the above people and organizations appear in conjunction to other bond issues in our county, as well as appear often on political contribution lists. Could there be a connection?

If the possibility of perpetual campaign funding is helping to drive the decisions being made by the Majority Commissioners it is troubling for at least three reasons:

First, it worsens the already dismal financial situation in our county. (Rumors of another tax hike are already circulating) Secondly, it further undermines what little trust in our local elected officials we might still have. Thirdly, and most importantly to the BVPA, these dealings may be influencing the Commissioners push to destroy Brush Valley. This would be the worst tragedy of all.

John R. Faraguna

President/BVPA