Control of Tredyffrin Township in the Hands of 4 . . . Residents Will Now Play by Their Rules!

I preface the following post by saying that there are very few times in my life that I have been left speechless but tonight was one of them.  For me, tonight’s Board of Supervisor Meeting represented community injustice of the worse kind.  If there was ever a subject for Community Matters, this is it!

Tonight I attended Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisor Meeting. Over the last few days, there had been scuttlebutt that Supervisor Paul Olson would once again bring up St. Davids Golf Club and the sidewalks. Although the agenda for tonight’s meeting did not include St. Davids Golf Club, my understanding was that Supervisor Olson intended to make a motion to return the $25,000 escrow to the country club. As part of St. Davids contractual land development agreement with the township, the country club was to build sidewalks. Since July 2008, the country club has been in default for failure to build the sidewalks.

If you recall, at the December 1 Board of Supervisor Meeting I questioned the supervisors concerning the $50,000 cash offer from St. Davids Golf Club which appeared in the pages of the BAWG report. This ‘offer’ (of which there was no written evidence) became widely discussed on Community Matters and in the Main Line Suburban and Daily Local newspapers. There was an outcry from many in the community about this ‘offer’ from St. Davids and the message its acceptance would say to contractors and builders doing business in Tredyffrin Township.

Tonight under the category of ‘new’ supervisor matters, Supervisor Olson made a motion which Supervisor Lamina seconded to ‘return the $25,000 escrow money’ to St. Davids Golf Club. Supervisor Lamina started to call for a vote as Supervisor Kichline asked to offer her opinion. Supervisor Lamina cut off Supervisor Kichline and went to the audience for comment.

Bob Whalen, chair of the Planning Commission spoke and explained that the sidewalks were part of the contractual agreement with St. Davids GC for their land development project. Representatives from the country club had returned to the Planning Commission asking for forgiveness on the sidewalks but the Planning Commission fearing that precedent would be set, voted against the club. Mr. Whalen explained that there are at least six other projects in the township with escrow money that has not been returned because of unfinished projects. Allowing escrow money to return to St. Davids GC will now allow the other contractors to be off the hook, for completing those projects. He adamantly opposed the motion. Next I asked the supervisors if St. Davids GC had come to the Township and asked for their $25,000 escrow money to be returned. Although Supervisor Olson said that he had ‘talked to some people at St. Davids’, the other supervisors confirmed that there was nothing written from St. Davids, in other words the country club never asked for the return of their escrow money!

Other audience members spoke passionately that you cannot make a motion on a matter that was not on the agenda . . . that procedurally you must advertise the matter to the public . . . that you cannot just give a country club a ‘gift’ of $80,000 (the estimated cost to build the sidewalks). Several audience members suggested that Supervisor Olson orchestrated the motion to coincide with the fact that many members of the public would be at the TESD meeting and unable to attend the Supervisor meeting. Remember St. Davids Golf Club was not on the agenda so it was believed that very few residents would attend (making it that much easier to push the motion through). It was obvious that Supervisor Olson had notified local St. Davids residents so they came prepared with written statements that agreed with his motion. Rather than full disclosure to the public by advertising the St. Davids sidewalks discussion, Supervisor Olson (+ Kampf, Lamina and Richter) preferred to tell only a select few residents. 

Following resident comments, Supervisor Kichline, an attorney and an ex-member of the Zoning Board spoke passionately about procedural law and the inappropriateness of the proposed motion, stating further discussion was needed with the township solicitor. Supervisor DiBuonaventuro likewise argued against the motion, suggesting for many reasons why the Board of Supervisors should not pass the motion. Township Manager Gleason added, when asked, that the passing of this motion would set precedent for all future township projects.

Hearing the comments from the residents and objections from Supervisors Kichline and DiBuonaventuro, Supervisor Lamina called for a vote – Supervisors Donohue, DiBuonaventuro, Kichline voted against the motion, and Supervisors Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter voted for the motion. The motion carried 4-3 in favor.

Tonight was a rude awakening for me . . . I learned that in Tredyffrin Township it is OK for 4 individuals (Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter) to make up the rules as they go along. At one point, when Supervisor Kichline offered that in Tredyffrin Township, the Planning Commission actually had the ‘last say’ on the land development process rather than the Board of Supervisors – Supervisor Lamina declared that he thinks that the Board of Supervisors will take back their control. I discovered tonight that the government procedures do not apply if you are Supervisors Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter.

This is a sad reality . . . but if you are the ‘Block of 4’ (Olson, Lamina, Kampf, Richter), you rule the township. Your other fellow supervisors do not matter, the public does not matter, the Planning Commissioners do not matter, the township solicitor does not matter, and the township manager does not matter. These 4 will get to make the rules (or break the rules) as they see fit.

What does tonight’s actions say for the future of our township? What does it say for the residents or all the many volunteers who serve on our township boards and committees? If tonight is any evidence, transparency of our local government, full disclosure of information, public communication . . . all gone.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

35 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. Thanks for this post Pattye. Sad news that local government is officially a shell game. I think you are right on that the kings of Tredyffrin knew the watchdogs were at the high school tonight. Perhaps someone will sue the township the way the Music Fair sued the school district for unequal treatment in taxation. Short memories around here.
    For newer residents: the TESD has an amusement tax collection. For a long time, the Valley Forge Music Fair was the primary source of that revenue. Problem was — as diligent as the district was in collecting it from the Music Fair, they were that laid back about getting it from the bowling alley and some other small venues. Well — the MF sued the district and took away $1M (to a trust fund — but tax money nonetheless) for unequal treatment in collecting taxes. This sounds EXACTLY the same — and it’s not a surprise since it’s being decided by Olson, who is the age of the folks who were then on the School Board and made “deals” with local groups filled with their friends. Saint Davids is the modern day version of the Devon Lanes….Watch out folks. Lots of lawyers out there. Let’s put together a case!!!

    [Reply]

    Pattye Benson Reply:

    Berwyn Reader —

    Following the meeting, there actually was discussion among the residents of how fast would it take for a contractor to put together a lawsuit. If I was a member of the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church, I’d be first in line. They have had a long history of fundraising efforts for their building project; complicated and made more expensive by the fact they must build sidewalks as part of their contractual agreement. But right, the little church in Mt. Pleasant is no match against the country club, around the corner. (both of which are in Supervisor Olson’s jurisdiction). Ask the Mt. Pleasant residents how often he has visited their struggling community vs. what appears to be his many conversations with the St. Davids Golf Club people.

    I actually feel sorry for St. Davids GC and their membership . . . they are caught in the middle . . . they didn’t ask for this publicity . . . they didn’t even ask for their escrow money to be returned . . . in fact, I had heard that they were resigned to building the sidewalks as contractually agreed. Guess they no longer have to think about that, do they?

    [Reply]

  2. Pattye,

    I found out about this about an hour before the meeting! I tuned in just in time to catch your comments. (I missed Bob Whalen’s comments.) I notice we heard nothing from the township solicitor when Michelle asked to delay the vote until we had some decision from him. Was Tom Hogan there? I didn’t see him when the camera swung around to Mimi. If not, there was no comment from his replacement. I notice when the vote was taken, E.J. made NO comment to support her vote. I guess in the future, all we’ll get out of her is a yea or nay depending on how OLK vote.

    I wonder how many of those who spoke in support of the motion were club members? One person didn’t know the sidewalks were part of the clubhouse renovations land development. She thought it was part of the maintenance application which was several years prior. Just goes to show ya’.

    [Reply]

    Pattye Benson Reply:

    The stars indeed lined up tonight . . . Township Solicitor Tom Hogan was on vacation and their was a sub attorney from Lamb McErlane, who never uttered a word. Don’t know his name, no mention was made of Mr. Hogan’s absence (I simply knew he was on vacation from conversation earlier in the day with a resident). How convenient for Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter that the township’s legal counsel was absent. I cannot remember the last time that Mr. Hogan was absent, how simply convenient!

    [Reply]

  3. Thank you for your comments John. Like Supervisor Kichline, John Petersen is also an attorney. (As attorneys they must have really struggled with what the actions of last night represented). Why do you suppose that these lawyers understand procedural law but that Supervisor Kampf (also an attorney) does not? I would suggest that Kampf does understand the ‘legalities’ of his action but that it simply does not matter. Remember, if you are one of the ‘Ruling 4’ – you have the ability to make the rules (and break the rules).

    [Reply]

  4. What a mess ROLK created last night! The stench will be lingering in this township for a long time (longer than Primary and General elections). The political capital squandered tonight by the 4 must have been worth it. But to what end?

    This issue was never about sidewalks, it is about power and gutting the system that has served the Township that was designed to prevent this. In this case, the system while trampled, gave us all a warning as the 4 had to jam this one through.

    Unfortunately for us, this is the gift that will keep on giving in so many wonderful ways.

    [Reply]

  5. What a farce. Paul is obviously out of touch with reality. His Letterman-esque Top Seven reasons ‘Why I don’t think There Should be a Sidewalk’ was laughable. Bob’s decision to throw procedure out the window was typically arrogant. And EJ, aka Rubber Stamp, just gave us all a taste of how the next couple of years will go for the township. Very scary.

    Kudos to JD, Phil, and Michelle for standing up for what’s right.

    [Reply]

    Stunned in Berwyn Reply:

    I guess I ‘m not as surpirised as I should be. It’s been apparent that LOK play by their own rules for a while now- perfect example is the fire funding fiasco. Now they have a new willing partner that guarantees everything to go their way. It was a shameful and transparent display last night.

    [Reply]

  6. WHAT WAS KAMPF thinking? He votes AGAINST the sewer increase to have a pristine voting record, and then he allows something NOT cleared by the solicitor — which I believe IS selective enforcement (like the TE lawsuit with Valley Forge Music Fair) to go through without blinking. And EJR — NOT a lawyer but she ignores the concerns of lawyer who just finished up at chair of the zoning hearing board and votes to take the teeth out of the planning commission’s requirements for developers. I feel like the two of them (K and R) officially joined the OLD BOYS NETWORK. If K thought he had a political future, he just burned it. And he IS a lawyer. This is real estate — wasn’t this discussed in executive session? Actually — it isn’t real estate = it’s policy — so it better not have been. But I guess the way Lamina orchestrated the discussion, he absolutely knew where the votes were. Must have been a little “deliberating” behind closed doors. HOW many rules did they break in a single night? Paul Olson is almost 80 — perhaps he’s senile…but as the head “OLD BOY” why does he want us to live in the 50s with him. It’s 2010….sidewalks matter.

    [Reply]

  7. LORK…. They have finally done it this time. They have violated us all. The arrogance and stupidity have reached a new level. I don’t think that any of the usual supporters can even stand behind this one? It was just too obvious and too egregious. Where is Mike from Berwyn, Jim Bailey? And don’t waste your effort with an argument about sidewalks… this was about honesty, procedure, transparency, and a legal agreement. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see how many ways they screwed this up.

    It is time for the TTRC to condemn them, time to dump and disassociate with CT and LORK. Enough already. Even with a big registration advantage you still can push too far.

    [Reply]

  8. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!

    I didn’t attend last night’s meeting based on the fact that the AGENDA did not indicate any final decisions would be made on any items. SERIOUSLY, this is ridiculous… Has this been going on for years? How many additional items have been left off agendas, decisions made for us without the public being notified or without following proper procedure? Is what they did legal?

    I certainly don’t feel we deserve to be treated this way.

    Somebody tell me…what can we do?

    I’m done being ignored, lied to and literally left standing alone on a street corner.

    Oh, and… “SAVE MOUNT PLEASANT!”

    [Reply]

  9. Did anybody else hear Paul Olson whispering to Bob Lamina, “She’s a Democrat.” when a woman was at the mic. asking for more dialogue and openness on this matter? When will this guy learn to turn off his mic!

    I guess Democrats (and Republicans with a brain for that matter based on the vote) in Tredyffrin can’t ask for open government or better yet items to be put on an agenda and advertised. What was done warrants a call to the Attorney General’s office. Bob Lamina is a joke!

    Channel 24 should be broadcast on CSPAN special entitled “How Not to Run a Local Government.”

    [Reply]

    Malvern Republican Reply:

    Paul’s comment during the meeting was very clear. At the conclusion of Ms. Jamieson’s comments Paul leans toward Bob and with his mic still on tells Bob that “she’s a democrat.” Further evidence, as if any was needed, that Paul has completely lost it.

    Paul – What is the relevance of Ms. Jamieson’s political affiliation? Why was it so important that you needed to whisper in Bob’s ear at that moment? Please explain to us whose opinions and comments are relevant and whose you think should be dismissed based upon a political affiliation, or maybe the lack of a certain golf club membership?

    Time to go Paul. Please resign.

    [Reply]

  10. Was not able to watch this week. Were there no attempts to use parliamentary procedures to delay until it can be vetted better to the public and counsel?

    Come to think of it, I never seem to see the minority on a issue attempt to table or delay an issue so they can drum up more support. Can some of the posters, who see more meeting than I, weigh in on the use of procedures at the meetings?

    [Reply]

  11. Last night, Paul Olson kept refering to this sidewalk as the “sidewalk to nowhere”. I drove by there today, just to see “nowhere” and found that it is the very vicinity of our lower-income residents in the Mt. Pleasant area.

    Is this “nowhere”, Paul? Maybe the real issue is that Olson, Lamina and Kampf’s country club friends don’t want to see lower-income and minority children riding their bikes while they sip cocktails and play golf at the club. I would like Olson’s definition of “nowhere”, because to me it looks like a legitimate community and I am repulsed and offended by his calling it “nowhere”.

    [Reply]

    Stunned in Berwyn Reply:

    If the road is so dangerous, then why wouldn’t the BOS want to provide the sidewalk in the interest of public safety?

    [Reply]

  12. Hey, Paul, I’m a Democrat too !

    There were so many points at which last night’s BOS meeting went beyond the pale. But the behavior of Mr. Senile-like-a-Fox Olson takes the cake. As one citizen finished speaking last night, Paul whispered loudly to Bob Lamina, “She’s a Democrat” as if to dismiss anything she said on that basis alone.

    That arrogant, snotty old man wasn’t listening, but I was..

    Her points::
    1) How can such an important matter, one that has sparked so much controversy in recent months, be brought up for a vote without any public notice?
    She suggested the BOS pcked last night for this vote because they knew one and only reporter assigned to Tredyffrin would be at the SB meeting as would most of the engaged citizens in the township.

    I suggest that last night was also chosen because the township solicitor was away on vacation and he would have had a number of objections about releasing the escrow funds.

    2) Voting to return the escrow t$$ to St. David’s abrogates everything this township supposedly stands for and has put in place-e.g. the importance of public input, the right of the Planning Commission to make decisions in land development matters, a respect for precedent, etc.

    3) it’s a bad bargain. The cost of the sidewalk would have been about $80,000. Last month there was a recommendation from BAWG to accept $50,000 from St. David’s in place of building the “sidewalk to nowhere”. There was public outcry about letting St. David’s off the hook and overriding the Planning Commission’s decision then. Now the Township wants to let them off the hook completely?

    Aside from the strange deference of some on the Board toward Mr. Olson, the willingness of Lamina and Kampf to anger even their own loyal base with this decision shows a level of arrogance or complete tone-deafness that is breath-taking.

    I did not include Ms Richter in that category because even though she seems oblivious to it, she is being used as a pawn – a rather pathetic one – bought and paid for with camapign donations.

    The pattern has already emerged – after only two meetings with the newly constituted board.

    LOK’s strategy is already clear: steamroll over any opposing board member or citizen, remind every board and commission that they serve at LOK’s pleasure, and rule as if THEY own the place.

    [Reply]

  13. John, I am listening and I don’t like the decision. I was unable to make the meeting last night and I would like to hear both sides of the story. On the surface, it doesn’t smell right – but I would like to hear more and know all the facts. Michelle hasn’t been on the board very long. I only ask that you give her a chance to cut her teeth. I mean, come on John, all that knowledge you have in your head you didn’t pick up over night. I will be back to you when I have a chance to review. Until then, when’s lunch? I’m getting hungry waiting! Jim Bailey

    [Reply]

    Pattye Benson Reply:

    Jim —
    No one has said anything but great things about Michelle!! Michelle, JD and Phil represented how government and its elected officials are supposed to operate. In my world, all elected officials should set the bar higher for themselves than the average citizen. Voters should be able to respect those we elect to serve . . . of the 7 supervisors, only Michelle, JD and Phil were those people. I encourage you to watch the tape and then read every one of these comments and draw your own conclusions. You will not question why not one single person who sent in a comment supporting the actions of Lamina, Olson, Kampf and Richter last night.

    [Reply]

    Jim Bailey Reply:

    Pattye, I’m sorry. I meant EJ.

    [Reply]

    Malvern Republican Reply:

    Jim – How long should we excuse EJ’s incompetence in your opinion?

    So because she is new we should just accept whatever terrible vote she may make because she is learning? BS!!!

    She didn’t win the seat by default, there were other qualified candidates!! TWO of them! There were other candidates that wouldn’t have violated the agreement, they wouldn’t have violated procedure, they wouldn’t have exposed the township!

    How is it that the other two junior supervisors got it right?? Maybe before you comment further you should read the balance of the comments and watch the meeting for yourself.

    Jim Bailey Reply:

    Malvern Republican or whoever you are……, read my post!!!! I said I wanted to find out more and learn the facts! Also, don’t put words in my mouth! I never said EJ was incompetent! How long do we give her to get adjusted to the board? Obviously, when making decisions that affect the citizens of our community, not long. However, I think she was sworn in less then a month ago! Malvern republican, if you started a new job, would you want to be evaluated after 3 weeks!!!?? You and John asked me to comment, so I did. Perhaps it was a bad idea to do so because my words are being twisted and I feel like some are more interested in bullying then sharing ideas and thoughts!

    Berwyn Reader Reply:

    Here’s the deal. EJ knows that she is new — so when there is an obvious conflict on the board — she should not cast a deciding vote. They avoided Michele’s motion to table (or whatever — Lamina brushed right over it) — Michele has been chair of zoning for awhile and she had a major problem with the language and legality. OLK didn’t want to stop and think — bet a dollar EJ had either breakfast, lunch or dinner with at least one of them earlier in the day (since the other 3 didn’t know it was going to be on the agenda) to get her marching orders. She certainly should be mentored and get her feet wet, but she ought to accept her limitations while she learning and should not case a deciding vote to a BLOCK. If the motion fails, it can always come back — but when she votes in favor of it, she changes policy. It was obvious that Mimi Gleason was not happy. this was an insider decision — and if EJ wants to be respected for her intellect and contributions, she better not give them to Paul to use as he chooses. Bad judgment. No judgement.

    Malvern Republican Reply:

    Jim – I don’t want to belabor a debate that you aren’t comfortable with. Nor do i want to have you feel as though you are being bullied or having your words twisted, you are a valuable contributor to this discussion for sure. But i must respond to some of what you said here, and I make no apologies for calling BS on what you said before.

    I know you didn’t say EJ was incompetent, those were my words, and in hindsight perhaps too harsh. You are in a very tough position because I think EJ is a friend of yours, AND you are a TTRC committee person.

    With respect to your question regarding being evaluated on job performance after 3 weeks, I say sure, bring it. I would hope that before i were hired to do any job i had the skills, experience, and intelligence necessary to be effective very quickly. Especially if there were other very qualified candidates competing for the same position!

    This isn’t about EJ’s obvious nervousness, or her stumbling report at the beginning of the meeting. That is understandable and easily excusable, hopefully she will become more comfortable over time. This is about taking a position on an issue that was clearly wrong, and articulating NO rationale whatsoever for taking the position. She was the deciding vote. I don’t think she voted the way she did with malice like KOL, I just think she is way over her head, and in this instance she did what she was told to do by KOL. The problem is that if she continues to blindly facilitate KOL at their request then we all have very serious issues.

    Every elected official will be held completely accountable on their votes and positions from day 1 of taking office. Important fact is that this issue was a last minute add to the agenda by design, and in that regard EJ (and some others) may have been unprepared. Some picked it up quicker than others, but you cannot vote unprepared! She should have voted no and taken the time now week to clearly understand the issue. There is a chance she may have come to a different conclusion, slim i think, but i am trying to give the benefit of doubt.

    Believe me, I would love to be proven wrong by EJ. This entire township needs to be proven wrong by EJ. She needs guidance and help outside of KOL quickly. At the end of the day she needs to be comfortable with her actions. KOL aren’t going to provide her cover anywhere other than at the BOS meeting. Which leaves her standing alone to defend her decisions the balance of the time. I hope she can.

    Jim Bailey Reply:

    John, I have done my due diligence and I don’t like the vote. In fact, I hate the vote. Jim

    [Reply]

    Jim Bailey Reply:

    John, I have been looking for a rationale for this vote and I can’t find one. I am not going to speculate on a rumor. I figure I will find out soon enough who said what and why. The fact that we are dealing with St Davids CC makes this issue smell even worse. I have to find out the rationale for this vote – and I will.

    [Reply]

  14. What a disgrace!

    Every other escrow release is accompanied by
    1) Notice to the public
    2) A recommendation from the Township engineer

    There certainly seem to be grounds for legal action here.

    I thought that the Kampf No vote on the sewer fee increase was the most brazen political ploy we’d be likely to see, but now this! I guess we should never be surprised at how power can be abused, but somehow I always am.

    [Reply]

  15. The FOLK (“F’ing OLK) have exposed us all to litigation. EJR is a pawn of the FOLK….can someone here address the earlier reference to the TE lawsuit in the 70s? for selective enforcement of a tax against them by the Music Fair? Is this at all the same thing?

    Quoting Abraham Lincoln:

    Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

    I believe last night’s beligerent actions by the FOLK of the BOS are the ultimate test — and they failed miserably.

    [Reply]

  16. I was unable to attend the meeting, but have read the multiple accounts of this issue. In my humble opinion, the Board of Supervisors is in violation of their own Township Code, which is enacted under the authority of the PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). Feel free to reference the code for your self here: http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=TR1485.

    I would assume that the escrow account would be classified as a “Performance Guaranty.” While I believe the BOS COULD delegate some of this authority to the Planning Commission, it has chosen not to (which is entirely permissible. HOWEVER, Tredyffrin’s code plainly states:

    “As the work of installing the required improvements proceeds, the party posting the financial security may request the Board of Supervisors to release or authorize to be released, from time to time, such portions of the financial security necessary for payment to the contractor or contractors performing the work. Any such requests shall be in writing addressed to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board shall have 45 days from receipt of such request within which to allow the Township Engineer to certify, in writing, that such portion of the work upon the improvements has been completed in accordance with the approved plans. Upon such certification, the Board shall authorize release by the bonding company or lending institution of an amount as estimated by the Township Engineer fairly representing the value of the improvements completed. The Township Engineer, in certifying the completion of work for a partial release, shall not be bound to the amount requested by the applicant, but shall certify to the Board his independent evaluation of the proper amount of partial releases. The Board may, prior to final release at the time of completion and certification by the Township Engineer, require retention of 10% of the estimated cost of the aforesaid improvements as per § 181-34D of this chapter.” Tredyffrin Township Code Section 181-34(G).

    What is important in this provision??? Well, first of all the request for release of the funds MUST BE IN WRITING. Second, the BOS is given 45 days to refer the matter to the Township Engineer. The Engineer must CERTIFY IN WRITING that the improvements have been completed and also determine the AMOUNT TO BE RELEASED.

    I would ask this:
    1) Where is the request from St. David’s (well actually the entities doing the work there) for release of these funds?

    2) Where is the report in writing from the Township Engineer?

    3) Where is the estimated return amount determined by the Township Engineer?

    4) Why was the normal procedural aspects (as was mentioned by Ray) disregarded here?

    I am not well versed in this area, but to me it seems simple – there is a process that MUST BE FOLLOWED. With all due respect, the Supervisors must be held accountable for failure to follow their own code. The Supervisors do not have the authority to simply make a motion and dispose of an issue as they see fit with no procedures followed.

    [Reply]

  17. Pattye/John P.

    Since we probably couldn’t get it on Cspan or PCN, maybe we should try to put that segment on UTube. Wonder how many hits we’d get.

    As John P wrote, take them out at the primary.
    First day to circulate petitions is feb 16th: last day is March 9th to submit to Voter Services in West Chester.

    If all of the above republican posters who reside in the 157th want to help Keep Warren out of the state house – help by signing one of Judy DiFilipo’s petitions. Pattye can contact her campaign to make sure you get one to circulate.

    [Reply]

  18. Petition….. great idea. JP and i talked about political items earlier. Maybe all the
    folks who realize we may be ruled instead of governed could start an e-petition.
    Send it to R’s, D’s, Independents….., all good interested citizens of our Kingdom
    and petition for the four “rulers” to resign. They won’t….. but it may be a start.

    Second time reading everyone’s thoughts. It seems there are lots who care.
    Congratulations to all.

    [Reply]

  19. ipetitions.com or the petitionsite.com

    Both sites are free to set up petitions. Does someone want to take that on? Pattye is working hard enough…though go for it girl. I cannot do it from work.

    Let’s not reach too far — but how about a petition to request reconsideration of the poorly drawn motion for the unsolicited return of escrow to saint davids, a golf club in tredyffrin township.

    [Reply]

  20. Bill/Sarah,

    The petitions to put names on the ballot for the primary cannot be done on the internet. These are government forms to be signed by a registered voter and then the form is notarized. They are completed “party specific” (R or D). In other words, a D should not be signing a petition for an R candidate.

    If you republicans are interested in circulating a petition for Judy, e-mail whisperbrinton@yahoo.com & the campaign will make sure you get one. You can also change your registration from I or D to R to vote for Judy and not Warren in the primary.

    Maybe you should call your R committee person & urge them to support Judy (and not Warren) at the candidate interviews Wed (Feb 3rd) and at the county convention.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Community Matters © 2019 Frontier Theme