But yet no one seemed to care when the office was on autopilot for six years, or the fact that personal expenses may have been paid from the office account. Eventually, a lack of established procedure will prove to be destructive in any professional environment.

The facts will show that this office is a complete disaster. It needs a complete overhaul. But that would require admitting people were either (a) duped or (b) fully aware but chose to do nothing.

GC

Glenn Cashuric wrote:

---

But yet no one seemed to care when the office was on autopilot for six years, or the fact that personal expenses may have been paid from the office account. Eventually, a lack of established procedure will prove to be destructive in any professional environment.

The facts will show that this office is a complete disaster. It needs a complete overhaul. But that would require admitting people were either (a) duped or (b) fully aware but chose to do nothing.

GC

---

Glenn ... I think that you are getting away from the point that Puzzler is trying to make here and that is that he is worried ... as I am sure most are that Jim Williams has access to our Social Security Numbers ... He/She feels as though a public trust has been personally violated ... how are we to protect our personal finances if the office staff of the Single Tax Office is giving out our SS numbers.

Are we also concerned that there has been negligence in the running of this office ... yes ... I know that I am ... I may not express it here on a daily basis ... but Hell Yes I would like to know where that 12 million dollars belongs ... and although I wouldn't call it a going away party ... at a price tag of $571 and some odd cents ... I have been to the Stadium Club and well $571 wouldn't get you much of a party there .... I would say that was not a proper expenditure for the office ...

I am however more concerned about my very own bank accounts ... and the fact that Jim Williams may know my SS # .... sorry if you find that disturbing ... but I have to wonder if Jim shared this information with Joe Pilchesky and I wouldn't want him or Joanne to have that information on anyone ... for more than one reason ... but especially since they can rob Mr. Conrad ... who just so happens to be not only a dying old man but Mrs. Pilchesky's father and they didn't think that was wrong .... I'm really not trying to pick on you here but ... do you really think we should not be concerned over this?

But I'm sure you're familiar with the saying "Just because you can, doesn'ty mean you should."

Clearly, Williams is able to access information which contains people's SS#, but that doesn't mean that he should, much less share that information with anyone. Big deal, he blacked out a last name. He failed to redact a much more useful identifier.

And this dude is running for a position of TRUST? He's violated that trust and he hasn't even been elected to anything yet.

WHatever may be going on at the STO is one thing. Let's not present Pilchesky and his minions as anything more than they are: a bunch of scumbag garbage pickers with no solutions for anything.

NotADumbBlonde Posts: 2093 Date: Apr 9 5:14 PM, 2008 Views: 816

Quote | Reply RE: 8 Apr 08 Council minutes JIM WILLIAMS: My name is Jim Williams. I'm a resident of the City of Scranton, a property owner, and a taxpayer. And I'm here again for the last time. I came last week, I'm here again for-- I hope none of you missed me too bad, but I won't be back. But if I could approach, I have some, a paper I'd like to give you. Can I do that? [Mr. Williams hands papers to each member of Council, as well as to Atty. Minora.] MR. WILLIAMS: This is a document that was faxed to me,from someone I had just asked, thatI said that this, this story was floating around, is it true? And what you see in front of you is a fax-transmittal from the Single Tax Office, with the Cover Sheet, and the second sheet is stubs from the checkbook, known to these people in the Tax Officeas the Single Tax Account. And you'll see that Check #1154 is to a person for a rebate for, in July 2006, for a rebate from 2005 for their Occupational Tax -- Oc Tax. I blacked it out -- the reason I blacked it out, it shows that person's last name; and, under that name, it shows their Social Security number, for which Attorney Minora now has and can see that it's valid. It's an official statement.

Explain to me what I misunderstood about the highlighted paragraph, if you would be so kind. Now, I only scored 1240 on my SATs, but it appears that my understanding of Mr. Williams' statement is dead on the money, given the only available transcript of his presentation to council. Feel free to show me the the shortcomings in my understanding of the written word, however.

-- Edited by Paul at 10:14, 2008-04-11

That's all I can say. It is not as you presented, and there is more to the story. Your name-calling is nothing better than that which you so vehemently criticize over at DD.

You're just simply on the other side.

GC

I presented it exactly as it was presented to council. Again, what did I misunderstand, as clearly you feel that I am missing something? If there's more to the story that we're not being told that you're privvy to on account of your job, then that's one thing. Don't be vague and just come out and say so. Going back to my first post in this thread, however, what have I said that differs at all from what Williams claimed to posess? He claims to have copies of checks with blacked out last names but visible SS#s. It's unlikely that he should have acces to this info in the first place. Furthermore, he goes on to produce AT LEAST 6 copies of that information (that we know about) and distributes it to at least 6 people who shouldn't be entitled to that information so readily either. There are no guarantees that others didn't see that information. I find that more than a little disconcerting. Seriously, Glenn, enlighten me as to why this should not be a concern.

I personally think that more than one investigation needs to take place were the STO is concerned.

Glenn the concern of this thread is clear ... at least it is to me ... the SS #'s being on those documents and those documents being faxed and then copied and distributed with the SS #'s ... so the names were whited out or blacked out ... you can gain any information on anyone and all you need is the SS #.

Because we are concerned about this ... you think that we are Doherty worshipers ... and that's ok ... that's your opinion and you are entitled to it ... yet we still worry that our SS #'s are out there being copied and distributed ... and I don't think it's right that that information was given to Mr. Williams ... it could have been sent to the FBI ... or to the State Attorney General ... I'm sure there was someone other than the DA that could have been given this information and Mr. Williams could have been left out of the mix. It was poor judgement on the part of the Clerk who faxed this information.

I say investigat Kenny McDowell ... and the entire office ... find all of what is wrong and try and fix it.

Glenn Cashuric
Veteran Member


Posts: 109
Date: Fri Apr 11 10:56 AM, 2008
Views: 53
RE: Anyone slightly worried that Jim Williams can get access to Social Security Numbers?

---

That's all I can say. It is not as you presented, and there is more to the story. Your name-calling is nothing better than that which you so vehemently criticize over at DD.

You're just simply on the other side.

GC


No one here needs me to defend them, but I'm going to say this much: I don't recall Paul or anyone other PD poster mentioning anyone's minor children, making racist statements (about "Inbred Irish", "Mexicans who take good are of their property", "Italian bag-men", someone being a "N-word" or "Imported Jews") or fabricating outlanding rumors about what some elected official did 30 years ago as a teenager. By that standard I don't think PD posters qualify as being "no better" than "the other side".

Are we guilty of some name-calling? Yes we are, me especially so (I get credit/blame for calling Fay Franus "Foam @ the Mouth"). However, I think that what we say is not nearly as extreme as what is written at DD and it's done within the context of reacting to bullying comments by rabid DD extremists. Rationalizing? Perhaps, but I think that reacting to a bully affords one some latitude...not carte blanche...but certainly some latitude.


-- Edited by Agamemnon at 19:38, 2008-04-11

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

More than diciplined ... that is such sensitive information ... and how did this person know that Jim Williams would not use the SS #'s for the wrong reasons? They didn't and in my mind that is something that would justify dissmissal ... that's my opinion and that's how I feel.

And no this does not mean that I am on the other side ... does not mean that I am a doobie ... and I do not support what Ken McDowell has done! I think that the entire office shoud be investigated and whoever provided that information should be removed from the position ...

Also I want to know who else received that information from Mr. Williams ... and I think he should be fined or whatever for receiving that information and distributing it ... again it's my opinion and how I feel ... I don't expect others to feel the way I feel!

I have to agree with Ag on this one ...

I alsohave to say that I care just a little bit more about the person who gave out the SS #'s of private citizens to help further a political career of Jim Williams that I am sure is going nowhere as that is what usually happens ... Jim runs for office ... Jim looses said race ... it's been going on for years ... so now he brings the documents to council ... Just so happens to be televised for the entire county to see ... Jim is yet again running for an office he won't win on a write in campaign ... does anyone else see why Jim did this ... was it out of concern or was he looking to further his political career ...

I think the entire office needs to be looked into ...

-- Edited by LusOnlyVoice at 10:24, 2008-04-12

1. I strongly supported the commissioners. Period. I will be backing two new Democrats in 2011. I'm also a McCain supporter in 2008, if that is relevant.

2. I do not believe this was done in any way to further Jim Williams' political career. Kevin Murphy is the next state rep. He knows it. Frank Shimkus should know it.

3. Does anyone else agree that writing checks from government checking accounts for personal expenses is...perhaps...against the law? Attorney McGovern seems to think that as long as the money is paid back, there is "no harm done". I disagree.

4. I do not condone in any way the release of private information. In my profession, it is a cardinal sin. That's why I have an industrial-sized shredder in my office. I'm glad this came out, though, because it would not have otherwise. I agree that the one check would have had the same effect.

5. Yes, I am starting to believe there is "put blinders on" attitude over here as well.

GC

I've not disputed the notion that releasing social security numbers is bad...in my business we have to comply with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, so privacy protection isn't a "nice to do"...it's a "you get fired if you don't" kind of thing. Nor have I (or anyone else here) disputed the fact that the Single Tax Office is a mess.

So just what are we arguing about?

Oh, and Glenn...you can claim we have blinders on and that's ok...we are big boys and girls. You're wrong, but we are all entitled to an error or two anyway. What I find ironic though is the fact that you continue to believe that Pilchesky's site serves some useful purpose in the arena of community activism and are therefore using it as a means to somehow comat issues in the STO.

Ahhhh, this leads me to a great idea. See my new thread.

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

Checks which are unrelated to private information (office expenses or other items) should be considered public records and accessible. If I had to guess, I would say the target was the bar bill. Rumor has it there are other questionable expenses (cell phone bills, etc.) paid for with the tax office checks, but no one (to date) has been able to procure the records since only one person had the checkbook.

GC

Why is it that no one seems outragedMcDowell may have been using the Single Tax Office as his personal bank account (funds paid back or not) yet many people are aghast that Williams had documents exposing him?

The emporer has no clothes, and it seems the only focus is on theperson pointing it out.