Kampf’s Campaign Fundraiser Hosted by Jeffrey Rotwitt Raised $$ . . . Rotwitt Under FBI Probe Over Family Court Scandel . . . Should Kampf’s Campaign Return $$?

Just a couple of days ago, I was writing about the PA Turnpike Commission officials in trouble with the law . . . and then I receive a press release about a FBI investigation probe involving local attorney Jeffrey Rotwitt.  Rotwitt hosted an April fundraiser for State Representative candidate Warren Kampf. 

If I understand the story correctly, Rotwitt earned fees on both sides of a deal to build a new Family Court building in Center City.  In late May, Rotwitt’s law firm, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP fired him after Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille killed Rotwitt’s deal to develop a $200 million Family Court tower at 15th and Arch streets.

The Family Court project is still going to move forward but with the state serving as developer.  There is no way of telling whether the state will recover any of the millions in fees already paid out to Rotwitt and his partner, Conshohocken developer Donald W. Pulver. Taking money from the state ($1.1 million) and also receiving $500K as developer of the project . . . what did Rotwitt miss the ‘conflict of interest’ course in law school?   Rotwitt who was with Obermayer for 35 years, continues to suggest a ‘misunderstanding’ as the FBI investigates. (As an aside Rotwitt’s developer partner Donald Pulver either received or was in line to receive $6.2 million in fees and costs for the project from the state!)

I was aware of the FBI investigation of Rotwitt from reading the Inquirer but did a little research on Rotwitt’s employer, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel.  The  Philadelphia-based firm has 125 lawyers and has been a big-money player on Pennsylvania’s political scene; last year contributing a total of $175,000 to statewide campaigns. 

It wasn’t until I received the following press release that I made the connection between Jeffrey Rotwitt and Warren Kampf.   Just prior to his firing from Obermayer in late May,  Rotwitt hosted a $250/person campaign fundraiser for Kampf in his home.  As he follows the FBI investigation of  Rotwitt, I’m guessing that Kampf may want to distance himself from his friend and the FBI probe . . . probably returning the dollars raised at that April fundraiser might not be a bad idea.  What’s that saying about ‘judging people by the company they keep’?

In case you are interested, here is the press release that is being circulated from State Rep Paul Drucker in regards to this matter:

Rep. Paul Drucker Calls on Opponent to Return Money Raised by Fundraiser under Federal Investigation

Kampf received thousands raised by Jeffrey Rotwitt, currently under investigation by the FBI for role In Philadelphia’s scandal-plagued
Family Court project

PAOLI, Pa. – State Rep. Paul Drucker today called on his opponent Warren Kampf to return money raised for him by Jeffrey Rotwitt, an attorney who is currently under investigation by the FBI for his central role in the scandal-plagued Philadelphia Family Court development.  Kampf held an April fundraiser at Rotwitt’s home that raised thousands of dollars for his campaign.

“Warren Kampf can’t call himself a reformer if he tries to ignore the fact that one of his chief fundraisers is under federal investigation for his role in the Family Court fiasco,” said Drucker today.  “We need to change the way business is done in Pennsylvania, and if Kampf is serious about running an honest campaign, he should return the money Rotwitt raised for him immediately.”

A Philadelphia Inquirer investigation revealed that Rotwitt, who was a paid advisor to the courts for the project, was also working as a partner in the development itself – getting paid by both sides without fully disclosing his dual role.  Rotwitt was fired from his law firm when his dual role became public. The scheme has cost taxpayers millions and is being investigated by the FBI.

“While I work toward real solutions, my opponent is working with people who epitomize our broken system of government,” Drucker said.  “This is not the kind of reform Harrisburg needs.”

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

81 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. Seems reasonable to ask Warren to return the money Rotwitt himself donated. But I’m not so sure all the other folks there should be held to the same standard. We have no reason at all to think there’s anything sketchy about them, and to ask Warren to return their money as well unfairly impugns them.

    1. Karlub —
      That might be a good suggestion – don’t know if Rotwitt contributed financially; my guess is that his contribution to the campaign was probably ‘hosting’ the event at his home. Rather than returning any of the other contributors money (you are right, they should not be impugned for conduct of someone else) I think it would have been good if Warren had made a public statement in late May/early June when Rotwitt became front page news to condone Rotwitt’s actions.

      1. You are still left with the fact that Mr. Kampf had an event hosted by a guy who is under investigation by the FBI. The big story broke after the primary. Since then, Mr. Kampf has said nothing. Put the money aside for a moment and concentrate on that. What’s that say about Kampf? It’s Mr. Kampf’s responsibility to say something, and he has not. Too many controversial things about him.

  2. Okay, so, someone gets invited to a fundraiser, pays the $250 to support the candidate. That someone knows nothing of the hosts troubles. Why should Kampf need to return that persons money? Sure, return any donations from Rotwitt and get on with life.

  3. Oh, for God’s sake. First of all, it’s premature to even think about returning money as this process is only in the investigative phase. What if the money is returned and, in the final analysis, there’s been no impropriety? Secondly, the nature of the alleged wrongdoing is hardly on par with true villainy. Why don’t you Kampf-haters stop sharpening your knives for a moment and see how this develops.

  4. I was aware of the FBI investigation regarding the Family Court building. Your post seems to indicate that the FBI is investigating the dinner, is that true?

      1. Thank you. Here is the snip that caught my eye on it

        “…FBI investigation probe involving local attorney Jeffrey Rotwitt and a fundraiser he hosted…”

        1. TBO –

          I did not intend to confuse or misrepresent. I have changed the phrasing to read:

          ” . . . FBI investigation probe involving local attorney Jeffrey Rotwitt. Rotwitt hosted an April fundraiser for State Representative candidate Warren Kampf. . . “

  5. “While I work toward real solutions, my opponent is working with people who epitomize our broken system of government,” Drucker said. “This is not the kind of reform Harrisburg needs.”

    This from a guy whose campaign contributors include bat wielding union thugs who use physical violence to intimidate people/businesses!

    Pattye, don’t you think it would have been good if Paul had made a public statement in late June when the King of Prussia union thuggery assault story broke to condone such violent actions?

    1. To my knowledge there was not an arrest in the King of Prussia asault case . . . but if your question is, do I think Paul Drucker should publically condemn violence? Yes, if there is an arrest in the case.

      1. I was told yesterday, by an UM police officer, that there was an arrest and there was a connection to union activity. I have not found a source to confirm it.

      1. Yeah, I’m almost as certain that the perpetrators were not associated with the union as I am that OJ is innocent.

        And Pattye, because the King of Prussia Mall is not in the jurisdiction of the 157th somehow makes it OK that Drucker accepts money from them?
        I suppose if Al-Qaida donated to his campaign, as long as they didn’t terrorize the 157th he could keep the money?

        1. If someone can provide updated information about an arrest in the KOP incident, please provide. ANON, if you have a link to the police arrest report, I’d be glad to post.

        2. Anon-

          Maybe you should contact State Representative Tim Briggs (149th Legislative District) and State Senator Daylin Leach, who actually represent Upper Merion. I believe they’re democrats, so they might be apart of the union conspiracy.

  6. Pattye
    While I know you work hard to manage this blog and to stay neutral, this particular post doesn’t pass the smell test. You proudly posted the picture of Drucker with Dwight Evans as he held a cardboard check celebrating money for his contituents — but any effort at tracing that money will result in your finding nothing but patronage….with taxpayer money…by Dwight Evans to his dependable water carrier Paul Drucker (more a statement about keeping the democratic majority). Now you suggest that Warren kampf should have known that this man, a partner with a law firm for 35 years, was playing two sides of a development. Do you vet every person who offers to contribute to your non-profit? “By the company they keep” is hardly a standard by which you can judge either candidate in a fundraising profession (politics). Someone said earlier (maybe even me — I cannot find the post?) that the true outcome is how politicians conduct their business after they get the donations….if there is any quid pro quo for the donations.
    I’m not about to connect Drucker to the Union thugs any more than we should connect the attendees at a dinner party to Rotwit’s real estate game….and since John Petersen had already told us several things about this particular dinner, I find your inclusion of it here as “new” news to be anti-Kampf and pro-Drucker — hardly neutral.
    The problem with politics (and religion) is that we BELIEVE things….and facts try to undo our beliefs. Beliefs are hard to give up — we tend to want to solidify our beliefs, so we look for reasons to be right…. I think the lens with which you view Mr. Kampf is politically tuned to Mr. DRucker. And I think that is okay — but since you aspire to be politically neutral for this blog, maybe a disclaimer when you do this kind of post saying “Okay — I like Paul Drucker and want him to be Warren Kampf, and here’s an article that fuels my passion” …. You don’t need to defend Mr. Drucker’s association (however thin) with the thugs who did the beatings…that’s part of his job if he needs to address it.
    As always, thanks for your efforts! (I think you meant to say “condemn” in the context of the violence by the way…not condone)

    1. In case you have not noticed, Drucker is also billing himself as an agent of change for Harrisburg. The fact that he is directly supported by that union, and, after the attack, all that is heard from his camp is deafening silence, speaks volumes regarding how much he is really interested in ‘change’. His silence on the matter is an endorsement of that behavior, and evidence that his message of reform is nothing but lip service.

      It’s now been 3 weeks since the story broke and Drucker has said nothing. I got news for you…if I’m associated with a group who turns out be accused of assaulting people – and I’m seeking another term..you can bet that I am going to make a statement about it – especially if it deals with activity that I’m against. But again, Drucker didn’t say anything. Therefore… we can only assume that Drucker is OK with union thuggery. You call it Drucker-bashing… But does that make it less true.

      1. “there is no evidence to suggest that those who perpetuated the violence were union members”

        Were you laughing when you wrote that?… because I was laughing when I read it!

        Don’t forget John, being involved in an investigation by the FBI is not necessarily bad news… John Street was elected in part *because* he was part of an investigation (ie. when his office was found to be bugged).

        “Clearly, it wasn’t an issue for Kampf…Otherwise, Kampf would have put a press release…Right???”

        Why would Kampf do that? Only desperate candidates like Drucker rely on such negative campaign tactics this early in a race.

        No, I am not the Kampf campaign. But you are a pretty good representation of the people who are running Drucker’s campaign, a bunch of angry haters who do nothing but try and personally destroy their political opponents through dizzying repetitious rhetoric.

        The truth is that Drucker is in trouble and he knows it. The current anti-incumbent sentiment that appears to be gaining momentum has more than enough energy to wipe out his margin of victory from the last election. Without riding the anti-Bush coat tails that he rode last time, he has no choice to but to send out his attack dogs early.

        I just hope the union thugs aren’t hanging out in front of my polling place this November holding baseball bats ;)

    2. John — thanks for the tempered response.
      >>Here’s what I know..the press release has been out for about 24 hours and Kampf hasn’t said a word about it.. That should bother Kampf supporters…

      If it were me and the charges were unfounded, you can bet I would be saying something about it… FAST. <>Therefore… we can only assume that Kampf is OK with double dealing – just like he is OK with breaking the home rule charter vis a vis decisions like St. Davids. You call it Kampf-bashing… But does that make it less true. <<
      I won't waste any of our time by rephrasing your post and turning the tables as Anon did (clever, by the way, but perhaps a little too clever to make any point at all). But I will say that I think it's unfair to characterize WK's failure to make a statement that I'm not sure he CAN much less SHOULD make means he is okay with double dealing. The man is under INVESTIGATION…should someone holding or seeking public office speak to innuendo? I'm really okay with his silence — until such time as facts are materially understood. Likewise I think it would be dumb for Drucker to make any anti-union claim absent any evidence on the topic.
      The problem with government — TOO MANY LAWYERS. I know you are a lawyer, but wouldn't it be nice to go back to the days when people didn't vet their every thought before speaking (then again, Mr. Lamina might be the exception that disproves that rule!!!)

      1. THIS is not exactly what I wrote. Somehow in quoting John, it ran the quotes together and lost much of my commentary….but I’m tired of reading what I wrote. My one point that I want to make —
        What comment COULD Kampf make about an investigation ? “I”m sorry my friend is a crook”….or “I support my friend no matter what”….or “I will wait until the results of the investigation before I make a statement.” DUH. No statement would help him because those who DON’T know about it would be unnecessarily notified — and those that already do know about it already know all there is to KNOW.

  7. I think you were trying to say that Drucker should condemn(express disapproval/censure) violence, not condone(accept and allow) violence.

  8. Here’s to all of the perfect people who never type one word while thinking another, who BELIEVE based on the “right” facts, who point out with certainty an inconsistency while basing their comments on the same.

    That Rotwit is under investigation by the FBI, was fired by his law firm after 35 years of employment there, AND happens to have hosted a fundraiser for Mr. Kampf are facts. Should Kampf have done a better background check on a fundraiser host? How well did Warren know Rotwit before he or someone in Kampf’s circle asked that Rotwit host a fundraiser? Do the details matter, and how do they reflect on Kampf?

    Who knows. But as Sarah preaches, we believe what we want to believe despite the facts.

    However, for those who care, it’s a fact that there is no connection whatsoever between Paul Drucker’s acceptance of a contribution from the ironworkers’ union, and a couple of thugs committing a crime. Clearly, Paul does not condone ( have i used the word correctly, Sarah?) such behavior, nor does anyone know for sure whether the assailants were union members and members of the union from which Paul accepted a contribution.

    On the other hand, we do KNOW Warren Kampf was personally associated with Jeff Rotwit to the extent that he attended and accepted contributions from a Rotwit-sponsored event. This all happened a few months ago when Rotwit’s questionable activities were already in known.

    Is there any equivalence as far as the acceptance of contributions? No. So stop trying to suggest otherwise.

    Does any of this really matter? Not to those who already “believe” in Kampf or Drucker. The real question is – will those independent-minded voters who have not yet made up their minds about the 157th race take the Rotwit association into consideration?

    And that is the sole reason for all of this political nitpicking and hot air..

    I have to give the Kampf camp credit. You folks are watchdogging this site 7 days a week, ready to spin the facts and defend your man. You are making good use of Pattye’s forum – especially in light of her genuine efforts to keep the focus on community and not politics.

    Personally, I appreciate the time Pattye puts into research, her truth-telling and daily devotion to this blog – especially given her commenters’ daily admonitions. No one in this community has even come close.

    1. Oh Kate — lighten up. I hope you were TIC about the use of condone — as I wrote that to Pattye because we all knew what she meant and I knew she had the ability to change the word. We all make countless typos here — lucky Pattye can go in and change hers…after I read my own, I SO wish I could delete mistakes.
      Anyway — you say “for those who care, it’s a fact that there is no connection whatsoever between Paul Drucker’s acceptance of a contribution from the ironworkers’ union, and a couple of thugs committing a crime” == and you know this HOW? I agree it’s all defflection and innuendo, but likewise “no connection whatsoever” is rather a strong disclaimer for something I doubt the candidate himself could confirm. Using JP’s approach — If that is true, why didn’t Paul Drucker make a statement, issue a press release condemning violence and promising us all that the Iron Workers have nothing to do with the attacks?”

      Because that woudl be as stupid as WK issuing a statement distancing himself from someone who is under investigation (not indictment) — guilt by association is a very broad brush. If I had my candidate’s picture with a cardboard check with Dwight Evans, I certainly would not pursue that concept.

      And for the “off the record” record — I am NOT in the Kampf camp…haven’t made any donations and haven’t gone to any events. I also don’t think Pattye focuses on community and not politics (nor should she — because right now the community is involved in politics), and if I was preaching, (your claim), it was out of passion for the truth, though clearly I am not holier than thou. :)
      We are all neighbors when its said and done — and while you were taking shots at it, I stand by the notion that politics is about what we believe — let’s not try to confuse each other with the facts….

      1. Sara:

        Since I also gently corrected Pattye on her original use of condone, rather than condemn, so that her words would not be misinterpreted, I guess that makes me one of Kate’s “perfect people”. too. Next time, I’ll keep my mouth shut and let folks misinterpret Pattye’s words.

        As for you “preaching”, to repeat Kate’s spot-on statement a few weeks ago, “One person’s self -righteous certainty is another person’s passionate opinion, I guess. No all-knowingness intended.”

        Sara, that’s it for now- us Kampf “watchdogs”(who don’t know the man nor support his campaign) better get back to work spinning the facts and defending our man ;).

      2. Many times on Community Matters, Pattye will write about something and I will check on comments later and the entire post has been hijacked and it becomes political. (Although it may not have appeared political to begin with!) Just an observation.

  9. Holy fact check Batman!!!

    So Drucker wants Warren to return the money from Rotwit? Sadly there is no money to return… Mrs. Rotwit is a friend of a friend of the campaign and thus the idea of a fundraiser. The Rotwit’s did not contribute and IN FACT the Kampf folks paid for the food, booze, help, et. al so should he give the money back – kind of a mute point and if anyone in the Drucker camp would have gotten the facts they would have known as much…

    1/ The above posts call Rotwitt a “friend” and “chief fundraiser” – I am in no position to know if Mr. Rotwitt and Warren are friends or if this truly was two wives who know each other doing the event as apparently the Rotwitt household is the site of many charitable fundraisers.

    2/ This is soooo the pot calling the kettle black – I think Drucker should give back all the money he received from DeWeese – he was and is under investigation right? Its money that smells bad no matter how you wash it… It may be the lifeblood of the Drucker camp so I am not expecting anything so magnamious…

    3/ I can not (and do not) speak for Warren but I would imagine that if there was a dime of funds donated that were ill gotten, I truly believe Warren would not hesitate to return the money. He strikes me as the kind of guy who would return the money and then tell his team he did it… simply because his moral compass pointed North without him having to do any polling to come up with his opinion…

    4/ Is Rotwit under arrest? Under indictment? Are we no longer innocent until proved guilty? I hate that he is attached to this but if he is guilty he should pay for his acts of unethical behavior and dealings. He should face scrutiny as we all must, but we should also give him the benefit of the doubt until he admits guilt or guilt is found.

    5/ Didn’t Drucker just hand one of his contributors a million dollar check like he was Ed McMahon? What exactly did the Rotwitt’s get for hosting Warren’s folks for an evening? Come on…. In the abscence of news Drucker’s minions are trying to create some….

    Lastly, I look forward to a great debate between SR Drucker and Warren Kampf… they owe it to the electorate… it will be a great issue oriented high minded conversation of ideals… All this from the Drucker camp is distraction and background noise…

    1. Sean D said:

      The Rotwit’s did not contribute and IN FACT the Kampf folks paid for the food, booze, help,

      —-

      So let me get this straight, the Rotwitt;s hosted a fundraiser but they did not contribute? Doesn’t sound like a good fundraiser? Is that what Kampf’s team has to do in order to have people host a fundraiser? That is pretty pathetic.

      Usually, people that “host” fundraisers, actually “host”. By “host”, I mean that they provide the place, the food, the drink, etc, because the whole idea is to “fund raise”. That is the whole point of a fund raiser.

      I guess Kampf’s campaign really is in financial dire straights after all.

      1. John — you are trying TOO hard…now you are going to make statements about the lack of connection to Rotwit? From the description, I’m guessing he lives in one of the houses the GOP has recognized as good for this purpose. I actually have several friends who get contacted for fundraisers for countless non-profits looking for the right space.

        So — either Kampf is tied to Rotwit, or Rotwit was convinced to do this for the GOP….not sure your conclusion is at all logical. Non sequitur as it is….though you are the lawyer.

  10. Referring to the Kampf fundraiser on April 8th, Kate says “This all happened a few months ago when Rotwit’s questionable activities were already in known.” The first story on the Rotwitt/Family Court issue was in the Inquirer on May 21, SIX WEEKS LATER.

  11. Good thread. It seems to me we have clearly established some important points:

    1) Rotwitt is not legally guilty of anything, and an investigation is ongoing. It would, actually, be inappropriate for Kampf to comment.

    2) Drucker’s associations with the House leadership do not exactly put him in a credible position to throw these particular stones.

    As people may know, I was a huge supporter of Mr. Kampf’s primary opponent. So I am no water-carrier for his campaign. But I do think this is– for now– pretty much a non-issue. Unless Rep. Drucker is really eager to be held to the “company he keeps” standard, in which case we will all end up with the campaign we all claim we don’t want.

    1. Karlub said:

      1) Rotwitt is not legally guilty of anything, and an investigation is ongoing. It would, actually, be inappropriate for Kampf to comment.
      —–
      Rotwitt is under investigation for among other things, his double dealing on the family court deal. That is not fiction, that is fact. Rotwitt hosted a fundraiser for Kampf. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that Kampf comment.

      2) Drucker’s associations with the House leadership do not exactly put him in a credible position to throw these particular stones.
      —–
      What associations are those, other than they are of the same party.?

      As people may know, I was a huge supporter of Mr. Kampf’s primary opponent. So I am no water-carrier for his campaign.
      —-

      Are we then to assume that you will not support Kampf this November? Given his transgressions, that would probably be a good idea.

      1. Again, “investigation” does not equal “guilty”. Wake up and be proud you live in America, “Anon”. You’re the luckiest person on the planet if no one you know, are related to, have been in the same room with, etc. has ever had an impure thought. You must be proud to be so blessed.

  12. JP can always be relied on to find the darkness at the end of the tunnel….oh wait — he’s looking down a hole.
    You continue to say that because Rotwit hosted an event, Kampf should comment on his investigation. That,, my friend, is an idea borne of determination to undermine and continue to cast aspersions without actually having to name any transgressions by the candidate. You have made the point….and maybe even have a point….but not to my view.

    Can we all use names other than anon — too many of you.

    1. Dude, as if “Township Reader” were your given name. You are correct, though, that folks should get the heck off Kampf’s back.

      1. Dude….could care less about anonymity — just want identities to be clearer. With too many anons….it’s hard to keep them straight.
        Thanks to Anon3 below for self-identifying :)

  13. Thank you Mr Grewell and Andrea for some intelligent discourse. How refreshing to hear some good stuff around all the political fluff.

  14. I see a defense of Mr. Kampf ‘s association with Jeff Rotwitt continues while questions about Rep. Drucker’s statements and associations keep on coming. The minion hard at work.

    Mike is quick to point out that in April Warren COULDN”T have known of anything untoward about the fabulously successful and well-connected Mr . Rotwitt bc the sh–t didn’t hit the fan until May.

    But a few minutes of research will turn up Mr. Rotwitt’s past ehical challenges regarding his involvement in the State’s sale of Haverford State Hospital to Haverford Township in 2002-3.

    One should also be more than a little surprised that Rotwitt’s law firm dumped him on the spot once the news of double dealing and an FBI investigation became public re his work on the Family Court in Phildelphia. Rotwitt was, after all, his firm’s top earner. Not exactly a show of confidence after a 34-year association…

    Is this important information in the course of a campaign? By itself probably not. But if it is part of a pattern, then it may trouble informed voters.

    There simply is no way Mr. Kampf could have been unaware of Rotwitt’s involvement in the sale of Haverford State Hospital debacle when he attended his fundraiser. It was the focus of a grand jury investigation and indictment of a commissioner. and Rotwitt’s law firm of Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippell, LLP was investigated as well.

    See:
    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20100606_Haverford

    and:
    http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/06/13/opinion/doc4c143bc515c27049734594.text

    for more information.

    1. Is it important to know people’s personal relationships when a candidate is campaigning? Are we going to say that people are ‘guilty by association’ when someone has a fundraiser that is hosted by an individual that is now under FBI investigation? Does that extend to candidates know the history of all the individuals that contribute to their campaigns? I think many of the people here on Community Matters have already made up their minds — those leaning to the far left or far right knew who they were voting for before the candidates are ever announced.

      For many of us ‘somewhere in the middle’ we make our decision based on various criteria, integrity, honesty, ethics . . . For me personally, I want to know what Drucker and Kampf are going to do for this community – are they firmly tied to Tredyffrin? Do they support our needs in Harrisburg? Does one of these candidates better represent what I want Harrisburg to focus on? My decision will probablly not be made until Election Day – I wish others would remain open & listen to both sides. I would encourage a debate, Pattye do you know if a debate is planned?

  15. Middle of the Road —

    You make some excellent points. If we could somehow take the Democrat/Republican partisan sway out of the debate (I know, I know, probably not possible or likely) and look at the individual candidates. Has Paul Drucker as the current State Representative represented our best interest’s in Harrisburg? Do we think that Warren Kampf has the ability to do a better job of representing us?

    I absolutely support the idea of a debate. However, based on my personal experience last year . . . the end result may not be as expected (or desired). Nevertheless, I still support the idea of a public debate between Drucker & Kampf. League of Women Voters, are you listening?

  16. Middle of the Road, while I am new here on this blog, I get the sense that there is a lot of Warren Kampf bashing going on. I find it interesting that today’s Democratic party, nationally on down to local, is very loyal to its own. They rarely criticize one another, at least in public, they certainly don’t publicly throw one another under the bus. I really don’t know what Mr kampf’s real relationship top Rotwitt is, but maybe he is loyal to a friend who may be in trouble, may have done wrong and may have to pay for it? So why throw him under the bus? Just because he MAY have gotten in trouble doesn’t mean he can’t participate in the public discussion any way he sees fit. And to me and other quiet citizens, perhaps, this is really about too much squealing and whining about non issues.

    The bottom line is until the atmosphere in Washington and Harrisburg changes, we will be facing difficult economic times. I for one, applaud our BOS fiscal conservatism, even in the face of the challenge and heartbreak of cuts and layoffs. I am optimistic there will be better times ahead, and when that occurs, we can consider spending. Now is the time to keep our powder dry.

    1. Essentially what you are saying then is that if there are ethical clouds in other spheres, Mr. Kampf cannot be held to any ethical standard. The problem is, Mr. Kampf has billed himself as an agent of change and an agent of reform. People who do that voluntarily hold themselves to a higher standard. Reviewing Mr. Kampf’s past conduct re: St. Davids, the fire funding, etc. and then squaring that with his claims that he is an agent of change and reform, one sees a gap between reality and what he bills himself as. Now, we had the Rotwitt fundraiser. Perhaps Mr. Kampf didn’t know about the transgressions. He certainly knows about them now. And so far, he has not addressed the issue. That tells you that he is running for cover. Instead of addressing the issue head on, Mr. Kampf is hiding, in the hopes that the story will just die off. Some may call this “Kampf Bashing”. I disagree. Instead, it is simply a discussion of the facts. Those who cite that Rotwitt has not been charged and not found guilty of anything miss the point. I don’t think there is any question that Rotwitt has engaged in ethically questionable conduct. So too has Kampf. And now, they are linked via a fundraiser that Rotwitt threw for Kampf. That is bad. And all I see from Kampf supporters is deflection and excuses and labeling comments as “Kampf Bashing”.

      Not sure what fiscal conservatism you are referring to on the BOS. I don’t see it. What I do see is a lot of ethically questionable conduct. Or, are you of the opinion that as long as your taxes are low, public officials can engage in illegal activity? If that is your feeling, I understand why you are a Kampf supporter. Ethically bankrupt people have an affinity for one other.

      Mr. Kampf may choose to keep his powder dry. In the process of doing so, when he is ready to fire his gun, it will likely mis-fire.

      1. powder dry refers to economics. Illegal activity? ANyone charged? Ethically bankrupt? You mean me? Are you now bashing me? Love the name calling. This is why we liberal democrats are going to get killed this November.

        Second grade all over again. I have said enough.

      2. John
        MAKE A NEW POINT please…..Flyersfan admits he is new and you immediately want to bring him up to speed. Your obsession with ethical concerns is worn out by now — we all know what you think.

        FF and JP — you are both right….FF must be younger because keeping your powder dry has an “evolved meaning” :
        Meaning
        Be prepared and save your resources until they are needed.
        Origin
        The allusion is to gunpowder which soldiers had to keep dry in order to be ready to fight when required. This advice reputedly originated with Oliver Cromwell during his campaign in Ireland.

        1. where is “john’s” post? I don’t see it on this thread. Is this John Petersen who you, TR are referring to?

  17. kate wrote “But a few minutes of research will turn up Mr. Rotwitt’s past ehical (sic) challenges regarding his involvement in the State’s sale of Haverford State Hospital to Haverford Township in 2002-3.”

    I took ‘kate’s’ advice, did a google and found an interesting document at this link: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Haverford-Grand-Jury-Report.pdf

    As a public official for the past nine years, the content of the Grand Jury Report was of interest to me. I had to keep reminding myself it wasn’t a work of fiction but rather raw truth being disclosed about the actions of elected officials, law firms, developers, and their advisers.

    Page 13 talked about the faction composition being altered when a commissioner reversed his allegiance joining the majority faction. Page 14 spoke about being “motivated by political concerns” and referring to a commissioner “his county-wide political reputation would be greatly elevated, and his political stock would significantly rise…” Or on page 22 that talked about “primary purpose during the back room session was to continue his ruse…”

    One of the Grand Jury’s recommendations on page 35 should be acted upon. In part they conclude “the Legislature should significantly reappraise, clarify and strengthen the Sunshine Act. Civil and administrative enforcement provisions and penalties should be added to the Act. The applicability of criminal penalties should be broadened and strengthened. The Grand Jury recommends that the structure of the Pennsylvania’s Ethics act should serve as a model for the legislature…”

    1. Ken — Good to hear from you! And thank you for your comment. I read the Grand Jury report which you cited, and I was particularly interested in the ‘Recommendation’ section at the end of the document (pg. 35). So much so, that think I will post that entire section on the front page of Community Matters.

      BTW, I have been following the recent news surrounding remarks made by Barry Cassidy in his blog. For those that don’t know Cassidy is director of Main Street Community Development Corp. The Phoenixville Council has taken issue with questionable remarks to residents contained on Cassidy’s blog and is requesting a public apology. Ken, I’d have loved to have been a ‘fly on the wall’ in council chambers during the blog discussion!

      I would love to catch up with you at some point when you have time —

      ~ Pattye

  18. FF – Indeed. Lots of people have similar styles in writing, but John makes the same points and uses the same phrases whether he is posting as himself of anon or whoever.

    anon says:
    “Not sure what fiscal conservatism you are referring to on the BOS. I don’t see it. What I do see is a lot of ethically questionable conduct. Or, are you of the opinion that as long as your taxes are low, public officials can engage in illegal activity? If that is your feeling, I understand why you are a Kampf supporter. Ethically bankrupt people have an affinity for one other.”

    JP on April 29th
    “You are offended by my comments and yet, you are not offended by the way this government has conducted itself.

    Clearly, you are a Kampf supporter – which is why you have his campaign logo as your gravatar. Again, your right to support and say what you want – as it is mine.

    If you think we are subjected to good government and policies, then by all means, cast your vote for Kampf.

    I think educated people get the point and the metaphor.”

    I fully apologize if JP is not occasionally posting as “anon” — because I don’t think we should try to uncover the sources of anonymous posting …. it’s just that since his opinion is so clear, so limited in focus (Bash Kampf and the GOP), I can read it as his without knowing who wrote it. Perhaps he simply has a legion of parrots who can type.

    1. Wow, it looks like you have been bit by the conspiracy bug. Seriously, you have devoted an entire post to the question of whether some anonymous posts are actually Petersen. Personally, with all of the examples we have, I think the style is easy to imitate. Perhaps he is getting to you. Perhaps you’re just paranoid. LOL

      1. Wow — you devoted a whole post to whether I am bitten by a conspiracy bug….must be catching. OR you are someone who desperately enjoys the last word. See you at Wegmans?

        1. And remember the famous phrase….Just because you’re not paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. (And just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean it either)…ROTFLMAO

          Thoughts for the days ahead:
          On paranoia
          :
          “Self Test for Paranoia: You know you have it when you can’t think of anything that’s your own fault” Anon

          “I don’t believe in fate or destiny. I believe in various degrees of hatred, paranoia, and abandonment. However much of that gets heaped upon you doesn’t matter – it’s only a matter of how much you can take and what it does to you.” Henry Rollins

          “Sometimes paranoia’s just having all the facts.” William Burroughs

          On Blogs
          An expert is a man who tells you a simple thing in a confused way in such a fashion as to make you think the confusion is your own fault. ~William Castle

          And finally….on life in general

          Protect me from knowing what I don’t need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don’t know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. ~Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless

          Have a fun day friends. ….

  19. tr thanks for the clarification.. i must be naive, or too trusting to think he might post under different monikers.. there is a striking similarity to the tone and style. if you are right, this is ugly.. by the way it has been before the courts and adjudicated that in certain instances anonyomity is not protected.

    1. Even better is when JP posts comments using other people’s identities and then denies it when he gets caught:

      http://pattyebenson.org/2010/05/12/laminas-characterization-of-some-residents-as-gnats-nipping-at-his-heels-is-troubling-some-residents-claim-they-are-victims-of-taxation-without-representation/

      Scroll down to the 42nd comment. (from freddy – ‘fyi pattye, i didnt write the message may13th at 5:35pm’)

      Whatever you do, don’t let JP get a hold of the email address you use for this site!

      1. Sorry, but you have got to be kidding here? Email addresses are not posted. How would you know anyway? Paranoia is getting the better of a bunch of you.

        1. Email addresses are not posted, you are correct. The fact that they are not posted is exactly how ‘freddy’ came to realize that JP was the perpetrator.
          Perhaps you should re-read the thread.
          You seem quick to jump to JP’s defense… I wonder why…

    2. Lectures on paranoia and shock!! that commenters post under more than one name……What a hoot !! – especially coming from those with “multiple personalities” on this blog.

      Anonymity can be so freeing, but one’s writing style is revealing nonetheless – including the source of that easily identifiable cynicism and those knee-jerk, anti- Administration remarks, or that preachy, know-it-all commentary Let he/she who is without multiple identities on this blog cast the first stone.

      There must be many “township readers” and sports “fans”out there who have been content to read but not enter the ring. So instead of focusing on whether John has decided to post anonymously, why not add your thoughts to the discussions and challenge the vocal few ? Please.

      …..In John’s defense, at least he has been willing to express his views openly and take the heat without the cover of a pseudonym. How many of you would even consider doing that?

    3. Don’t think it’s ugly at all….just confusing. It’s like having someone hand the phone to someone else and continuing the conversation.

      Sorry I brought it up. Truly. Kate — the “quotes” about paranoia were hardly lectures…..no glass house here and no charge that you are living in one either.

  20. Indeed Kate is right — and she has occasionally posted her last name — I in fact used this name at the start and someone co-opted it, and it is only recently I have gone back to using it. I figure if there are several of us, so be it. I don’t care if anyone posts anonymously — but I also want to keep the anons separate so that I feel like it is a true conversation between an identity I recognize and others….which is why I had asked earlier if people could at least number their anon identities.

  21. I now understand why many blogs are requiring more ‘red tape’ before people are allowed to post their comments. Could we please give the speculation and accusations of people’s identities a rest.

    I will re-state that I am the only person who knows the email addresses of those posting and I do not share that information with anyone. If there are people that are posting under various names, does it really matter? Can we just please move on — I don’t want to take the time to post this kind of dialogue.

    Thank You.

  22. Pattye,

    I wasn’t trying to start anything. I think it’s perfectly fine to post anonymously or with different pseudonyms.

    Three points: 1) why heap criticism on John for doing what others do on this blog, and 2) my suggestion that there are others doing the same is based solely on my observation of their writing style and their “attitude.” It requires a conscious effort to camouflage one’s style – if that was their intention….. and some haven’t done it very well. 3) I would love to see more people contribute to Community Matters.

    I have lived in this community for more than 20 years and like others on this blog, I am interested in seeing the quality of life here protected. I’m also a political junkie who sees nearly everything in political terms – a perspective that has sparked many critical comments on this blog. Still, the dialogue has been interesting, and I look forward to discussions on our candidates and the issues that will drive the election.

    And Wegmans’ too…..

    1. Please. I’d love to hear who on this blog (besides John) has posted under another user’s name by using their email address.

      1. And you? Or, is it coincidence that you have the same name as the Brian Tochi character in Revenge of the Nerds?

        1. for the record, i have not seen anyone else posting under the name ‘toshiro takashi’.
          and yes, john petersen did in fact steal my identity as toshiro has pointed out.
          john petersen does nothing but complain about kampf’s ‘ethical violations’, while at the same time he steals people’s identities. ‘do as i say and not as i do’, right john?
          what can anyone expect from a disgruntled former supervisor who lost his reelection bid and will say absolutely anything (such as comparing the BOS to the nazi regime, making light of genocide) in order to harm kampf/the GOP, who he feels is somehow responsible for him losing his reelection bid.

  23. No real big news. A brief Township financial review – the revenues continue to track ahead of budget, about +$500,000 so far in 2010. On the expense side, they continue to keep a tight rein on spending – if the revenue side holds up, they may incur some expenses that they have delayed, out of caution. Mr . Donahue later discussed a timetable for the budget discussion, including forums for public input.

    Also, the fire companies gave updates, their financial results are solid, and they were upbeat about their fundraising efforts.

    The discussion of HVAC repairs was lengthy and the questioning was revealing. Frankly, I thought JD’s questioning of Mr. Norcini had a disrespectful tone and in my opinion, he could use some work on his “bedside manner”.

Leave a Reply

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

Community Matters © 2020 Frontier Theme