Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Month – February 2010

St. Davids Golf Club Decision Reversed but, . . . Was There Full Disclosure, Transparency, Deal-Making?

February 23, 2010
66 Comments

I went to last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting convinced that the residents of this community had been heard by our elected officials. I was certain that the supervisors were listening to us when we spoke out at previous Board meetings, wrote passionate letters to the editor, emails to the supervisors and left thoughtful comments on this blog. Last night I entered Keene Hall confident that the energy from so many would pay off, that justice would prevail, and good government would be restored in Tredyffrin Township.

I had heard scuttlebutt about some ‘deal-making’ before the supervisors meeting began but I was not prepared for what was to come. Chairman Lamina read his very lengthy prepared St. Davids Golf Club motion. The motion started out well, stating that its passage would reverse the supervisors’ decision of January 25 and restore the St. Davids Golf Club escrow. That should have been the end of the motion. Was that not the intended purpose of the motion . . . was that not what the public had asked . . . to restore the escrow? But no, Lamina took a breath and launched in to the other part of the motion; this motion would additionally include the formation of a subcommittee to look at sidewalks and trails township-wide; this ‘sidewalk’ subcommittee would include members from the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and STAP (Sidewalks, Trails and Paths); and there would be focus groups formed to discuss the location of sidewalks in the township, starting with the St. Davids area.

After Lamina completed his long-winded ‘motion’ and it was offered for discussion to audience members, I think we all struggled to ‘take in’ what we had heard. What kind of motion was this? . . . Was this just another way to protect St. Davids Golf Club from honoring their land development contract? . . . What about the rights of the Planning Commission who had consistently voted to enforce St. Davids land development commitment? . . . What would this motion do for the precedent for developer/contractors not to comply with their contractual commitments? . . . Would this ‘sidewalk’ committee be part of the existing approved Comprehensive Plan? Many, many questions, no answers offered.

Audience members spoke up, thanking the supervisors for reversing the escrow vote but many asked for Lamina’s motion to be split in to two motions. They suggested the first motion should be for the return of the St. Davids Golf Club escrow, followed by a second motion to create the ‘sidewalks’ subcommittee. The supervisors were not listening; their decision preordained. When several people asked Lamina ‘why’ not separate the motion in to two motions? His response was consistently no; that he wrote it that way. Period. Interesting to note that Kampf offered his commentary on government and making compromise. Perhaps what Kampf should have explained was that the compromise was a behind the closed-door agreement with the other supervisors, there certainly was no compromise with the citizenry. In advance of the vote, both supervisors Kichline and DiBuonaventuro offered that they would be supporting this motion. I guess that was supposed to make the residents ‘feel better’ since these two supervisors, along with Supervisor Donohue cast the 3 votes against the original motion on January 25.

A constant thread among the supervisors comments last night on St. Davids Golf Club was their desire to ‘move on’. The supervisors wanted this motion delivered, a vote taken and the ability to put St. Davids Golf Club behind them. And a vote the supervisors took; it was unanimous, 7-0 to support Lamina’s motion.

Why did I leave the meeting with the feeling that we (the public) had been manipulated and that our government had let us down? I should have felt that justice was served and our government policy and procedure restored . . . after all, the motion did include the reversal of the St. Davids decision. But no, I went home, drank 3 glasses of Pinot Grigio and reviewed what had just happened. The St. Davids discussion and motion was completely orchestrated . . . an obvious deal made in advance. Where was the transparency of the supervisor’s actions? For me transparency in government means that the citizens must be able to “see through” its workings, and to fully understand what goes on when public officials transact public business.

Transparency is the new buzz word in American politics. You hear politicians say it all the time when referring to ways of providing constituents with access to more information and mobilizing people to get more involved in government processes. Transparency is a way of protecting fairness and ensuring common good. When we know what our government is up to, we have a better chance of ensuring that decisions treat everyone equally and protect the common conditions that are important to everyone’s welfare. It was obvious that the supervisors had already debated and settled the issue of a subcommittee, prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting, outside the view of constituents. Am I the only one who is concerned over possible violations of the state’s Sunshine Act? The open meeting law bars four or more of the Board’s seven supervisors from deliberating township business or taking official action behind closed doors, with few exceptions. Why do we have to fight to keep the door open? Is it that the supervisors want the appearance of unanimity, to aim for as little contention as possible in public? When you go behind a closed-door and make decisions, the perception can be as bad as the fact.

As far as they are concerned, the Board of Supervisors may feel that with their vote last night, that St. Davids Golf Club is now past history. But for me, the issue is far from over; no they just created a whole host of new problems with their latest decision.

I can hardly wait to see this new ‘sidewalks’ subcommittee . . . knowing what the desired outcome for St. Davids Golf Club must be, the supervisors will want to make sure that Paul Olson is their representative on the committee. From the STAP committee the supervisors need to make sure that Bruce Parkinson is included on the sidewalks subcommittee; as a member of St. Davids Golf Club he would be an invaluable choice. From the Planning Commission, I am not sure who would be the politically correct choice; are any of planning commissioners also members of St. Davids? If so, make sure and let the supervisors know as that is an important selection criteria. When the Board of Supervisors is forming the public focus group for St. Davids area, they need to make sure that no one from the Mt. Pleasant community is included. As we know, Christine Johnson and her non-country club Mt. Pleasant neighbors live where that proposed St. Davids sidewalk to nowhere would have ended.

Was last night about full disclosure, transparency, deal-making? . . . you be the judge.

Reminder: Board of Supervisors Meeting Tonight . . . St. Davids Golf Club on the Agenda, Public Hearing Continuance for Patriots Path Plan

February 22, 2010
23 Comments

Reminder:

Tonight is Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors Meeting, 7:30 PM at the Township Building, Keene Hall. The St. Davids Golf Club issue is on tonight’s agenda. I am looking forward to the continuing, thoughtful discussion from the residents and to an appropriate resolution of this matter. If you are unable to attend the meeting, it will be shown on cable TV. Check township website for details, www.tredyffrin.org

Following the regular BOS meeting, there will be a continuance of a Public Hearing for the ” . . . consideration and possible adoption, via resolution, of the ‘Patriots Path Plan’, as an amendment to Tredyffrin Township’s Comprehensive Plan”.

Conestoga High School Grad Offers Personal Experience of Seniority in T/E School District

February 22, 2010
12 Comments

The following comment was received from a Conestoga High School graduate in response to ‘Last In, First Out’ discussion on teacher seniority. Some people would automatically assume that the more experienced teachers make the ‘better’ teachers. I don’t know if his/her personal experience is typical . . . but it certainly offers another viewpoint. Comments?

CHS Grad, on February 22, 2010 at 6:53 AM

Seniority is also what allowed my history teachers throughout my years at Conestoga to be completely inept teachers, and the reason why I didn’t learn one thing about history during my years at high school. Not sure if I should name names here, but specifically I had a history teacher in 11th grade that literally did not do anything but show film strips, to which no one ever paid attention. The class was a joke, and the teacher didn’t care at all. He would have us grade each other’s tests, and then we would line up and enter our own grades into his grade book. Of course everyone gave themselves passing grades. Maybe he was a great teacher when he was younger, he seemed like a nice guy and everything, but he was milking the system that had absolutely no accountability.

Another teacher I had at Valley Forge would literally fall asleep in the middle of class in the middle of his sentences. I don’t think he even really graded our tests because people would just write nonsense in their fill in the blank tests and most of the time it would be graded as correct.

In my view, seniority represents a division between generations, where older workers hold onto their positions with a death-grip as they begin to slow down, milking the system for all its worth. All the while, young, motivated teachers are left out on the sidelines. THAT is the foundation of unions in this country.

Chester County Democrat Committee Nominating Convention Endorses Paul Drucker in his Reelection Bid for the 157th Legislative District

February 21, 2010
2 Comments

I spoke with Paul Drucker last evening and extended my congratulations on his 157th Legislative District endorsement at the Chester County Democrat Committee Nominating Convention held yesterday in West Chester.

From what I understand from those in attendance, Paul delivered a rousing speech to the audience; a speech filled with passion and enthusiasm for the work that he is currently doing in Harrisburg and a desire to continue to represent our community. A longtime Paoli resident and a former member of Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors, as our current State Representative, Paul understands first hand the challenges and concerns of our community. The best of luck to Paul in his reelection campaign.

Teacher Layoffs: Should Seniority Rule?

February 21, 2010
9 Comments

A Community Matters reader sent in a link to a recent Wall Street Journal article, Teacher Seniority Rules Challenged. (The full article is below). I wonder if the majority of educators favor or disfavor seniority-based layoff protections. I wonder how the majority of citizens feel as well. If I had to guess, I’d venture that most citizens are against teacher seniority serving as the primary determinant of job protection. I’m not sure about public school educators. What do you think?

I know that the challenging of teacher layoffs based on seniority is not a favorable teacher union approach. But if school administration did not use seniority to make the necessary budget cuts, what credible evaluation system could be properly used? Isn’t the major issue with “merit” based decisions on either pay or layoffs and even staffing is who is deciding? In the case of the TESD 2010-11 budget, it is understood that the District will not use teacher layoffs as a means to correct the budgetary gap . However, there will be programming cuts which will cause the furlough of teachers. Within the programming cuts, is it a correction assumption that teacher seniority will determine which teachers stay (or go) correct? This is an interesting topic; I’d like to hear from teachers, parents, administrators, residents. But do read the following article, think you will find it of interest:

Teacher Seniority Rules Challenge

With Tens of Thousands of Layoffs Looming, Government Officials and Parents Want to Change the ‘Last in, First out’ System

By Barbara Martinez

Teacher seniority rules are meeting resistance from government officials and parents as a wave of layoffs is hitting public schools and driving newer teachers out of classrooms.

In a majority of the country’s school districts, teacher layoffs are handled on a “last in, first out” basis. Critics of seniority rules worry that many effective and talented teachers who have been hired in recent years will lose their jobs.

Unions say that seniority rules are the only objective way to carry out layoffs, and that they protect teachers from the whims and bias of managers, who might fire effective teachers they don’t like.

This year, because of cuts in state aid to New York City, the city could be facing a loss of about 8,500 teacher jobs out of a total of 80,000. The last time the nation’s largest school system laid off a teacher was 1976.If New York City is forced to lay off some of the more than 30,000 new teachers it has hired in the past five years, it is “going to be catastrophic,” said Joel Klein, chancellor of the city’s school system. “We’re going to be losing a lot of great new teachers that we hired” in recent years, the chancellor said.

Mr. Klein added that another problem with “last in, first out” was that because newer teachers earn less than veterans, more teachers will end up losing their jobs.

First-grader Victoria Bernade copies a sentence as teacher Lori Peck goes over sentence structure at Grace L. Patterson Elementary school in Vallejo, Calif., on Feb. 12.

What Mr. Klein “is really trying to say is, ‘I would like to churn the work force by keeping cheaper teachers on the payroll,’ ” said Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, the teachers union in New York. “If we can do our work in a constructive and collaborative way, we can avoid the layoffs. That’s where we should be focusing our energy.” Mr. Klein has requested a number of times that the state legislature ban the sole use of seniority in layoff decisions. California’s governor made the same request last month. While politicians in these states are unlikely to enact such bans, the movement is gaining traction elsewhere.

Last year, Arizona passed a ban, and schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee in Washington, D.C., in addition to letting go some new teachers, laid off some who would otherwise have been protected by union seniority rules. Teachers unions in Arizona and Washington sued over the moves, but they lost their court challenges.

“It is a pent-up issue that has been pushed off and pushed off, and now we have to deal with it,” said Tim Daly, president of the New Teacher Project, a nonprofit that helps recruit teachers in mostly urban school districts and opposes seniority-based layoffs.

“It’s not just that you will lose teachers that you invested a lot in,” he said, “these cuts are being made in a quality-blind way.” Mr. Daly said some school districts were forced to lay off teacher-of-the-year nominees last year.

About 60,000 school workers were laid off across the country last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, double the number laid off in 2008 and three times the level in 2007. The total number of public education jobs fell in 2009 for the first time since 1984, according to the BLS. Declining state revenues, which result from the country’s economic turmoil and high unemployment, only increase the probability of more large-scale teacher layoffs ahead, said Marguerite Roza, a professor at the University of Washington’s College of Education.

“We would expect that education jobs will be hit harder in 2010,” Ms. Roza said. “Given last year’s layoff trends, we should expect even more layoffs this year.”

Parents in some school districts are beginning to organize over the issue. In Seattle last year, parents started asking, “Why is my great teacher being laid off while this teacher, who everybody knows is not a good teacher, doesn’t get laid off?” said Venus Velazquez, a parent who said she is one of dozens attempting to remove the seniority protection from the next teacher contract. “We don’t want to go back to the ’50s or ’60s, when people were laid off because of the color of their skin or because a woman was pregnant,” said Glenn Bafia, executive director of the Seattle Education Association, a teachers union.

Mr. Bafia said poor-performing Seattle teachers need to be encouraged to leave teaching through an administrative process. “That’s the principal’s responsibility. If the principal refuses to do their job, that’s an issue,” he said. When it comes to layoffs, “seniority is the only objective criteria there is out there.”

For the unions, the pushback is in some cases coming from people who consider themselves liberal and pro-union. “I consider myself a union supporter, but I don’t support the seniority system,” said Lynnell Mickelsen of Minneapolis, who is organizing a community group to oppose the main use of seniority in layoffs. In a shrinking school system, which has resulted in the loss of 1,300 teacher jobs since 2001, “terrific teachers have been laid off, and [some of those remaining] are depressingly, relentlessly mediocre,” Ms. Mickelsen said. “People are so frustrated about this.”

Lynn Nordgren, president of the Minneapolis teachers union, said the union and the system already work together to remove ineffective teachers, pushing out between 400 and 500 teachers in the past 10 years. With poorly performing teachers already being addressed, “seniority gives us a fair way of saying how do we lay people off in a way that’s equitable,” she explained.

Ms. Mickelsen isn’t buying it: “When it comes to key contract clauses like seniority, the needs of teachers and kids are not the same.”

T/E School Board Meeting Tomorrow – Agenda Posted

February 21, 2010
Comments

In addition to the Board of Supervisors Meeting on Monday evening, there is a Tredyffrin Easttown School Board Meeting; 7:30 PM at Conestoga HS. Here is the agenda for TESD meeting.

Included in the agenda materials is the Treasurer’s Report as of November 30, 2009 which was interesting to review, particularly in light of the 2010-11 budget discussions. The last section of the agenda materials included ‘Recommended Action’ that the following policies and regulations be adopted by the School Board Directors. I found some of these policy updates interesting to read. In some cases it had been several years since revisions were required (example, as electronic device usage increases, updated school policy is required) I appreciate that the school board gave us the old version and shows up the redlined updated revision.

– Policy 1310: Visitors to School District Buildings and Classrooms
– Policy 1310: Classroom Visits by Community Members, REPEAL
– Policy 5228: Awarding of Diplomas to Eligible Veterans
– Policy 5400: Students’ Freedom of Expression
– Policy 5414: Electronic Devises: Use by Students
– Policy 5420: Unlawful Harassment by and of Students
– Policy 5422: Student Accidents and Injuries – Treatment and Reporting
– Policy 9310: Regular Monthly Meetings
– Policy 9312: Parliamentary Procedure
– Regulation 9331: Review of School Board Policies

We should review where we are with the TESD 2010-11 budget gap. The projected gap between revenues and expenditures is estimated at $9.2 million. The gap was a result of loss of revenues and increase of expenditures. At the January 25, 2010 regular school board meeting, school board members voted that any property tax increase would be at or below 2.9%, the statewide index. To close the budget gap, there was proposed strategies presented at the February 8 Finance Committee meeting. The School Board and administration continue to evaluate each proposed budget strategy. The following 1-11 strategies were reviewed in detail at the February 8 meeting:

– Restructure the 7th and 8th grade program delivery
– Eliminate the Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES)
– Contribution from food/nutrition service fund to general fund
– Restructure middle school special area classes
– Reduce number of regular education aides/paraprofessionals
– Eliminate all CHS classes with fewer than 15 students
– Eliminate Supervisor of Special Education position
– Education Services Center disposition
– Outsource print shop
– Reduce number of Extra Duty Responsibility positions and club sports contribution
– Reduce 2010-11 budget requests to 2008-09 levels

At the March 8 Finance Committee meeting (7:30 PM Conestoga HS) and March 15 Budget Workshop meeting there will be continued discussions on the remaining strategies to reduce the 2010-11 budget gap. The School Board has not made any final decisions regarding the implementation of the strategies. It is my understanding that the School Board and administration will continue to work towards balancing the budget between now and the June 14, 2010 School Board Meeting.

One of the Community Matters readers posted an article from the New York Times a couple of days ago about teacher seniority and working to change the system for teacher layoffs; I’ll work to get that article up for discussion shortly.

Just In . . . No Endorsement from the Chester County Republican Committee for the State House 157 Race . . . There Will be a Primary!

February 20, 2010
31 Comments

This just in . . . Chester County Republican Committee has completed their voting for the Pennsylvania State House 157. The committee voted not to endorse either Warren Kampf or Ken Buckwalter. To receive an endorsement requires 60% of the votes; the voting went as follows:

  • Round 1: Kampf 32 votes; Buckwalter 26 votes
  • Round 2: Kampf 31 votes; Buckwalter 27 votes
  • Round 3: Kampf 29 votes; Buckwalter 27 votes *

* It is my understanding that 2 Tredyffrin committee people left before Round 3 vote.

As a result of the voting, the Republican Committee has made the decision to recommend both candidates (neither candidate receives an endorsement). So there will be a Primary race between Kampf and Buckwalter; both candidates will appear on the ballot. Paul Drucker’s Republican opponent for the State House race will be decided by the people on Primary Day, May 18, 2010.

Interesting that we will have a Republican Primary between a Paoli candidate and a Phoenixville candidate . . . wonder when the last time that happened? Has there ever been a non-Tredyffrin Township State House Representative? Exciting local political news!

Chester County Democrat and Republican Nominating Conventions Being Held Today . . . Who Will Face Paul Drucker in the State House Race?

February 20, 2010
6 Comments

The Chester County Democrat Committee Nominating Convention is being held today in West Chester, 10 AM – 1 PM. Petitions will be signed for senate, congressional, gubernatorial and legislative candidates.

Also today is the endorsement process for the Chester County Republican Committee. The outcome of today’s vote will determine if there is a primary for the Republicans in the State House 157 race. The was a straw poll held a couple of weeks ago between Warren Kampf, Judy DiFilippo and Ken Buckwalter. As a result of the straw poll, Judy made the decision to leave the race, leaving committee people today to make a choice between Kampf and Buckwalter. Although the outcome of the straw poll has historically given good indication of who will get the GOP endorsement, the results are unofficial and nonbinding. It will be curious to see if Kampf, the frontrunner after the straw poll receives the GOP endorsement or if Phoenixville resident Buckwalter receives it. If a 60-40 margin is not reached among committee people, there will be no endorsement. The next question will be whether the committee people decide to recommend one (or both) of the candidates. If one of the candidates doesn’t receive an endorsement or recommendation, it would appear unlikely that the candidate would remain in the race.

Paul Drucker (D), the incumbent State House 157 Representative kicked off his reelection campaign this week with the opening of his Paoli Campaign office. “It has been an honor and a privilege to serve the people of this community over the past year, and I am proud of my work on issues important to residents here, from our successful efforts to increase education funding to progress on job creation and transportation, as well as the urgent need for reform in Harrisburg,” Drucker said. “While we have done some very good things together, there is much more to be done to make Harrisburg reflect the priorities of the people, and that is why I will ask the voters to give me the opportunity to continue to serve them.”

The Chester County Democrat and Republican committee process is important today for Tredyffrin residents. By the end of the day we will know the opponent(s) for Paul Drucker in the State House 157 legislative race. Just so everyone understands, the 157th legislative district encompasses Tredyffrin. Schuylkill, Phoenixville, and in Montgomery County – 4 precincts in Lower Providence and 1 precinct in West Norriton

Will the May Primary have both Warren Kampf and Ken Buckwalter on the ballot? Will one of them be endorsed by the Republican Committee? Look for an announcement later today; as soon as I know something, I will post.

Traffic Update: Rt. 202 Closed Tomorrow 6-10 AM for Repairs

February 20, 2010
Comments

Traffic Update:

Route 202 between West Valley Road and Gulph Road in Tredyffrin Township will be closed Sunday from 6 – 10 AM for overhead wire repair by PECO. The wires were damaged when a snowplow struck a pole in Gateway Shopping Center.

Northbound Route 202 traffic will exit at the West Valley Road off-ramp and re-enter the highway at the West Valley Road on-ramp.

Southbound traffic will exit at the Swedesford Road off-ramp and turn left and follow the Swedesford Road to the on-ramp at the intersection of Valley Forge Road.

The following ramps will also be closed during the repairs. Motorists should follow the exits for Swedesford Road:

  • The eastbound 422 on-ramp to southbound Route 202
  • The westbound I-76 on-ramp to southbound Route 202
  • The eastbound I-76 on-ramp to southbound Route 202

Southbound Route 202 will be closed at the intersection with Gulph Road. Traffic will be directed to the Swedesford Road ramp.

FBI Investigating Lower Merion School District's Use of Laptop Webcams to Allegedly Spy on Students and Their Families!

February 19, 2010
9 Comments

Did you hear about the lawsuit filed against Lower Merion School District? In the case of Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District, the suit claims that laptops were issued to Harriton High School students with webcams that can be covertly activated by the schools’ administrators. The suit claims that the administrators were able to use this webcam feature to spy on students and even their families.

The issue came to light when the Robbin’s child was disciplined for “improper behavior in his home” and Harriton High School Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence. The suit is a class action, brought on behalf of all students issued with these specific webcam equipped laptops.

If these allegations are true, how creepy is this for the students and their families? Think about it . . . I’m sure that a number of these kids have their laptops in their bedrooms where they may be getting dressed, or how about if the laptop is located in an area where there are private discussions with the students families. It is one thing if a school district has the ability to monitor emails or mark inappropriate website visits but to use these computers as ‘bugs’ is horrifying.

Schools all over this country are worried about kids divulging too much personal information online, concerned about pedophiles, embarrassing uploads of photos, etc. that may affect college acceptances or future job opportunities. Kids are taught by parents and school administrators to threat their personal details as though they were precious. And now we have this revelation in nearby Lower Merion School District?

It is my understanding that Lower Merion School District has admitted that the laptops were shipped with software for covertly activating their webcams, but is denying wrongdoing. Late today, the Associated Press is reporting that the FBI is now involved in the case. The FBI is investigating the Lower Merion School District over allegations that a high school in the school district spied on students through their laptop webcams. The official, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, says the FBI will explore whether Lower Merion School District officials broke any federal wiretap or computer-intrusion laws.

Lower Merion officials say they remotely activated webcams 42 times to find missing student laptops in the past 14 months, but never did so to spy on students, as the Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District lawsuit claims.

What is Tredyffrin Easttown School District’s policy on computer usage outside of school hours? Does the school district have a similar laptop program to Lower Merion? I don’t think our school district assigns laptops to individual students, correct? Are any of the district’s laptops permitted to leave the schools?

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme