Poor Mother Hubbard, I don't know what to do. You don't pay taxes since you live in a shoe. County Executive Cunningham says I should not vote for you.
I had planned to write a recap of yesterday’s debate between Scott Ott and Don Cunningham today but an event at the end of the debate has taken on a life of its own. The debate was fairly heated. I urge everyone to watch the taped broadcast on WFMZ.
As the debate was winding down and each candidate asked a question of the other, Don Cunningham tried to stress the irony of Scott Ott talking so much about property taxes and tax increases when Scott has never owned property in Lehigh County. Now, I don’t think Don Cunningham believes only the landed gentry can serve but I guess he was trying to make a point. A bad point, but a point. Even renters and other indirectly pay property taxes.
It then got into Ott’s current living arrangements and Ott indicated he was furnish free housing by Victory Bible Camp, his employer until the campaign started. So far, so good. The Cunningham camp had already raised questions about the camp and about the church it is affiliated with.
I was told by one person that I should Google Victory Bible Camp, which I did. You don’t find out a lot but it was suggested “you might do some Googling to see how one becomes an employee (aka “missionary”) at Scott Ott’s “balanced budget” Victory Valley Camp. You are either a volunteer or raise enough sponsorship money from “prayer partners” to offset your pay.”
O.K. You know, I am not going to get into this organization and church any more than we look at David Jones’ church. That is something I think everyone has to use some common sense and decorum in dealing with.
Ott did mention that he remained in the free housing provided by the church even though he stopped his work there when he started the campaign.
About three hours after the debate ended, an e-mail was received from the Cunningham campaign. I think, frankly, it was one of those good ideas that would not have seemed so good in the morning. This is the letter:
***
October 29, 2009
Mennonite Brethren in Christ Church
7472 Sigmun Road
Zionsville, PA 18092
Today in the Chamber of Commerce candidate’s forum, Mr. Scott Ott stated that his compensation from the Victory Valley Camp included free rent at a property you own.
Mr. Ott went on to say that he no longer works for the organization, starting around the time that he chose to run for office. Since Mr. Ott continues to live at this residence, thus receiving compensation in the form of housing, it is clear your organization is providing him support for his political activities.
I am writing to ask a few questions about your involvement in Scott Ott’s political campaign.
- Does your organization’s tax status enable your organization to engage in political work?
- Does your organization’s tax exempt status enable you to provide candidate Ott with free housing as an in-kind donation, and have you communicated with Mr. Ott on when this will be reported?
- What other political activity is your organization involved with on Mr. Ott’s behalf?
Voters have a right to know this information in a timely manner, as it affects Tuesday’s election. We would like a response by the close of business on Friday.
Sincerely,
Dan Kelly
Campaign Manager
Friends of Don Cunningham
C: Local Lehigh County Media
Lehigh County Campaign Finance Office
Internal Revenue Service – Non Profit Tax Compliance
Scott Ott, Candidate for Lehigh County Executive
Victory Valley Camp
***
Now, I spent 25 years as a tax lawyer or tax executive and a fair amount of time with tax-exempt organizations. I think Mr. Kelly makes a very fatal flaw in his reasoning. He assumes that because Scott Ott is a candidate any compensation or support he receives is as a candidate. Does that mean David Jones’ church is in trouble if he gets any compensation? No. If Ott is receiving the housing because of past services and the promise of future services if he does not assume a new full-time job in county government, it is probably quite legal and above board for the church to continue to provide housing. Not everything a church does or an employer does can be attributed to the campaign.
But, let’s assume they are valid questions, the idea of copying the IRS is petty and amateurish. It is the kind of thing spouses do in a nasty divorce.
What is more troubling or unbelievable is that a candidate with the edge Cunningham is widely thought to have would stoop to such a low level.
In the heat of battle, mistakes can be made. I think this was a big one. It is one which, frankly, after a week when Cunningham’s financial support in the commissioners’ races was called into question by everyone BUT Scott Ott, that it is very hard to see why the Cunningham campaign would go after this church and not only go after them on election grounds but try to involve the IRS.
I asked Scott Ott to comment. His comment follows:
***
It's hard to know whether one should laugh at Don Cunningham's desperate attempt to distract attention from his perpetual overspending and his looming 2011 tax hike, or mourn the fact that a man who has risen to such heights in Lehigh County politics would stoop to such despicable tactics.
To state it plainly, my former employer did not provide any contribution to my political campaign. As a matter of fact, my employment was terminated as a result of my decision to run for office. Like many people who work in ministry, as well as at secular camps, I received housing as part of my compensation. When my employment ended, the severance package included housing through the end of December.
Today, Mr. Cunningham emerged clearly rattled from his first debate with a rookie candidate. He then makes false allegations about a church...or rather a group of more than 60 churches, at least eight of which call Lehigh County home. Keep in mind, he did not go after me, he attacked the church, using false allegations to threaten the camp's nonprofit status.
The Bible Fellowship Church (BFC), to which Mr. Cunningham sent a threatening letter, is distinctive in the local faith community because the denomination was established right here in Zionsville, Upper Milford Township, Lehigh County, 150 years ago. The BFC owns and operates Victory Valley Camp, in Zionsville, a ministry to children and youth founded in 1956, where I served as executive director from 2004-to-2009.
During the debate, Mr. Cunningham tried to assert that because my housing was part of my compensation, that I didn't pay county property taxes. Of course, like many ministry workers, the cost of property taxes was simply part of what I worked to earn...just like most workers earn their health insurance, but don't literally write a check to the health insurance company.
My campaign for Lehigh County Executive has relentlessly focused on facts, drawn from Mr. Cunningham's own budgets, and never personal innuendo or issues unrelated to the office of County Executive.
Here's hoping that Mr. Cunningham will back off his attack on these Christian congregations, and at least answer the one important question: "Will you raise taxes in 2011?"
He has just hours left before Tuesday's balloting to answer this simple, but crucial, question. With spending outstripping revenue by $19.4 million in 2010, and the $14 million Tax Relief Fund drained down to zero on his watch, if he has a plan that doesn't involve jacking up taxes, we'd love to hear it.
So far, Don Cunningham has refused to answer.
Instead, he has apparently decided it would be politically advantageous to send a signal to people of faith and to their congregations, that believers who work in ministry should be excluded from public service, or at least bullied into staying clear of the political arena.
As a Christian, I can assure Mr. Cunningham that when he apologizes, those whom he attempted to bully will forgive him.
***
I have a lot of respect for Don Cunningham. I have a lot of respect for Dan Kelly. Don has run a very good campaign. But the thing that strikes me is something that Scott Ott told me when I first met him for breakfast a few months back. Scott said he would not give up his principles to be elected and he would not personally attack his opponent because win or lose they both had to wake up the next day and they would have families that could be hurt by these attacks. Scott has been relentless in attacking Don’s spending record but not in attacking Don. I have never seen or heard a personal attack being made. I respect Scott for that. He could raise rumor and innuendo but he has not.
Cunningham has made very valid inquiries into Ott’s experience. That can and should include inquiry into how Ott has been employed, what his work experience is, what administrative experience he has, etc. But to imply that you must be a homeowner to hold office is, I think, unfair.
It may be fair to inquire whether Ott’s employer has contributed to his campaign. But the way in which it was done just doesn’t seem right.
For many voters, I dare say, the deciding factor in this race is experience—experience in leading people, experience in reacting in crisis, experience in dealing with delicate issues. In all of those senses, this was not a shining moment for the county executive.
In the end, this will make little difference, I predict, in next week’s election. However, it has placed a black eye on an election that was already sliding downhill fast. I urge the Cunningham camp to apologize for the way in which it raised these questions even if they want to defend the right to ask them.
Comments
Cunningham and Kelly should apologize immediately. The practice of housing for church officials is not unusual. It is called a parsonage. The fact that the parsonage is paid through the end of the year after a long period of work is symbolic of nothing.
Worse is copying the IRS in an attempt to destroy the candidate’s church. I do not want any candidate that will stoop to that level. That's totally disgusting!
No if the other democratic party candidates would rise up, show their so-called independance, and demand a retraction, they might have some credibility.
Its locked in my vote for Scott.
nlvlogic: The point is that he is no longer employed with the Church. This was never mentioned until Scott made it clear that he was no longer employed. I don't think anyone was trying to destroy anyone's church, that's ludicris. Furthermore if everything is above board, then there would be no issues for the church, and if things were not above board, then the church should have to answer for it.
>The point is that he is no longer employed with the Church.
If that was the sole point, why cc the IRS, unless it was a tact to affect the Church's tax exempt status. Any other conclusion is ludicris. See previous post. I was not born yesterday.
Sent my donation Friday, on this news. Thanks!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!