Democrats and Republicans Finalize Slate of Tredyffrin Supervisor and T/E School Director Candidates

Add a Facebook Comment

27 Responses to “Democrats and Republicans Finalize Slate of Tredyffrin Supervisor and T/E School Director Candidates”

kate , on March 10th, 2013 at 9:20 PM Said:

Thanks, Pattye for providing this information. Hopefully , improving awareness will drive more voters to the polls. The truth is that the election of our local supervisors and school directors directly affects our quality of life and the desirability of our community as a place to live and work, yet many residents don’t know who they are or what decisions they’ve been making.

I hope people decide this year to take the time to consider what each of the candidates can contribute to the direction of our township and schools. We are not a one-party town. We have two active local parties reflecting an almost even split in affiliation. Republicans in Tredyffrin now outnumber Democrats by only 5%- with 15% registered Independent.

It’s long past time that we elect boards that reflect the make-up and orientation of township residents. But achieving this balance will require that people VOTE.

[Reply]
John , on March 11th, 2013 at 8:50 AM Said:

Couldn’t agree more Kate. You are 100% right that people need to be informed and that the quality of our elected officials directly affects our quality of life and the desirability of our community. Your points are especially on point as to the school board and Kevin Buraks. His leadership has been an epic fail. 1. Hiring disgraced former TTPD chief Andy Chambers, 2. Burying administration pay raises in a consent agenda in hopes of avoiding public scrutiny, and 3. not appearing to be interested in spending $’s in an effective manner. Credit has to go to people like Rich Brake who stood up to the leadership to call out the lack of transparency. It has to be noted that Kevin is a Democrat. And while elections are always about choice, It’s far from clear that given the TTDEMs’ silence on Kevin Buraks’ actions, whether the Democrats represent a viable alternative.

I too agree that the elected should be a fair representation of the electorate. At the same time, those seeking to be elected have to earn the right to be elected. In other words, it’s not an entitlement. It’s one of the chief arguments minority representation like we have at the county level. Given the lack of action from the TTDEM’s on the Kevin Buraks matter, I don’t believe this community is necessarily better off with these particular Democrats in office. On one hand, you may say that Trip Lukens represents the usual GOP way of thinking where the public is not given a fair opportunity to weigh in and is largely ignored. That was very true with the Duffy’s property zoning. You may say that was a perfect example of no transparency and no fairness. That happened at the hand of the GOP. To that, look at the school board. That happened at the hand of the Democrats. That is where leadership matters. And on the school board, where there was dissent, it was one Democrat in Easttown and one Republican in Tredyffrin. Back to the GOP,. your middle candidate Laurie Elliot, in her public statements, sided with the Planning Commission and the BoS. She was for the Richter Property development. With that, I’m wondering where the complaints are? What – are you going to cite the yellow signs and how unfair they were given the distortions? I’ll agree with you there. But can you really say anything given what happened with the School Board? I don’t hear anything from Murph Wysocki on the matter, so I can only conclude he agrees with the way the School Board transacts business. And while some may say that one has nothing to do with the other, I disagree. It all goes to leadership and the style and approach to that leadership. You do know that, right? You do know the TTDEMs’ can never claim the GOP is not transparent. You know that old saying – those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

No…this year, I’m sitting this one out. There are at least 4 D’s in W2 that will not vote this year because at the end of the day, there’s no real choice. And given that the D’s are not making the case as being a legitimate alternative that has earned the right to be elected, the status quo at the worst, is no worse than what we have today.

[Reply]
TENIG supporter , on March 11th, 2013 at 12:00 PM Said:

Any school board member that supports the outsourcing of TENIG workers will not have have my vote. If Buraks, Brake, Fadem and Crowley want another school board term, they should remember that many of the TENIG workers are township residents.

[Reply]
John Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 4:44 PM
**
they should remember that many of the TENIG workers are township residents.
**

The only way they will know about this is if A: TENIG votes as a block and B: makes their voice heard between now and November. It’s about building an effective political constituency. From my chair, based on comments I’ve received, the TTDEM’s want to make the school district separate and apart from the BoS issues. That should not be allowed for several reasons. 1 – Murph Wysocki and Laurie Elliot are not just candidates – they are committee people. In Murph’s case, he’s an exec board member (Vice Chair). That means they have a hand in the endorsement process – all endorsements!! In a nutshell, every Democratic BoS candidate owns the issues created by Kevin Buraks. 2 – Those school board issues go to transparency and accountability. As it stands now, the TTDEM’s are no better stewards of that than the TTGOP. Accordingly, the TTDEM’s cannot claim to be a viable alternative. I’m sure Kate will disagree – and I look forward to that disagreement.. :-)

This really isn’t new. Go back 2 years and look at former TTDEM’s candidate Tory Snyder. As you know, she’s a current TT Planning Commission Member and sided with Trip Lukens on the Duffy’s C1 zoning matter. Tory came within 14 votes of getting elected to the BoS in 2011. In 2012, she cast a vote re: Duffy’s that very well could have been like the votes she would have cast on the BoS. We already have those issues now. No need to replace one set of opaque folks with another set. As a political entity, were were the TTDEM’s on Duffy’s? They were mum on the issue.

How does this relate to TENIG? Simple…It all goes to the difference between what a political party tells you they stand for and what they actually stand for. What they actually stand for is related to how they act, and in some cases, don’t act. If I had to guess, I’d say the TTDEM’s are taking for granted that TENIG folks side with them. Send the TTDEM’s a message and sit this one out. The TTDEM’s are likely to lose their races. As for Buraks, TENIG could send a very powerful message by leading an effort to oust him. TENIG will get a lot of respect and consideration for that. If TENIG thinks they have a friend in Buraks or the TTDEM’s as a whole, they should think again.

[Reply]
Andrea , on March 11th, 2013 at 6:57 PM Said:

John knows I agree with much of what he says, but I will come down to this: PARTIES DON”T RUN THE SCHOOL BOARD. Elected members do. Get to know the candidate you consider. Don’t vote for them unless you have some basis to support them. Stop looking at the D and R. Look at the candidate. Ask them substantive questions. This is not about party rule. This is about COMPETENCE. You can be disgusted by the party endorsement process, but when you pay any attention to an endorsement, you are simply allowing someone else to cast your vote. Don’t make this Washington DC — where party control has destroyed our government’s ability to function. In a representative government, the board member will cast a vote on your behalf. Be sure you are giving that privilege to someone you trust.

[Reply]
John Reply:
March 11th, 2013 at 9:41 PM
**
Stop looking at the D and R. Look at the candidate.
**

Agree with you there…but the folks that decide these races vote straight party. In the past few cycles, R’s voted straight party 3:1 over D’s – and that is almost always the margin of victory in these races.

That however was not my point. I will say that insofar as school boards are concerned, party politics has no place.

My point has to do with the parties themselves, and in particular, the TTDEM’s. For years, they’ve called out how the TTGOP run BoS lacks accountability and transparency and that they hold the keys to delivering on the promise of a government that is both accountable and transparent. Actions of course, speak louder than words. With the School Board, the Democrats, for the past several years, has led the school board.

Under Karen Cruickshank’s leadership, the tactics involved with the labor negotiations were obtuse. I know there are many that believe there was a method to the madness and I acknowledge that. The end result, IMO, was a fair deal. I don’t believe there needed to be the drama that surrounded that affair. Others disagree. I’ll leave it there.

Under Kevin Buraks, we’ve seen what is an epic fail. Here are three things:

1. Uses his campaign email buraksforschoolboard@gmail.com in conjunction with his official office and at the same time, denies it’s a campaign email address.

2. Hired disgraced former TTPD chief Andy Chambers – and did so while violating the sunshine act.

3. Ran through raises, at the behest of Dan Waters, under a consent agenda with the hopes of burying and hiding the details from the public.

For the most part, Kevin Buraks has shone himself to be a puppet of Dan Waters. He’s not exercised independent leadership and has run things with a lack of transparency and accountability.

There’s what the TTDEM’s say they will do and there is the reality of how one of their elected officials governs. The real telling thing here is how much the TTDEM’s are seeking to sweep all of this under the rug – in the name of party unity. The very thing they would chide the GOP for – they themselves are guilty of. They’ve chosen to endorse Buraks – and in that process – have also endorsed opaqueness and no accountability.

**
Be sure you are giving that privilege to someone you trust.
**

And to that..based on actions, you cannot trust the Democrats around here any more than you can trust the Republicans. They are two sides of the same coin…damn near sharing the same side..

[Reply]
John Reply:
March 14th, 2013 at 5:54 PM
**
PARTIES DON”T RUN THE SCHOOL BOARD.
**

No need to shout….:-) Doesn’t increase the veracity of your statement.

The D’s don’t. The TTDEM’s are a limp noodle in the political landscape around here. But to say the TTRC doesn’t have influence is unrealistic. There have been committee people on the school board and in this election, the wife of a candidate is a TTRC member. Rich Brake’s wife is a TTRC member. To say there is no connection, no influence, is being naïve.

The 2011 school board races where driven by TTRC dogma. The 2007 TSC was heavily TTRC influenced. People that seek to be on the board seek party approval, seek endorsements and seek $. That all costs. School boards, as entities, are some of the most politicized things on the planet.

[Reply]
John Reply:
March 14th, 2013 at 6:03 PM
Further…Neal Colligan, a TTRC member, has been very active in voicing policy – both here, at meetings and in the paper. BTW, not saying that is bad…it’s his right. But nevertheless, he is a TTRC member.

If IIRC, Jim Bruce is pretty cozy with the TTRC as well. Certainly was when I was involved. And yes, I was in TTRC meetings where matters re: the SB were discussed.

Andrea, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. But let’s remember this – every GOP school board member rose to endorse Kampf. You, on the strength of you being a former school board member (and listed as such) endorsed Kampf and the slate of other GOP candidates.

Bottom line, this school board is political. That doesn’t mean they are all that smart…they aren’t, But they have their political motivations and the TTRC is very motivated to have certain individuals on the school board – whether for ideological and/or fiscal reasons. Between the TTRC, School Board and TTDEM’s, you have dumb, dumber, and incompetent respectively. In the case of the TTRC, it absolutely tries to have influence over the SB. A GOP controlled SB allowing democrats to be president is itself, a political thing. Stuff like that doesn’t happen by accident and in the case of Buraks, his incompetence will lead to defeat of the entire TTDEM’s slate and thus accrue to the benefit of the TTRC.

[Reply]
Neal Colligan Reply:
March 16th, 2013 at 12:57 PM
Hey, I’m in the room!!!
This is one of the best and most enlightening discussions I’ve read on CM. Obviously many of you a have “Real World” experience and I learn a lot from your posts.
I do voice my opinion on the SB but it’s just that…my opinion. I know you understand that John and you didn’t infer anything different. My little journey began when the EIT Study Group was formed. I was as asleep as anyone escrowing my taxes via my mortgage payment and not paying it much mind. I wasn’t picked to be on the EIT panel but I watched carefully as the case was made for a new tax. I didn’t see it’s necessity and it never went to a referendum but it was my first taste of SB operations and budgets. From there I got interested in the annual cycle of SB budgets and finances. I listened to what was said but did my own analysis of the information publicly available. What I found was that the public pronouncements did not always agree with the financial realities…or that we were only given a part of the story. Assuming that other citizens would be interested, I tried to put some information out…here, in the paper and at the meetings themselves. To be sure, I have a objective…continued excellence in our public school system without unfairly burdening the taxpayer… It’s a balance that, I believe, we’ve lost. That process continues.
Along the way, I did join the TTRC. No great political objective. Like many volunteers I fell into the job…knew the nice lady at Church who needed the help..had some golf buddies who applied some pressure…that’s how I started. I’m not very good at it.
Enough biography only put it in to let you know I’m pretty new at this stuff. To me, the parties certainly have an interest in winning elections and as a consequence, controlling local governing Boards. But, I think the policy is still made by individuals. Doesn’t seem to me to be a Party line on many local issues. No one ever told me what to say/write/investigate nor would I accept direction. My choice..my opinions. If those in a party elect to agree…it can become their policy. When I talk to people around the area..sometimes I know their political affiliation, sometimes not, sometimes they are committed and active members of the other political party. Still, after a few minutes on a local topic, we can usually agree on 80-90% of the issue…the other 10% we may compromise/agree to disagree/leave it to another time when we can approach it again fresh. I guess the point is, I don’t feel a big political divide locally…elections cycles may be a bit different but they pass quickly.
Maybe it’s a chicken or egg argument…do people make the parties…do the parties use their influence to change their people particularly if they need the party’s help…is there room for independence inside a party…?? Hard to come to just one conclusion. Again, I really, really liked the discussion.

Shining Light Reply:
March 17th, 2013 at 10:16 AM
I agree Neal – Parties have an interest in winning elections but decisions are made by individuals.

If the R.s are concerned with fiscal responsibility, (re school board) how is it salaries, pensions and benefits are the biggest cost driver in the budget with a 39% increase in salaries over the last 5 years? Please don’t tell me it’s market driven. How did administrator raises and bonuses get slipped in a consent agenda if the R.’s are so concerned about fiscal responsibility? Only one R (Rich Brake) cast a dissenting vote.

IMO this is not about political divide. Brake and Crowley, (D) cast the only 2 dissenting votes in the Chambers matter and administrator pay raise fiasco.

Whoever controls the perspective controls the perception. Knowledgeable citizens have to be willing to share their personal experiences, and indepth understanding on issues of importance to them and elected officals have to be open and humble and willing to listen with intent.

The chain of command structure does makes it difficult for citizens to influence board members. The board doesn’t seem to want to hear information and the structure in place for collaboration with board members actually isolates board members from citizens. Comments or questions from the public are allowed at the end of meetings where all participants are tired and the comments are treated like unwanted intrusions instead of helpful information. The longer serving board members are the most difficult to influence. They believe they understand how the system works, when in reality they have become completely in service to administrators, township managers solicitors, etc, You only have to look at the only segment in the school district to get raises in these wretched economic times to know who controls the perspective and therefore the perception.
Sean Moir , on March 12th, 2013 at 12:14 PM Said:

It’s a shame we never see anyone running independently from the local party system.

Readers should be aware that anyone registered as an Independent can file nomination papers by August 1 to run in the general elections in November.

[Reply]
Pattye Benson Reply:
March 12th, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Thanks Sean — yes, you are absolutely correct re Independents. Independents are not included in Pennsylvania’s Primary Election, either as candidates or as voters :(

Other than Bill DeHaven, has anyone ever run for the BoS as an Independent? And is memory serves me correctly, after Bill’s unsuccessful attempt as a Independent, he was successful when running as a Republican candidate. But maybe times have changes enough around here, that an Independent candidate could now get elected. Of course, anyone registered as a D or R, could change their registration to an Independent by August 1, get the necessary signatures and then appear on the November ballot. What about you my friend — it’s been 4 years, are you ready to run again?

[Reply]
John Reply:
March 13th, 2013 at 1:57 PM
**
it’s been 4 years, are you ready to run again?
**

Pattye, what specifically about Sean do you find that makes him qualified to sit on the BoS? You’ve asked him to run here. I’m curious was to what gives rise to that ask.

[Reply]
Pattye Benson Reply:
March 13th, 2013 at 3:43 PM
John,
My comment was certainly not intended to put Sean on the spot. My guess is that Sean probably had enough of the political process 4 years ago, but who knows? But your question did get me thinking. If I could pick the perfect candidate for either the Board of Supervisors or the School Board, what qualities would I choose?

Let’s see, I would want that person to have a thorough understanding of the issues of the community and a vision for the future. That shouldn’t mean that the person only gets involved or attends meetings because now they are a candidate — it should mean that they keep current on what’s going on in the community on an ongoing basis. I would want the person to be passionate about this community, decisive and a leader; someone who is independent-minded and not beholden to a political party but a person with new ideas and perspectives. But most importantly, a quality that I think is absolute and one that is missing in some of our elected officials — communication skills. Communication is crucial and I want elected officials who are willing to speak to the citizens about what concerns them, instead of us having to seek them out. I want the elected official to truly ‘represent’ the voices of the community that he/she was elected to serve.

My perfect elected official would be someone understands that they are accountable to the citizens who elected them and govern with transparecy in their actions and their decisions. As a resident and a taxpayer, I don’t know why it has to be so difficult to find answers. Everything should not require right-to-know requests. Just my ‘pie in the sky’ wishlist …

John Reply:
March 14th, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Thanks for the reply Pattye. I don’t think you put Sean on the spot. Rather, You suggested he run and I asked you why. If anything, you put yourself on the spot by inviting the question. That said, you didn’t offer a concrete reason why Sean should run. Candidly, I don’t think there is one especially after his Devon Petitions initiative with Rich Brake fell flat – mostly due to an ill thought out plan, lack of execution, leadership and follow up.

As to your ideal candidate, I don’t think one exists that fits your profile that could get elected. The current candidates don’t, nor do the other elected officials that are not up for re-election.

John Reply:
March 12th, 2013 at 3:48 PM
**
It’s a shame we never see anyone running independently from the local party system.
**

That’s almost an impossible task. We did it in 2007 when JD first ran. We ran that campaign 95% independent of the TTGOP. JD still sought and received the endorsement. In spite of that, the campaign raised its own $’s – which is a point I’ll get to in a moment.

**
Readers should be aware that anyone registered as an Independent can file nomination papers by August 1 to run in the general elections in November.
**

Technically, you either have to be independent OR a member of a minority party. You’ve glossed over two big items. 1 – signatures. The # is 2% of the highest vote getter in the last election for that office. In this case, for at large, it’s 2% of Kristin Mayock’s vote total – about 140 signatures. For the middle, it’s Phil Donahue – about 40 signatures. Not an insurmountable task – but there is more. 2 – money and organization. This is not to say the either party brings much to the table – but they bring something. As for the TTDEM’s, its marginal. The only candidate less likely to win in November than a D is the Independent candidate. Unless of course, it’s somebody well known, who has money and who can build an organization. The folks running under the party banners today couldn’t meet that standard – especially on the Democratic side. There are folks out there that could do it – but they have enough sense to steer clear of the mess that is the Tredyffrin BoS and TESD Board.

[Reply]
Cowardly Anonymous , on March 12th, 2013 at 8:44 PM Said:

So I repeat–ignore the party. It is irrelevant. pick your candidate. No lazy straight ticket punches. And some more have to,step up and run. Tea Party vs. Incumbents? Not a lot of independent thinking available.

[Reply]
Andrea , on March 12th, 2013 at 11:57 PM Said:

What you need to run with is a message of candor and honesty. Stop the platitudes. Kevin B was not the strongest candidate on paper, but he went door to door and answered questions. He beat an endorsed R who I think was more qualified. I understand the politics, but I also understand personal contact. Kevin G. ran against the TTRC incumbent and won — because he had a message. Yes — they spent money, but with social media and blogs, I don’t think is as critical. Maybe I am naive, but when I ran, the party spent zero, and I spent $100 on signs I used again and again. Easier to be sure, but I ran against people every time. And I don’t have thick skin.
You need to support a candidate for a reason, and then stand behind them if you don’t agree with a decision but believe in their candor. Our problem is that we have lost faith that we even influence the decisions. I don’t think these people are bad guys — but the bashing from the sidelines by newcomers and people who have undisclosed gripes can be wearing. No one wants these jobs…John calls it sense to steer clear, but I think it is the Catch 22 problem — people smart enough to do the job are obviously smart enough to know it’s a no win situation nowadays.
We need to make serving the public something we appreciate. Otherwise, who wins?

[Reply]
John Reply:
March 13th, 2013 at 1:55 PM
**
What you need to run with is a message of candor and honesty
**

That’s half of it. The other half is actions that match up wth the words. Right now, neither party meets that standard. The TTDEM’s do a fair amount of crying and whining about being disadvantaged, that this is a one-party town, etc. The fact is, it’s not and the Dems, on the school board, have had and still have the opporutnity to show what good leadership is. The problem is, both Buraks and Cruikshank have been epic fails on the school board. I’m not saying the GOP has been better. Mahoney was terrible. I’m just sick of the TTDEM’s whining and complaining when in fact, they are just as much to blame as anybody.

[Reply]
Kate , on March 16th, 2013 at 8:59 PM Said:

John,

With Dems like you, who needs enemies? Time for a party change perhaps? While you’re entitled to your hyper-critical and self-righteous bloviating about the “lucky” elected official of the month, you should know that no one is taking your bait for a reason. Your tone is toxic. There’s no chance of having a civil debate with you because YOU always know better and must have the last word.

I’m trying to remember when – if ever – I saw you in attendance at a school board meeting. People who serve with good intentions and dedication get nothing but venom from you – as if you’d dedicate yourself for 4+ years to the effort required and do a better job. Laughable! (Let’s not even touch upon the subject of who would vote for you…)

There is a whole community of people out there who do care about the quality of T/E schools and the townships they live in. They’re neither clueless nor unconcerned. They appreciate what public service entails, can take exception with a particular decision, vote or tactic, and still respect the commitment and time given. Unlike you, others in T/E manage to keep the big picture in perspective.

I’m not alone in rejecting your tiring and entirely predictable mud-slinging . Look in the mirror, John. Your devotion to “truth-telling” my be a cover for something far less admirable.

[Reply]
John Reply:
March 17th, 2013 at 8:43 AM
**
With Dems like you, who needs enemies?
**

For the record, YOU are a TTDEM’s committeeperson in W-1.

**
self-righteous bloviating
**

Hmmm You were never concerned when I was critical of R’s. Now that it is a D, you have other thoughts.

Sorry I’m not one of the D kool aid types that simply supports a person because of party.

Don’t blame me for your poor choices.. :-)

[Reply]
John Reply:
March 17th, 2013 at 9:33 AM
Let’s take a moment to be less emotional and more logical here….

Fact: Buraks attempted to run through the Chambers hire without regard to the Sunshine Act.

Fact: You and your Democratic co-horts have accused the GOP of the same thing.

Fact: You are defending Buraks for that which you have criticized the GOP for.

Fact: You area TTDEM’s committee person

Again, you can sling all of your ad-hom arrows my way. My beef here is the hypocrisy you and your party are showing. You all continually TALK about the need for change and that if you had a seat at the table, things would be better. The fact is, on the school board, you do have a seat at the table. Not only that, you sit at the head of the table (for the past several years I might add).

You’ve had the opportunity to not just talk,. but to act. And yet when faced with the opportunity to act, you have not. Instead, you have fallen into the same partisan trap as your GOP counterparts. That’s not to say there aren’t level headed folks on both sides of the aisle. There are. But as a collective group, the TTGOP and TTDEM’s are fiercely partisan and are about advancing their respective ideology. The problem for the TTDEM’s is that they are the extreme minority party. Sure – you can cite stats that show that nearly half the community is made of D’s. That really doesn’t matter. As a political organization, the TTDEM’s are pathetic. Weak leadership, without purpose that is hypocritical and without candidates that make the case for why they are better than what we have. For those candidates that were good, you squandered them with a bad organization.

For me, I break it down to the Burak’s/School Board issue. It’s not that complicated. I’d rather stick with the devil I know than the one I don’t know. I don’t look at party. I look at the people. I can’t vote for Buraks. But if I could vote against him, I would. Not because he’s a D, but because he’s made bad decisions.

Your whining and complaining about what I say doesn’t advance your cause.

**
I’m not alone in rejecting your tiring and entirely predictable mud-slinging .
**

No, I’m sure that most of your TTDEM co-horts, on the record, will agree with you. But at one of your recent meetings, Murph called out the issue and had problems. On the record, in public, he’s not going to say anything for the sake of party unity. I know that in reality, the TTDEM’s is troubled by what Buraks did. You can deny it all you want, but the facts are the facts.

As a general matter, to the person on the street, my POV would generally be agreed with. And for that, Buraks has something to worry about. The fact is, you are not going to beat Michelle or Trip. In the middle, Laurie has no shot. She won’t even win her own precinct. On the school board, I like Scott Dorsey. I think he’s a good man and would do well on the school board. I think he’s a better alternative to Brake. I don’t know this for sure, but my guess is he’s troubled by Buraks’ actions. The problem is, as an organization, you have him boxed in. Scott cannot very well come out and bash his teammate. IMO, Scott is too good to run under your banner.

I think you and your group are the ones that need to look in the mirror.

Attack me all you want. You’ll still be in the same place. The reason you are angry right now is that I struck a chord here… a chord of truth – and you know it. This is why you lead with an emotional response. I’m simply calling you out on your hypocritical BS. If I were doing it to the GOP…you would be fine with it.

My guess is…we won’t be seeing another response from you like this.. :-)

[Reply]
Shining Light Reply:
March 17th, 2013 at 6:55 PM
Kate,

John can be brusque and I agree with what you say on caring TE citizens and volunteer elected officials.

However, I do believe John has some good points and I was wondering if you would comment on the Buraks, Chambers, administrator pay hidden in a consent agenda issues. As a representative of the Democrat Party, do you agree with Mr. Buraks decisions? Is it enough that he is a Democrat and President of the school Board so you support him?

As I have revealed, I am not a political person. I vote, but I always vote the person which have been D’s and R’s alike.

[Reply]
John Reply:
March 18th, 2013 at 5:48 AM
**
you should know that no one is taking your bait for a reason.
**

You did.. :-)

**
Your tone is toxic.
**

Right…calling for accountability and transparency is toxic. Holding the TTDEM’s to that same standard is toxic.

No…my tone is fine. If there is any toxicity here, it is to your agenda, which is to hope this all goes away. If Kevin Buraks were an R, you would be all over him.

**
There’s no chance of having a civil debate with you because YOU always know better and must have the last word.
**
Exactly where has been my incivility? You are the one op here lashing out at me for expressing an opinion….an opinion that many share. Many don’t know the salient facts, but they will. Don’t be surprised if this little exchange doesn’t end up in an op-ed piece. I think the registered D’s in this community have a right to know just how venomous some in the TTDEM’s are. Nobody twisted your arm to respond and to respond the way you did.

Perhaps the one thing you need to consider…why are you, a TTDEM’s committee person, the only one who disagrees with what I’m saying here? Could it be that perhaps, I’ve struck a chord of truth here in many places, including the TTDEM’s. I think there are several in your organization that agree with what I’ve said here. Your candidates are free to come up here and debate the issue.

Kate..the reason you can’t debate the issue is because you don’t have a counter-argument. The last word is the last thing I need. That said, I will have the last word here because of one simple reason…I’m right and it ticks you off to no end that I’m right.

**
People who serve with good intentions and dedication get nothing but venom from you – as if you’d dedicate yourself for 4+ years to the effort required and do a better job
**

So in other words, unless we run for office and perhaps serve, we are not allowed to criticize? Are you sure that’s what you meant to say???? Think about it.

[Reply]
John Reply:
March 19th, 2013 at 9:03 AM
Before you cast too many stones from your glass house, you may want to live up to this graphic on the ttdems.com website:

http://www.ttdems.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Democratic_Logo.jpg

I don’t see the TTDEM’s as change….and therefore…the TTDEM’s don’t matter.

Your message here suggests that I can’t be positive about something elected officials do. I can – and here’s proof. Republican Rich Brake did a good thing in voting against the Chambers Hire that Buraks advocated in the dark of night.

How’s that???? :-)

[Reply]
flyersfan , on March 17th, 2013 at 11:39 AM Said:

wow Kate. I have to admit that in the past I rarely agree with you, but your response above was brilliant and your points obvious to all but maybe one. Well said.

[Reply]
John Reply:
March 19th, 2013 at 1:53 PM
**
but your response above was brilliant
**

Why was it brilliant? Quantify. What exactly did you find that was so brilliant?

[Reply]

Community Matters

Community Matters: Pattye Benson

Recent Posts

Blog History

Blogroll

Internet News Source

Local Organizations

Newspapers

Terms & Conditions of Use

Democrats and Republicans Finalize Slate of Tredyffrin Supervisor and T/E School Director Candidates

Add a Facebook Comment

27 Responses to “Democrats and Republicans Finalize Slate of Tredyffrin Supervisor and T/E School Director Candidates”

Leave a Reply

Sign Up to Follow Community Matters!

Recent Comments