Kate Harper -- World According to Bob

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:55:10 03/04/07 Sun
Author: Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Subject:

Kate Harper

Greetings.

This is a lengthy posting because it draws from two that were uploaded onto the GrassrootsPA web-site last week.

It also covers a number of derivative issues. Therefore, if/when anyone comments on it, I'll cross-reference relevant information; otherwise, this should be viewed as a complete presentation of the database.

This exchanges address the candidacy of Rep. Kate Harper, and they encompass her replies to concerns that have emerged, recognizing that she declared her candidacy prior to the time when she knew Weber/Castor were going to enter the race.

Initially, I'd raised a (legitimate) concern as to whether she was related to the Ron Harper who was behind the anti-Guzzardi Hit-Pieces, and she had vociferously denied even having met him. [BTW, it is noted that the web-site that he hosts (MontcoWatch.com) continues to be blank.] This led to exchanges that related to the Pay-Jacking and Rendell-Budget votes, and she has just been sent a copy of my resolution (submitted to the Abington Township Rockledge Borough Republican Organization) addressing the Davis Lobbying Contract...for her critique.

She wrote that she isn't a blogger, and she has been informed that Guzzardi is aware of her effort to "reach out" to me...despite my support for Weber/Castor.

In any case, here are the postings, which were prompted by articles related to the two anti-Guzzardi mailings; the related URLs are included in the two e-mails that were sent to Rep. Harper...who is generally viewed as a quality Representative, from what I've been told.

**********************

An effort has been made to capture all communications in chronological order, with the most recent AT THE BOTTOM.

**********************

[This was posted on 2/23/2007 during discussion of the first anti-Guzzardi mailing.]

http://www.grassrootspa.com/blog/archives/13125#comments

First, one wonders if Mr. Harper, who runs the site, is related to Kate Harper.

Second, this selective citation of information that is claimed to be damning is so obviously transparent to the typical reader that it is doubful the mailing will have any meaningfully-adverse effect.

Third, Guzzardi’s REFORM COALITION will continue to gain steam, and it is suspected that its rapid growth throughout SE-PA is what has prompted this lame effort at generating a hit-piece.

Fourth, therefore, I support Guzzardi’s focus on high-quality candidates, a posture that most people receiving such a mailing would find enviable.

**********************

[THIS WAS POSTING #43 -- the final one -- RELATED TO THIS ISSUE]

Robert B. Sklaroff,
Posted Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 9:50 am | Permalink not yet rated + -
Well, after having posted comment #7 [supra]–in which I typed “one wonders if Mr. Harper, who runs the site, is related to Kate Harper”–I received the following:

“Grassrootspa has a post under your name speculating that Ron Harper is related to me. Although we have the same last name, I have never met the man, and have no connection to him whatsoever. Your post was, at best (if you actually made it), reckless, since it was in the midst of criticizing the fellow and you had absolutely no reason that I can see to include me in your musings. If, in fact, it was your post, then I ask that you please retract it. Thank you. Kate Harper”

Well, I don’t consider it “reckless” to raised the question…particularly within the context of the heated-controversy that has erupted within the MCRC. Yet, it is certainly worth clarifying, particularly because Rep. Harper didn’t take the opportunity to disavow the content of these anti-Guzzardi slur-pieces. Indeed, I”m told that they now number “3″ and continue to try to attack Weber/Castor “by reference”…because they can’t attack either of them frontally.

Thus, it remains curious that she continues to compete for a position that necessarily requires team-work…without an avowed team-member. It is recalled that she entered the race before Weber/Castor emerged so, perhaps, she was positioning herself to be the #2-choice after either of the incumbents had emerged. That was then, and this is now.

Thus, doing the “political calculus,” she should be invited to assess the field candidly and recognize that Melissa would now be the ideal #1 candidate; indeed, had Bruce wanted to have done so, he could have chosen her. I’m sure she is a quality-representative (although I don’t know how she positioned herself on the pay-jacking votes), but it would behoove her to inject candor into her current political activities.

I have read the interim-posts, and all I can suggest is that Ron Harper (and his cronies) should recall the infamous adage: “When you find yourself deep within a hole, the first think you should consider doing is to STOP DIGGING!”

Also, I note that they are somewhat chronologically remote, so i will both send this to Rep. Harper and find a more contemporaneous site to which to copy it.

Meanwhile, I would ask that she specifically address two issues: (1)–WHY WOULD YOU REMAIN IN THE RACE INSTEAD OF ENDORSING MELISSA? (2)–DID YOU VOTE FOR THE PAY-JACKING BILL?

I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT YOU EXPLAIN YOUR POSITIONS ON THESE ISSUES.

I’m impressed that you found the information, and I hope you will respond to these two queries…for they are highly-relevant!

**********************

Greetings, all.

I reprint the following which is self-explanatory. I also sent it via e-mail to Rep. Harper. Illustrative of the profound problem faced by “The Candyman Felon” and “The Phantom Lobbyist” is the response from an Ellis-supporter, Controller (until 2008) Eric Kreschman to a query that I issued @ the Ukrainian Center last night: “You say you function as a watchdog, so I ask you to comment on the ETHICS of MontCo paying a lobbyist who functionst as MCRC-Chair.” His reply was, simply, a “process”-oriented evasion (”It was approved by all three Commissioners,” etc.). I like Tom, but he (and Matthews) PROMISED ME that they would “fix” this moral problem–on multiple occasions–prior to last fall’s election. No, I didn’t ask them to define the word “fix,” but do we really need to revisit the question as to what “is” really “is” [reference: Clinton & Sex] ?

In any case, this is what I typed in response to Kate’s e-mail [kharper@pahousegop.com] and I invite both a response from her…and from anyone else who might enlighten us-all as to her overall positions.

[I THEN TYPED #43, SUPRA]

*******************

{NOTE ALSO THAT I COVERED EVENTS THAT OCCURRED WHEN I ASKED CONTROLLER ERIC KRETSCHMAN TO COMMENT ON THE DAVIS-CONTRACT.]

*******************

Robert B. Sklaroff, [3/1/7]
I apologize–a bit–for the length of my input, but it is provided for completeness.

To follow are both Rep. Harper’s response to the above…and my reply to her response. Do NOT get lost in the verbiage. She is candid regarding both of the questions I’d posed, and then I’m equally-candid while reformulating the situation.

What I wrote follows what she wrote:

[The referenced-article attacking the unilterally-implemented Foreign Policy of Senator Specter is available (1)–on the website of Theeveningbulletin.com, or (2)–via e-mail, to moi!]

**

—–Original Message—–
From: Kate Harper [mailto:kharper@pahousegop.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 10:59 AM
To: rsklaroff@comcast.net
Cc: bobguzzardi@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Did you post something about me on Grassrootspa ?

Dear Dr. Sklaroff,
I am not a blogger and have never posted to the blog in question (or any). However, when I was told my name was mentioned, I found it, and in the spirit of seeking to engage you in not repeating misinformation, did write to let you know that I am not related to Mr. Ron Harper. I see no reason to join the blog, frankly, but will answer the questions that you posed to me about my candidacy in the Commissioners race.
First, I am in the race because I believe I have the three qualities that should earn the MCRC endorsement and the General Election in the Fall:
1. I can win tough races (I have won four races for the Statehouse and two of these were won despite Ed Rendell winning my district. They were not even my toughest races — my first race for the General Assembly was against an extremely well-known and well-financed TV reporter, but I won that race too although President Bush did not carry our County that night as you will doubtless recall).
2. I have excellent credentials on the quality of life issues that will engage the electorate in November: I served on the County ’s first open space task force and chaired its second. I specifically requested that the second task force be named “Green Fields and Green Towns” to show that we understood the need for revitalizing our Boroughs and towns with greenery and helped write regulations for those older communities that allowed them to access money for park restoration projects rather than acquisitions. I chair the Montgomery County Lands Trust and have served on the House Transportation Committee for several years. I understand that the flip side of a suburban sprawl issue is understanding traffic management and encouraging the reuse of older industrial sites to get them back on the tax rolls.
3. I have the experience to lead the County with 14 years as a Township Supervisor (often the Chairman with Ed Brandt and I switiching seats every few years in working as a team), past President of the Montgomery County Township Officials, six years on the Montgomery County Planning Commission, a Governor’s appointee to the Statewide Water Planning and Delaware Regional Committees, twenty five years as a practising attorney and too many charitable activities to mention.

Your second question related to the pay raise bill. Yes, I did vote for that, because our County judges were getting paid less than brand new “baby” lawyers in Philadelphia and I believe that while most judges seek the job for its public service and therefore do not expect to be paid as the private sector, but most judges also have families to support, kids to send to college and the like, and when the gap between the public sector and private sector wages gets too great, we will lose the best of them who can earn much more money in the private sector. There was no way to vote for them and not the rest of the package. I never took the unvouchered expenses, and remain, to this day, one of the few legislators who voted no on the pension increase bill in 2002 and never took it because I knew it would eventually raise real property taxes at home (it included teachers), while also knowing the pay raise bill was NOT a significant budget feature.

Hope that answers your questions. Kate Harper

**

First, thanks for your info, which I’ll post (for you) @ GrassrootsPA. I’m also not a routine-blogger (because it seems to be such a time-waster) unless there is a REASON to do it. Similarly, I write op-ed pieces [as per the attached, recently published in The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin] when I perceive that issuing a public comment could “make a difference.” [In the latter instance, I hope that Senator Specter will STOP solo-conducting of American Foreign Policy.]

In any case, I will post your information onto GrassrootsPA, dutifully. I recall your initial letter, in which you provided much the same personal-history, but I still think that the landscape has changed dramatically during the past two months…and the polarization that has transpired (witness the hit-pieces against Guzzardi) portend what might be distilled as an up-or-down vote on Weber/Castor. Thus, your views (regardless of their worth and heartfelt-ness) are upstaged by the desire to purge the MCRC of the self-serving corruption that, surely, would otherwise be highly-vulnerable to be targeted (justifiably) by the D’s. This leaves both you and Ms. Govberg in the lurch (so to speak).

Indeed, as much as the “political divorce” between Ellis/Matthews has been mutually-documented, they would each prefer being re-nominated…even if they would need to terminate their “trial separation” in the process! I’m not in a position to count-votes, but the “team” criterion is far more than a leverage-point that predictably favors Weber/Castor. Just recall Bartle/Bloss vs. Fox/Mele! Granted, your being “available” could provide surcease to those who resent the Castor candidacy—claiming it unilaterally hijacked the party apparatus—and I guess you would gladly “back into” the endorsement. But I would anticipate a diffusion of anti-Weber/Castor votes (particularly noting that Govberg is close to Davis, having led the political efforts at his behest, last year).

Your remaining in the race (rather than endorsing Castor/Weber) is my focus, for (for example) can you realistically claim to be free of the taint of the Pay-Jacking episode? I would therefore ask you to provide a CONTEMPORANEOUSLY-issued statement that captures what you now profess to have been your rationale for having supported this bill. Did you protest the “2-a.m.”-component of the process? Did you attempt to amend the legislation by trying to isolate the judicial-component thereof? Although I don’t know this as a fact but, again, I note that Bruce could have tapped your already-in-the-race status (particularly noting how your CV could be perceived as mirroring some facets of Melissa’s). But he chose a former-colleague instead.

Finally, were you to choose to condemn the anti-Guzzardi slop, you would risk your default-status (perhaps) among pro-Davis committee-people; also, those who are pro-Castor would not be anticipated to support you as #2. So I appreciate the political motives that might prompt you to remain silent. But you would do much “good” for the GOP were you to provide a disinterested viewpoint regarding the MCRC’s future. For example, as you have read, also, I have railed against Matthews/Ellis for not having cancelled the Davis-lobbying contract due to its unethical nature. Do you have a principled stance on this issue?

Robert B. Sklaroff, MD

*******************

Robert B. Sklaroff, [3/3/7]
A few follow-up points….

First, illustrating the point that the D’s are preparing to open-up on the annual $90K that MontCo pays Davis is the following hyperlink:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18027059&BRD=1672&PAG=461&de pt_id=33380&rfi=6

Second, Rep. Harper wisely engaged in the following dialogue, printed in its entirety:

[This follows, chronologically, post #22, supra.]

Dear Dr. Sklaroff,
Once again, I will respond to your questions about a legislative issue, and once again, I will decline to partake in the blogging exercise you suggest ranking other candidates for County Commissioner against my own candidacy because it would, of necessity, require that I breach Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment which I have no desire to do. With respect to a contemporaneous explanation for the pay raise vote and my decision not to accept unvouchered expenses, I can tell you that I was on Channel ten, evening news (Bill Baldini interview) within days of the occurrence and perhaps you saw it but had no reason to remember me. In print, there was an article July 20, 2005 in the Reporter, our local daily newspaper quoting me, and about that time, articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer which also quoted me. I also answered everyone from my district who wrote or emailed or called me (and surprisingly, there were not very many) with much the same statement, ie, that I thought it was necessary for the judges and that I would not accept unvouchered expenses. These letters exist in their recipients’ possession. As I recall it, the bill was not “amendable” when it was presented to us on the Floor (possibly because it was on concurrence from the Senate).
Kate Harper

***

Thanks!

I’ll upload your information…later tonight.

Guzzardi also wants to know why you didn’t oppose the Governor’s budgets.

***

I voted no last year. I intend to vote no this year unless there are substantial changes. Kate

***

I will now opine, taking into account what I’ve recently been told by others with whom Rep. Harper has worked. She has often longed for this position, as was noted in her announcement-letter, and is a lifelong environmentalist. She has also won some tight electoral contests, always remaining highly-ethical. She has been supportive of her colleagues (such as Ms. Ellen Bard, when she ran for Congress two years ago). She reportedly has “links” with Bob Kerns, who had run against Ken Davis for MCRC-Chair. She is an independnet thinker.

Thus, the points made by “K of P” [#25, supra] are probably accurate. And people who are viewed as long-shots have sometimes won races when voters don’t or can’t issue “bullet ballots,” particularly if there is no set of polarized-pairings, and the voters are choosing their second-candidate based on the desire to “vote against” one of the major opponents of their first-candidate.

Nevertheless, the key-difference here is that Weber-Castor are running as a team, so one could anticipate a diffusion among those who continue to grasp to one-or-the-other incumbents (with Ms. Govberg, probably a pleasant lady, merely serving as Ken Davis’ place-holder…noting their historic linkage). I suppose some feel that she could “sneak in” merely by remaining a candidate, but it’s difficult to deny the “Presidential” nominee his choice of “Vice-President.” [This is based on the assumption that Bruce would be elected the chair by Melissa, likely to occur…in contrast with when Hoeffel/Mele voted for the latter (instead of Fox) in ‘92.]

Granted, she wouldn’t have to relinquish her “day job” to run for Commissioner, but it would be desirable (from my biased position, perhaps) for her political-sense to become sensitized to the high-stakes nature of what is transpiring. Merely asking herself if she would want to be associated with those who would issue such vile anti-Guzzardi hit-pieces, well, this could suffice to illustrate why she should reformulate her posture and endorse Weber-Castor.

I will remit this to her…along with the above url…so that she can respond if desired. She would best be asked if she concurred that the anti-Guzzardi mailings are or are not disgusting…and then she could perhaps discover the obvious action-item.

*****************

[THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL WAS SENT TO REP. HARPER TODAY]

As you know, I’m displeased (and have been) with Ken Davis. Guzzardi and I would like to know if you concur with my views.

In the Matter of Kenneth E. Davis, MCRC-Chair

WHEREAS, The MCRC-Chair and the Montgomery County Commissioners are linked both politically and economically via an annual $90,000 “lobbying contract”; and

WHEREAS, For the first year thereof, no reports were provided by Ken Davis (or by anyone else at Duane Morris) to the MontCo Commissioners regarding its efforts; and

WHEREAS, The electoral fate of ATRO-candidates will be affected by MCRC-conduct; and

WHEREAS, This issue has consistently been raised during ATRO meetings (without any resolution, despite its seriousness) during recent months (by Robert B. Sklaroff, MD)—who avers he first learned of it on the morning following the re-election of Mr. Davis—and the Area Leader (Jon David Fox, Esquire) has dutifully acquired consultative input (from people that may include the county solicitor) focused on the ethics thereof; and

WHEREAS, This issue has received recent media attention and “promises” to get more; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Davis pledged he would enhance his communications with the MCRC’s “grass roots” were he to be re-elected and, thus, should be able to attend an ATRO event (if provided a month’s notice) that focuses upon his vocational and avocational pursuits; and

WHEREAS, Shakespeare’s advice in Julius Caesar [“Just as is Caesar's wife (Calpurnia), we must remain above suspicion,” paraphrased] is apt within the current political world.

THEREFORE, Be It RESOLVED That:

ATRO will invite MCRC-Chair Ken Davis to attend the March Meeting to explain why he feels his employer’s “lobbying” relationship (that he initiated) with MontCo to be ethical and to have resulted in tangible accomplishments that helped citizens.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]