‘Irresponsible government': County close to losing $400k in taxpayer dollars after colleague botched multi-million dollar project, commissioners say
In 2024, $10.4 million was allocated to turn a large building on Tecport Drive in Swatara Township into a 'one-stop shop' for county human services. That December, $400,000 was made as a down payment to get the building up and running, but since then, no progress has been made, according to Democratic Commissioner Justin Douglas.
'This is not political spin,' Douglas said at the weekly commissioners meeting in Harrisburg Wednesday. 'It's been 147 days since we acted.'
Douglas pinned most of the blame on fellow Democratic Commissioner George Hartwick, who recently returned to the weekly meetings after a month-long hiatus—he was participating in an alcohol rehabilitation program after a police report showed he crashed his county vehicle while intoxicated.
Douglas claimed Hartwick missed an important meeting to discuss the project with a stakeholder on Monday. Hartwick said he was in a different meeting and had another county official attend on his behalf.
'I certainly did not neglect it,' Hartwick said. 'I fulfilled one commitment and attempted to try to balance another.'
Because no plans have been finalized for the so-called 'Techport' building, Hartwick requested an additional 60 days to put forth an agenda. In a 2-1 vote, that extension was shot down, with Douglas claiming it would have cost the county an additional $300,000.
Download the abc27 News+ app on your Roku, Amazon Fire TV Stick, and Apple TV devices
Dauphin County has until the end of May to put together a plan and vote on moving forward with the project. If that does not happen, the $400,000 will be lost.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration turns hostile on Aspen Security Forum
The Trump administration's last-minute snub of the Aspen Security Forum this week betrays a growing animosity between the U.S. government and wider national security community. The Pentagon on Monday pulled senior Defense Department officials from the annual event —only a day before the start of the four-day summit in Colorado — claiming the bipartisan gathering 'promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.' The strong wording has alarmed some experts and former government officials, who see a growing tendency for the administration to cut off anyone who criticizes or so much as offers an alternative view to that of the current U.S. government — putting up a barrier between them and the decision makers. 'The Trump administration doesn't like dissent, I think that's pretty clear. And they don't like dissenting views at conferences,' a Republican political strategist and frequent forum attendee told The Hill. 'Causing a stir about perceived criticism of the Trump administration makes people afraid to cross them and lose access to the administration. They might be cut off from people who are implementing policies.' But the shunning of events on the national security and foreign policy circuit does no favors for the administration's national security goals, experts say, as they lend a platform to potentially different viewpoints that could be useful for Washington. Case in point, those that gathered at the mountain retreat were described as 'bewildered' by the decision due to the forum's well-known bipartisan agenda, with several former Trump administration officials slated to speak, according to the political strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'It was a surprise because most of us were traveling to the conference when the announcement occurred,' they said. 'I think most people who attend the event frequently never viewed it as being partisan or anti-Trump. So it was bewildering and I think a little bit concerning.' The Aspen Security Forum, described as the 'premier national security and foreign policy conference,' is among the most high-profile such events and for years has attracted Republican and Democratic administration officials, business leaders, and analysts. During Trump's first term, several top officials including then-CIA chief and later Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the forum. This year's lineup included Mark Esper, an acting defense secretary in Trump's first term, Condoleezza Rice, a former national security advisor and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, and David Petraeus, the short-lived CIA director under President Obama. Speakers covered a range of issues that included the U.S. strategy on Taiwan, Russia's war in Ukraine, NATO, and how Trump's tariffs will affect Washington's alliances. More than a dozen pulled administration officials were set to appear on several panels, including Navy Secretary John Phelan. But the Pentagon suddenly declared they would not attend and would not do so moving forward as 'their values do not align with the values of the DoD,' according to spokesperson Sean Parnell. Only one administration official ended up attending the conference and they were not associated with the Pentagon: Adam Boehler, Trump's special envoy for hostage release. Even without the defense officials in attendance, panelists praised a number of Trump's recent moves, including his decision to offer lethal aid for Ukraine, the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and prompting NATO countries to foot more of the bill when it comes to defense spending. National security elites also appeared resigned that the norms and conventions that sprang up following World War II — which have dictated U.S. use of military force and how Washington addresses long-held partners and alliances — are now upended thanks to Trump. 'We have to recognize that we're probably not going back to exactly that system,' Rice, a co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group, said at the closing panel of the summit. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he wasn't doing any hand-wringing over Trump's 11th hour snub, and was viewing the official pullout as just the new norm for at least the next three years. 'If they want to have a little bit of a culture war over this particular forum, I'm just going to view it as a reminder of how they view the world, as opposed to a major problem,' O'Hanlon said, referring to the administration's isolationist tendencies. 'They'll be willing to just hold a grudge if they decide you've slighted them or you're not of their worldview. And that's just the way it's going to be,' he added. O'Hanlon noted that as long as administration officials appear at some similar forums and are willing to engage, he doesn't see an issue. But should they stop attending any such events moving forward, that's a cause for concern. 'If they just occasionally feel a slight from somebody and pull out of this or that, that's one thing. If they stop being willing to engage in any kind of forum, unless you somehow prove that you're a complete MAGA Republican, that would be much more concerning.' Aspen organizers, meanwhile, have made clear their invitation to the Trump officials remains open. The political strategists said the organizers were more concerned about ensuring that there's a presence of government officials going forward at the event. 'This is a major security forum, it's an open exchange of ideas, and they made it very clear throughout the event that the officials are invited back anytime in the future,' they said. 'I think there's a hope that that they will come back next year.'
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Here's where Democrats stand in polls at Trump's six-month mark
Recent polling is painting a mixed picture for Democrats as they look to chart a path forward in the wake of their loss to President Trump in November. Trump's approval rating remains comfortably underwater as he reaches the six-month mark back in office on Sunday. But while Democrats have scored some notable victories in high-profile elections since then, they've been unable to pull away from the GOP as the party hopes to regroup for the midterms next year. Data experts said Democrats' position has improved since Trump started his second term, but they still have a lot of work to do to win back trust from the American people and be poised to take back control of the House. 'You can't just be on the attack. You can't beat something with nothing,' said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. 'We have to show and tell what we would do, but I think that we're on the precipice of a big opportunity, and I hope we take advantage of it.' Months after Democrats suffered a major blow with Trump sweeping all seven battleground states and the GOP winning control of both houses of Congress, the party is still seeking to put the pieces back together. Halfway through the first year of Trump's term, many data points on where the party stands don't appear bright. Views of the Democratic Party have been at historic lows for a couple months. The percentage of registered voters who view the party favorably reached some of its lowest levels since at least the start of Trump's first term in office in YouGov's average, more than 20 points underwater as of late May. A CNN poll released Thursday found only 28 percent of Americans view the party favorably, a record low in the history of the outlet's polling dating back to 1992. Views of the Republican Party also aren't strong but haven't been quite as poor. A poll conducted by the Democratic super PAC Unite the Country found recently that voters perceive the party as 'out of touch,' 'woke' and 'weak.' An AP-NORC poll found just over a third of Democrats are optimistic about the party's future, compared to 57 percent last July. Surveys have also shown widespread frustration with Democratic leaders and a feeling that Democrats aren't fighting hard enough against the Trump administration and for their voters. This has been particularly pointed against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), whose favorability rating has been stuck in the mid-to-upper 20s throughout Trump's second term, according to the Decision Desk HQ polling average, though his net favorability has improved somewhat more recently. Scott Tranter, the director of data science for DDHQ, said Democrats are still trying to form a coherent message but don't have a clear 'rallying cry,' though some of them have received attention as they've been arrested during faceoffs with Trump administration officials or visited detention centers like 'Alligator Alcatraz' in Florida. 'It's pretty clear that Schumer is not the guy, just based on his approval rating,' Tranter said. 'And one can make the argument that [former House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi's approval rating was underwater as well, but… Schumer doesn't seem to have that kind of gravitas that she did.' One other common trend in polling over these months is a lack of agreement over who the leader of the Democratic Party is after 2024. A CNN poll found in March that 30 percent of Democrats didn't give a name to respond to a question about which leader best reflects the party's core values. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) had the most support but with only 10 percent, while former Vice President Harris had 9 percent and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had 8 percent. An Emerson College Poll found Democrats widely split among the field of potential 2028 presidential contenders, with the leading candidate only with 16 percent. Tranter said this dynamic is somewhat to be expected following a party's loss in the presidential election, pointing to the first months of 2005 for Democrats after John Kerry's loss and of 2013 for Republicans after Mitt Romney's loss. 'Coming out of Kerry, the Democrats were also in the wilderness,' he said. 'And so I think that the takeaway is that every time something like this happens, each party goes through its transformation. I think we're still pretty early on it.' But the data does show some reasons to be optimistic for Democrats. Trump's approval rating and favorability have consistently been underwater, not abnormal for him even as he won the November election, but still presenting Democrats with an opportunity. Democrats have mostly kept a lead in DDHQ's average of the generic congressional ballot since early March, albeit a small one of a couple points at most. They led on that question by 1 point as of Monday. The same CNN poll showing disapproval of the Democratic Party found Democrats are more motivated to vote in next year's midterms. A poll from Republican pollster Fabrizio Ward found Republicans trailing the generic ballot in 28 battleground House districts. Democrats also expressed hope that the passage of Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' extending Trump's tax cuts and increasing border security funding but also cutting Medicaid spending, could give them the opportunity they've been looking for. Multiple polls have shown at least a plurality of registered voters or adults oppose it, though many also say they don't know enough. 'Trump and the Republicans are certainly focused on incredibly unpopular policies that are likely to benefit the Democrats that they deserve leading into the midterms,' said Ryan O'Donnell, the interim executive director of the progressive polling firm Data for Progress. 'But Democrats also have to show that they're hearing people's concerns and actively offering solutions to those concerns to make their lives better and more affordable.' Lake said the lack of a clear leader has a positive side, as the 2028 Democratic field will likely feature many showing what the Democratic alternative is to Trump. But she said the process of a leader or a few leaders emerging has been slower than in the past, and she expects that is unlikely to be 'fixed' before the 2026 midterms. That will require having a unified message if no unified leader, she said. 'They need to have a unified voice and a unified plan, and that plan has to include a proactive, populist economic message about what we're going to do and who we're going to fight for,' Lake said. Lake's polling firm and the Democratic donor network Way to Win partnered to conduct a poll released Thursday evaluating those who voted for President Biden in 2020 but didn't vote in 2024. The poll, conducted from late April to early June, found many of those voters didn't like either candidate and didn't feel that Harris had a strong enough economic message to convince them she would lower costs. Pollsters also found most of those voters lean toward voting for a Democrat if the midterms were held today. Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, the co-founder and vice president of Way to Win, said the feelings of regret that respondents indicated they felt about not voting, particularly as relates to the Medicaid cuts and the cost of living not dropping, give the party an opening. She said the poll, showing the most anguish about cuts to programs that help children and Medicaid, was taken before the law's passage, but those concerns are coming to fruition now. 'I think you can use that, right? You could leverage that to say, 'The thing you care about the most is the thing that is actually happening. And so you need to come and be a part of [the] opposition to this,'' Fernandez Ancona said. And the firm's poll, along with other polling, has shown Democrats want their party to go on offense. 'The table has been set,' she said. 'So the question is, will we be able to take advantage of it? Will we really lean in? Will we not shy away from actually going on offense about this bill? It's all about, can we seize the opportunity?'
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's attack on in-state tuition for Dreamers is bad law — and worse policy
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Other surveys — by the Advertisement Among the targets of the administration's hostility, none elicits more sympathy from the public than the so‑called Dreamers — young people brought here unlawfully as children, who have grown up as Americans in everything but paperwork. (According to Gallup, Advertisement In lawsuits filed this spring against Texas, Minnesota, and Kentucky, the Justice Department maintains that offering in‑state tuition to students without legal immigration status — even if they were brought here as small children and essentially grew up American — violates federal law. In reality, it is the administration's assault that distorts federal law. It is also a brazen power grab that tramples states' rights, to say nothing of basic decency. Beginning in 2001, Democratic and Republican legislatures decided that if young people grow up in a state, are educated in its schools, and want to pursue higher education within its borders, it makes no sense to penalize them financially merely because of their immigration status. If there are good reasons to give a break on tuition to local students who want to go to a local college, what difference does it make whether they have a passport, a green card, or neither? Yet on April 28, President Trump Advertisement But that isn't true. Federal law does not say that undocumented immigrants must be excluded from any in-state tuition benefit. It Accordingly, the states that offer reduced tuition to undocumented immigrants condition the offer on criteria other than residency. States that offer in‑state tuition to undocumented students are acting not just humanely but rationally. Such policies reflect the common-sense principle that justifies giving a tuition break to any local student: It is in every state's interest to help its homegrown young people be as successful and well educated as possible. Lower tuition makes higher education more affordable, which in turn boosts the number of local families that can send their kids to college, which in turn expands the state's population of educated adults. A more educated population strengthens the state's economy, since college graduates are more likely to be employed and to earn higher incomes. For states like Massachusetts, which suffers from high outmigration, a particularly strong argument for the in-state tuition break is that graduates of public institutions are more likely to Advertisement None of these arguments has any logical connection to immigration or citizenship. They apply with equal force to those born abroad and to those born locally. And it is irrelevant whether those born abroad were brought to America by parents who had immigration visas or by parents who didn't. Dreamers aren't freeloaders. Like their families, they pay taxes — property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, and even the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare benefits, for which they are ineligible. (In 2022, according to the latest estimate from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants Aside from the Trumpian hard core, most Americans sympathize with the plight of undocumented immigrants who grew up in this country and have known no other home. That explains why (as Gallup reports) 85 percent of them would like Congress to make it possible for them to acquire citizenship. It also explains why in-state tuition for Dreamers has bipartisan support: The states that have enacted such policies include Oklahoma, Kentucky, California, and New York. Advertisement The Trump administration's lawsuits deserve to be dismissed on their legal merits, but they also deserve to be reviled as one more example of MAGA malevolence, which is grounded in nothing except a desire to hurt immigrants — Few Americans have any desire to punish young people who have done nothing wrong. The cruelty at the heart of Trump's immigration policy may thrill his base, but it repels a far larger America unwilling to abandon its values. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
