Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Month – February 2012

No Custodial Outsourcing for 2012/13 but looks like Sports and/or Activity Fees Could be a Reality in T/E

February 14, 2012
19 Comments

Based on attending the TESD Finance Committee meeting, it looks like the custodial outsourcing in the school district is ‘off the table of consideration’ for another year. If you recall, the most significant cost-saving measure to the District remaining from last year’s budget was ‘outsourcing of custodial services’ with a savings listed as $950K. After internal TENIG (non-instructional union of TESD) discussion, the custodial workers made an offer to the school district, which was presented to the Finance Committee by school board president Karen Cruickshank.

For the 2012-13 year, the custodial workers of TENIG have offered a 10% reduction in their salaries and they will not take the 4.5% increase contained in their existing contract. In real dollars, the cost savings to the District is $197K in salary reduction, plus the additional percentage contractual savings for a total savings of approximately $285K!

Beyond the generosity of the custodian workers offer, the Board realizes that it is difficult to measure intangibles in the in-house custodial services … many of the employees live in the T/E and their families are part o the community. With that comes a level of safety that is difficult to measure. Although the custodial workers offer has to be reviewed internally by the District attorneys, the it received overwhelmingly positive support from the Board.

A $285K savings to the school district plus the bonus of saving local jobs … congratulations to TENIG, custodial workers, District staff and Karen Cruickshank (on behalf of the school board) for such a positive outcome early in the 2012/13 budget discussions.

Ray Clarke also attended last night’s Finance Committee meeting and I thank him for his willingness to share his thoughts and opinions below:

Notes from Ray Clarke, TESD Finance Committee Meeting

A relatively well-attended TESD Finance committee meeting on Monday, and some important topics discussed – in varying depth and with varying data quality – the two not always correlated.

1. A significant announcement from Mrs Cruickshank at the end of the meeting: the janitorial staff in the TENIG union have offered to take a 10% reduction in wages for the 2012/13 school year. Their contract entitles them to, and the preliminary budget assumed, a 4.5% contractual increase. By my math, starting from the $1.97 million compensation line item provided by Dr Waters, this means a total benefit versus the budget of $286,000. In return the union asked for the district to remove the outsourcing option for 2012/13. (Also, with no further actions next year, the salaries would revert in 2013/14 to the contracted level – a 20% increase that would not of course be a tenable option).

After getting the numbers sorted through, the Committee was very appreciative and broadly in favor of this offer, weighed against a potential outsourcing saving three times the offer, but with risk and the uncertainty of basing the alternative on now-expired bids.

This looks to be a good result for all concerned. Employment security is maintained and compensation continues to move towards market levels. Importantly, it can continue to do so assuming similar flexibility next year and a more equitable benefits program in the next contract.

2. Much information was shared regarding possible fees for “sports and activities”. Most neighboring school districts have either implemented some kind of fee or are considering doing so. There are as many approaches as there are school districts. Significant money can be raised: at $100 per sport/activity (with a cost to the district), the revenue would be about $150,000 for both high school students and middle school students. For context, about 1700 of the 2050 high school students participate in at least one sport/activity of any type; the middle school numbers are similar.

There seems to be a consensus that the district should charge only for those activities for which it incurs costs for either extra teacher time (EDRs) or for transportation. (An interesting issue thus raised: the process by which a club gets the status of having compensated teacher oversight). Also clear is that there should be a process to ensure that no student should be prevented from participating for financial considerations.

Decisions still to be made:

  • The same fee for any sport or activity, or some kind of tier system loosely based on cost?
  • A fee per student regardless of number of sports/activities or a fee per sport or activity up to a maximum?
  • The amount of any fees

The administration was charged with coming back with further permutations. It seems to me that it would be helpful to also tabulate other districts’ experience regarding participation levels and administrative costs. There seems to be a good argument for action here. For me, fairness would suggest some kind of tiered fee structure with a maximum, if it can be administered reasonably. The Committee is keen to give this air time at the Budget Workshop.

3. On revenues: no immediate bad news in the Corbett budget proposal. The move to bundle four separately calculated state funding items (basic ed, social security subsidy and public and non-public transportation) looks to me like a plan to cap future funding in a way that is unrelated to the actual underlying costs of those items. The one loss is a $50,000 grant that TE uses to fund the homework club.

Less good news on the property re-assessment front: $573,000 of lost revenue more or less planned for in the budget, but in addition $550,000 at risk from nine commercial assessments being appealed to the state courts and $820,000 at risk from a Vanguard appeal.

This illustrates the district’s vulnerability from relying solely on one tax that falls disproportionately on a class or classes of taxpayer that see no direct benefit from the tax, when many of those who get the benefit see their tax dollars going to other jurisdictions. But unfortunately any discussion of diversifying the tax base was hijacked in the last election.

4. A big mystery around the district medical benefits cost. Independence Blue Cross is apparently proposing a change in the way it gets compensated for administering our self-funded plan. Currently they get a 2.5% administrative fee (if only the overhead for the entire US healthcare system were that low!). Much perplexity about the proposal since it is being couched in terms of changing provider discounts. However, the net effect would be a $400,000 to $620,000 cost increase. I’m not sure there will be too much to be done about what is effectively a price increase, but more clarity needs to be provided.

5. No net surprises in the current district financials so far. We are on track for a deficit of about $0.75 million, as budgeted after adding back the $1.3 million budget reversal.

Pending HB 1523 Legislation Would Allow NRA Lawsuits Against Philadelphia

February 11, 2012
17 Comments

Due to the Marcellus Shale drilling debate, the amended PA House Bill 1523 is now scheduled for second consideration in the state House of Representatives on Monday, February 13.

The passage of HB 1523 to the House included an important amendment approved by the state Judiciary Committee. The amended HB 1523 legislation would grant legal standing to “a membership organization … that is dedicated in whole or in part to protecting the legal, civil or constitutional rights of its membership.” What exactly does this mean? The language would seem to give an organization, say the National Rifle Association (NRA), the same rights as a person when it comes to suing a town or city for enacting local gun reporting regulations. The protection of Second Amendment rights is the mission of the NRA.

Because the state legislature never adopted a statewide law requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns, 30 municipalities across the state, including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster, have taken local action in support of lost or stolen gun reporting. The NRA has challenged the local gun reporting legislation in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh multiple times and the Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly rejected the gun lobby’s challenges.

Pennsylvania House Bill 1523 could be a watershed moment for the NRA in Pennsylvania. Rather than continuing to take on individual cities or towns over their local gun reporting ordinances, according to the organization’s website, the NRA-backed HB 1523 “… would strengthen Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption law to further ensure firearm and ammunition laws are uniform throughout the state.” The pending legislation in the state House would allow the NRA to sue any Pennsylvania city with a lost or stolen gun reporting law.

Like the NRA, Kim Stolfer, Chairman of Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and a pro-gun leader in Pennsylvania, supports HB 1523. A gun owner rights advocate, Stolfer has posted a number of comments on Community Matters, including

“Our freedoms were carefully drawn up to protect citizens from the vicissitudes of the masses who, history has shown, can be easily manipulated. We are a nation governed by the ‘rule of law’ with the motto of ‘Justice for All’. House Bill 1523 will simply provide that a citizen can hold accountable these local communities that exceed their authority and violate Pennsylvania crimes codes and the Constitution.”

Cities and towns across Pennsylvania have taken action to crack down on illegal gun trafficking, but this Monday, Harrisburg could take a step closer to overturning these local decisions. HB 1523 threatens to punish cities and towns for taking local action to crack down on illegal gun traffickers and straw purchasers. Philadelphia and the other cities could face financial penalties for enacting their own gun-control measures that supersede state law. The bill would allow any gun owner (or the NRA) challenging the local ordinance to collect legal fees and damages from the city that passed such an ordinance.

CeaseFirePA joins other organizations, including the state associations of chiefs of police, district attorneys, county commissioners and the League of Cities and Municipalities in opposing HB 1523. On Friday, the organization released an Impact Analysis of HB 1523 (PDF) and I was provided with a copy.

Regardless of how you feel about gun control, CeaseFirePA makes an interesting point to show how financially draining gun owner and gun group lawsuits could be on Pennsylvania cities and towns that are already strapped by tough economic times. As a result of HB 1523, potential lawsuits could actually drain “government revenues from much-needed services, like keeping police on the street.” The claim from CeaseFirePA is that local governments with gun reporting ordinances may feel ‘blackmailed’ by the threat of lawsuits from gun owners and gun groups, and therefore will simply rescind their ordinances.

CeaseFirePA director Max Nacheman contacted me in regards to the pending legislation and provided the following statement for Community Matters on the proposed legislation:

HB 1523 is an unprecedented attempt by the NRA to seize power in Pennsylvania and legislators should be ashamed for even considering such a callous, dangerous proposal. Communities across the state are literally in a life or death struggle to reduce gun violence — but instead of supporting their efforts, the legislature is helping the gun lobby attack them. If passed, HB 1523 would allow the NRA as an organization to bring frivolous lawsuits against cities that are trying to crack down on illegal gun trafficking — and would set a dangerous precedent in Pennsylvania of allowing lobbyists to use the courts to pursue their own political agenda.

These “representatives” aren’t just turning their backs on their communities, they are actively trying to hurt them. Among others, State Rep. Tom Caltagirone attacked his home city of Reading by co-sponsoring the bill, and Rep. Todd Stephens abandoned his hometown of Ambler by voting in favor of it in the Judiciary Committee.

Now that more attention has been called to this NRA plot to punish cities for fighting gun crime, it remains to be seen if other suburban legislators like freshman Representative Warren Kampf will stand up to protect his community, or defend his NRA letter grade instead, like so many of his colleagues.

For the record, I sent a follow-up email to Rep Kampf in regards to his views on the HB 1523, asking whether or not he intends to support the pending legislation. To date, there has been no response to either of my emails.

If reporting lost or stolen guns would help the local police with gun trafficking and crack down on straw purchases, I remain at a loss as to why responsible gun owners would not support keeping illegal guns off the street by reporting a gun missing or stolen to their local police department.

ROVER isn’t just for trips to the doctor or to the grocery store…

February 9, 2012
7 Comments

Have you ever wondered about the Rover buses that you see on the roads of Chester County? Who operates the Rovers . . . who are the riders? Where do the buses go, is there a schedule?

I often see a Rover driver dropping off passengers at the Paoli Acme or at the Paoli Hospital, but who are the passengers, did the riders pay for the service or is it a government-sponsored program? I asked several friends but no one seemed to know much about the Rover or its operation.

In my search to find out details about the Rover service, Chester County Commissioner Ryan Costello was especially helpful, as was the Director of Chester County Dept of Community Development Patrick Bokovitz and staff members Kathryn Ercole and Gene Suski, who showed an unbelievable degree of patience with my tedium of questions! With their help, I soon discovered that Rover isn’t just for trips to the doctor or to the grocery store!

As a strong supporter of the Rover Community Transportation program, Commissioner Costello offered, “One of the many things that I’ve come to learn and appreciate about county government is the paratransit services that are provided across the county, for a number of important purposes – all of which provide public transportation to those in need .”

Started on July 1, 1984, the Rover Community Transportation is a paratransit flexible passenger service in Chester County that operates outside of the standard public transportation system. Rover is available to specific populations based on eligibility.

The Rover Community Transportation’s three primary modes of paratransit service in Chester County are:

  • Senior Shared Ride: Any Chester County resident aged 65 or older, is eligible to use the Senior Shared Ride Program. Based on the price of gas these days, a Rover fare of only 75 cents for ‘essential’ trips is a real bargain! The remainder of the cost is covered by the Chester County Department of Aging and State Lottery proceeds that are administered by the PA Department of Transportation.
  • Medical Assistance Transportation Program (MATP): Residents who have active Medicaid benefits in Chester County are eligible to use MATP for non-emergency medical transportation to and from Medicaid billable medical services and treatment providers. Medicaid billable providers include both physical health services (doctor and dentist appointments and trips to and from the pharmacy) and behavioral health services (mental health and drug and alcohol treatment and counseling). The MATP program is funded by through the state Medicare budget.
  • Persons with Disabilities Program (PwD): Any Chester County resident with a disability that is not already eligible for Senior Shared Ride or MATP may be eligible for PwD. An eligible person with a disability pays a fare of two dollars ($2.00) or 15% of the total cost of the ride (which ever is higher) each way with the remaining balance covered by the PA Department of Transportation.

How many Chester County residents utilize the Rover system on a regular basis? I was told that the paratransit program is averaging just over 30,400 rides a month. In the Tredyffrin/Easttown area, the program has 157 registered riders. According to the Department of Community Development, ridership has slowly increased and the January 2012 numbers indicate an increase in usage. Although there is no data indicating why the increase, clearly the economic situation and gas prices are contributing factors. Statistics indicate that Rover had 2,450 more rides from July to December of 2011 then the same period in 2010.

Delaware and Montgomery counties have similar paratransit programs and Chester County Rover works with both counties when possible to coordinate rides for people who live on the county borders. Community Transit, http://ctdelco.org/disabilities.html provides service in Delaware County and TransNet, http://suburbantransit.org provides the service in Montgomery County.

With the exception of holidays, the Rover program operates Monday through Friday, with limited hours for specialized services only on Saturday and Sunday. Reservations for travel within Chester County must be made before 11 AM on the business day prior to the requested trip.

To determine eligibility and/or to sign up for any of the county’s paratransit programs, you just need to contact Rover Community Transportation at 484-696-3854 or toll-free 877-873-8415. You can also get more information from their website, www.riderover.com. To use any of the Rover Community Transportation services, residents must register – and registration is free.

One of the tag lines used in advertising Rover is “It’s Your Ticket to Independence!” If you are a Chester County resident and are 65 or older but still drive, you might want to take advantage of a ride with Rover, particularly when you need to go somewhere during the challenging winter months. Beyond the grocery store or the doctor, Rover can provide transportation throughout Chester County — to the shopping mall, club meetings, and the local train station or even a ride to visit a friend.

If you are a registered Senior Shared Ride participant using Rover for ‘essential’ rides within Chester County, the fare is 75 cents each way. Essential trips include:

  • Visits to the doctor or other medical appointments
  • Visits to the Social Security office
  • Visits to the Chester County Department of Aging
  • Attendance at Adult Day Centers and Area Senior Centers
  • Visits to the grocery store

However, what if your doctor’s appointment is outside of Chester County? For medical appointments beyond the county boundaries, Rover will provide travel to Philadelphia and neighboring counties. And the ride is still a bargain at only 75 cents each way – but that fare is only applicable for medical appointments outside of Chester County. All out of county rides must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance of medical appointment.

But what if you a registered Rover rider and want to go the shopping mall, to the theater or maybe the movies, can you use the county’s paratransit services for these types of “non-essential” trips? Yes, and the full fare cost is 15% of the ride. The Department of Transportation (through the PA Lottery Fund) pays for the remaining 85% of the ride. The rate is calculated on the distance of the ride – the longer the ride, the more expensive it is – however, the fare can also be reduced for group rides.

Here’s an example, say an individual senior wants to go the movies four miles away, the cost would be 15% of the total cost or $1.75 each way. However, if three or more seniors were picked up from the same location and were going to the same location, say the movies four miles away, that fare would be reduced to $1.15 each way, based on the total cost of the trip. To determine the exact cost of a non-essential trip for a Senior Shared Ride, call Rover Community Transportation at 484-696-3854.

For Chester County seniors who are interested in gambling, I was curious if there were plans for Rover to take riders to the Valley Forge Casino Resort (set to open this spring). The casino is located in Montgomery County (versus Chester County), so I was curious if Rover would cross the county line. For Chester County seniors interested in gambling inKing of Prussia, I have good news – if you are registered with the Senior Shared Ride program, Rover will provide rides to the casino.

Rover rides to the casino will be treated just as any other non-essential Senior Shared Ride group trip where groups of seniors go to a social activity such as a play, shopping mall, the movies, etc. A ride to the Valley Forge casino would need to be scheduled prior to 11 AM the day before and must leave from one central location, such as a senior center, retirement community, or one person’s home. Riders would have to pay full fare (15% of the total cost of the ride) since a casino trip is not considered an “essential” ride and therefore not sponsored by the Department of Aging. Riders will be given the exact cost of the ride upfront when scheduling the trip.

No need for Chester County seniors to go to Atlantic City to gamble – once the Valley Forge Casino Resort opens, Rover can provide transportation to the local casino.

I now know that the Rover isn’t just for trips to the doctor or to the grocery store. However, you cannot participate in the Aging Shared Ride Program if you are not registered. Call Rover now to get registered, even if you have other means of transportation available to you. You never know when you may need to go somewhere and your regular transportation is not available.

And as Commissioner Costello told me, “The Rover program can become even more successful in terms of helping County residents if we can continue to raise awareness and increase ridership.”

——————————————————————————————-

This article would not have been possible without the help of Chester County Commissioner Ryan Costello and the kind folks of Chester County Department of Community Development and Rover Community Transportation.

PA House Bill 1523 Moves a Step Closer to Penalizing Philadelphia for Gun Control Measures

February 6, 2012
2 Comments

PA House Bill 1523 Update:

Today the Judiciary Committee voted on PA House Bill 1523 which “Clarifies and establishes specific and monetary relief for a person adversely affected by unauthorized municipal regulation of firearms or ammunition.” The Judiciary Committee voted in favor of HB1523, as amended, with a 19-4 vote. (2 Judiciary Committee members did not vote). Click here for amended HB 1523.

The NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) encourages support for HB1523, stating, “This much-needed pro-gun bill would make critical changes to enhance Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption law.”

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York and District of Columbia have statewide ordinances that require the reporting of lost and stolen guns to law enforcement, with several other states considering similar legislation.

With today’s vote, PA House Bill 1523 now moves from the Judiciary Committee to the state house floor for consideration — giving all legislators an opportunity to weigh in on the issue. The vote moves cities like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster that have taken local action to crack down on illegal gun traffickers and straw purchases, one-step closer to financial penalties for enacting their own gun-control measures. HB1523 would allow any gun owner challenging the local ordinance to collect legal fees and damages from the city that passed such an ordinance.

Members of the Judiciary Committee who voted against HB1523 were Eugene DePasquale (D-York), Matthew Bradford (D-Montgomery County), John Sabatina (D-Philadelphia) and Ron Waters (D-Philadelphia). In addition to serving as Pennsylvania state legislators, DePasquale, Bradford and Sabatina are attorneys and Waters is chairman of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus. It is interesting to note that 3 of the 4 Judiciary Committee members who opposed HB1523 are either from Philadelphia or the city’s suburbs.

Now that HB1523 will move to the state house floor for consideration, what are the thoughts of our State Representative Warren Kampf on this matter? PA House Bill 1523 and lost and stolen gun reporting legislation is a significant issue in Pennsylvania. Because Kampf’s legislative district is located in the Philadelphia suburbs, and one of the Pennsylvania cities that has a local lost and stolen gun reporting legislation currently on the books, it is important to know the views of our elected official.

According to the NRA-ILA website, HB1523 could move to the full House for second consideration as early as this Wednesday.

I have sent Rep. Kampf an email asking the following two questions and look forward to his response.

(1) What is your view of lost and stolen gun reporting legislation, and
(2) What is your opinion on PA House Bill 1523, and will you support it?

Against Illegal Guns in Pennsylvania

February 3, 2012
45 Comments

If you follow Community Matters, you know that I support stricter gun control legislation. At the risk of causing another heated exchange over the rights of gun owners, I have an issue with Daryl Metcalfe (R-12) House Bill 1523 that is on Monday’s agenda in Harrisburg. The state House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take a vote on Metcalfe’s proposed pro-gun legislation HB1523 that would hold municipalities financially accountable for enacting gun laws. (To read proposed HB1523, click here).

I understand the meaning of the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, which protects the right of the people to keep and to bear arms. However, I think that most of us could agree that the 2nd amendment was not designed to protect the rights of people to keep and bear ‘illegal’ arms. Every year, thousands of criminals use guns that have been lost or stolen from legitimate owners.

A major research project is not necessary to know that most crimes in America are committed using illegal guns. However for the record, according to their website, www.wheredidtheguncomefrom.com, “… over 80% of guns recovered in crimes are obtained by perpetrators illegally.”

Assuming that you are a responsible gun owner and a supporter of the 2nd amendment; why would you not support keeping illegal guns off the street? If you discovered that your firearm has been lost or stolen, why would you not support reporting it missing to the local police? I cannot imagine under what conditions, a gun owner would not want to do this.

Reporting lost or stolen guns would help the local police with gun trafficking and crack down on straw purchases — people who buy guns and then sell them illegally to people who can’t buy them on their own. Isn’t this commonsense reform? How’s it any different from someone stealing your car — you’d report that to the police, wouldn’t you?

In Pennsylvania, a gun owner does not have to report their firearm lost or stolen. But some municipalities have ordinances that require gun owners to report the loss or theft of a gun to the local police, within a certain time from when they discover the gun is missing. Each municipality determines the time. These 14 cities in Pennsylvania have passed lost and stolen firearm reporting ordinances:

  • Allentown
  • Clairton
  • Erie
  • Harrisburg
  • Homestead
  • Lancaster
  • Munhall
  • Oxford
  • Philadelphia
  • Pittsburgh
  • Pottsville
  • Reading
  • West Homestead
  • Wilkinsburg

These cities and towns across Pennsylvania have taken action to crack down on illegal gun trafficking, but on Monday, Harrisburg may overturn these local decisions. House Bill 1523 threatens to punish cities and towns for taking local action to crack down on illegal gun traffickers and straw purchasers. Philadelphia and the other cities could face financial penalties for enacting their own gun-control measures that supersede state law. The bill would allow any gun owner challenging the local ordinance to collect legal fees and damages from the city that passed such an ordinance.

If members of the house Judiciary Committee are serious about upholding the law of Pennsylvania, they should follow the example set by these 14 municipalities! Rather than “cracking down” on communities that don’t follow the gun lobby’s agenda, the Judiciary Committee should recommend a statewide lost or stolen firearms reporting requirement that would help the local police with their efforts to crack down on illegal guns on the streets.

————————————————————————————————–

As an addendum to this post, look for an unprecedented commercial during the Super Bowl on Sunday. The mayors of Boston and New York may be cheering for opposing teams but they are on the same side when it comes to gun control. New York City’s Michael Bloomberg and Boston’s Thomas Menino have filmed a 30-second commercial for stricter gun control legislation, which will air during the big game between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots. Bloomberg and Menino are founders of Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition which lists over 600 mayors across the country as members.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme