A long debate over a grant request at a recent Lycoming County Commissioners meeting seemed to take on Shakespearian dimensions — “to be or not to be, that is the question.” Hamlet was talking about his mortality, but this debate appeared much less momentous. The subject was about bicycles for parolees.

When a county agency applies for a state or federal grant, it must be approved by the County Commissioners. In 99 percent of these applications, there is little to no discussion, because to be honest, better than half of the county’s budget is met through these grants. So, it was surprising that in the regular work session on January 22nd, an item listed on the agenda asking for “approval for AOPC (Administrative Office of the PA Courts) Problem Solving Courts Discretionary Grant” would become so contentious. One very small part of this grant included a bicycle buying program for those on parole. Jennifer McConnell, Director of Court Services, was challenged by Commissioner Mussare on the need for the bikes. She gave several reasons and said they were especially important to those who had lost their driving privileges as a result of their offenses.

A debate then ensued back and forth from Ms. McConnell to the commissioners themselves about the merit of supplying these bicycles. It was not long or drawn out, but it did get noted by the local newspaper journalist covering the meeting and was included in an article of the work session in the following day’s edition of the local newspaper.

So it was that on the regular Lycoming County Commissioners Meeting on Thursday, January 24th, that the president judge of the Court of Common Pleas, a highly respected former county planner, and three county commissioners debated the pros and cons of bikes for those who got busted. It started with Jerry Walls, who responded quickly when Commissioner Chairman Jack McKernan opened the meeting by asking if there was anyone who wished to comment on “agenda items only.”

Jerry Walls spent nearly four decades on the Lycoming County Planning Commission and is today a driving force in the 22-county Susquehanna River Greenway Partnership. Almost a living legend, it is like those commercials used to say about E. F. Hutton — when he speaks, everyone listens. He read softly but eloquently from a prepared text on how bicycle usage should be encouraged in every respect. He noted it would help parolees get to work, purchase necessities, and would be especially beneficial to those who struggled with addiction as there were physical benefits that could be gained from bicycle usage.

Judge Nancy Butts presence was also a high profile individual that magnified the issue considerably, and she addressed the commissioners on how beneficial it was to have incentive tools such as the bicycle program. She related the importance of using these as an avenue to alleviating poverty and creating self-sufficiency.

Though agreeing in principle, Commissioner Mussare, in particular, could not justify yet another expense item that fell on the back of the taxpayers. He noted that billions and billions of dollars have been expended on drug rehab nationally and that if an addict needs a bike, they should buy a bike. He felt that buying one for them would take their accountability away.

Judge Butts countered that those in the program have “earned the privilege” due to their progress and accountability in the program. She stated emphatically it was not an entitlement. Commissioner Mussare countered that he is very concerned about seniors who are ‘crying’ because they can’t afford the taxes they must pay. His dilemma was approving bikes for addicts when senior citizens were losing their homes.

Commissioner Mirabito tried to take a broad view reflecting on the need for the community to re-think these issues. He stated that just locking people up is not the answer, that innovative solutions needed to be found.

And so it went, back and forth round and round, until finally a vote was taken. The grant request was approved. But now, here is the kicker to the story. All of this commotion and conversation was over a total amount of $300 (yes, that is not a misprint – three hundred dollars!) for the purchase of five bicycles. At $60/each, these are obviously very no-frills vehicles composed of two wheels held on a frame, propelled by pedals attached to a chain on the back wheel, and steered with handlebars attached to the front wheel. In other words, plain old, garden variety, bicycles.

So, why was this so much ado about so very little? Like many things in county government, as in life, the bike issue was more than about the bikes. Since three Ben Franklin bills would buy these bikes, it is fitting to close with Franklin’s poetic parable, “For the want of a nail the shoe was lost, For the want of a shoe the horse was lost, For the want of a horse the rider was lost, For the want of a rider the battle was lost, For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost, And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.” Or a bicycle.