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.

According to Anthony Campisi of PlanPhilly, the SEPTA board has

” . . . approved a nearly $7.5 million contract to Gannett Fleming Inc. for design of a new Paoli regional rail station. Long a priority of Tredyffrin Township, the Chester County municipality where the station is located, the current plan would involve building a new station 80 feet west of the current location that better connects with SEPTA and private buses and involves a reworking of a nearby Amtrak interlocking, as well as the installation of high-level platforms.”

This is exciting news for the community — we all know this project has been in limbo with virtually no movement. At the risk of sounding too enthusiastic, I think the next move on the project was funding from SEPTA.  With the design team for the project named, maybe now the project will get back on track.

Former State Rep Paul Drucker championed the Paoli Transportation Center project during his tenure in the PA State House.  After losing his re-election bid to Warren Kampf in 2010, Drucker has continued to stay involved in the Paoli Transportation project as a private citizen.

So . . .  was it just coincidence that Drucker officially declared his 2012 candidacy for another run against Kampf, the same week that SEPTA awarded the design contract for the train station?  What’s the saying about there are no coincidences in life.  Kampf sent out notification of the SEPTA contract award via his Facebook page.

Looks like the 2012 match-up between Drucker and Kampf could once again place the Paoli Transportation Center squarely in the center as a campaign issue.  If nothing else, the use of the train station as a campaign issue may keep the transportation project moving forward.  Here’s hoping . . .

With a cooperative tone, both sides have issued their preliminary statements – the school board recognizing the quality and standard of the District’s teachers but reinforcing the severity of our economic times.  And the teachers union proudly applauding the school district as one of the best in the state and stating their desire to work together through the contract negotiations.  The TEEA however did voice concern that no school board director was part of the negotiating team.

Representing the school district for the teacher contract negotiations:

• Dan Waters, TESD superintendent
• Sue Tiede, TESD human resources director
• Art McDonnell, TESD business manager
• Jeffrey Sultanik, Fox Rothchild, Blue Bell*

* Sultanik’s law practice focuses on personnel and labor relations for municipal and school districts. He chairs his firm’s Education Law Group, which has provided legal services to more than 90 school districts throughout PA.  During his tenure as former president of the PA School Board Solicitors Association, Sultanik presented legislative testimony before the PA Senate Education Committee, May 2009.  Click here to read a copy of his testimony, ‘Public Hearing on Teacher’s Strikes in Pennsylvania and the Impact on Public Education’. 

Currently at the helm of the school district’s teacher union is TEEA president Laura Whittaker, a Conestoga HS social studies teacher.  Representing TEEA in the contract negotiations is Ruthann Waldie, a UniServe representative from the PA State Education Association.  Other members of the teacher negotiating team have not yet been announced.

As an aside, Waldie represented the Unionville Chadds Ford School District teachers union in their recent and very long (challenging) teacher contract negotiations. If you recall, the state intervened and assigned an outside arbitrator in the UCFSD negotiations.  Although the arbitrator was brought in to bring both sides together, there was a feeling from the UCFSD teachers union (a feeling that was shared by Waldie) that the arbitrator did not fairly represent the teacher’s side.  I share this information, to point out that neither Sultanik nor Waldie are novices to school district negotiations.

With two ‘A players’ (Sultanik and Waldie) in the school district/teacher union negotiating world representing the opposing sides, we’ll have to wait and see if the TESD contract process may put their skill and experience to a test.

Looking beyond T/E school district boundaries, did you see the suggestion of one Philadelphia City Council member to help fund the Philadelphia city school system?  With a larger than expected budget shortfall (nearly $80 million in the red!), Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown obviously supports the theory that difficult times require creative solutions.  Her proposed legislature would keep the city bars open an additional hour, until 3 AM.  This extra hour of liquor tax revenue would net the schools an extra $5 million.  I’m all for the ‘thinking outside the box’ ideas but somehow the use of  liquor and schools in the same sentence just seems wrong – isn’t there a better way?

Chester Upland School District has become the poster child for failing school districts in the state.  CUSD announced to the state in December that they would be out-of-money by early January and therefore, unable to meet their payroll, utilities, etc.  With the announcement, brought an offer from the CUSD teachers to work without pay, at least temporarily.  At the ninth hour, the federal court intervened, issuing a short reprieve and an order for the state to advance $3.2 million to the district. Although the state money has continued to keep the doors open and the teachers on the job, this band-aid solution was only worth a few weeks.

Come the beginning of February, Chester Upland School District will have used up their advance and once again, be out of money – CUSD needs approximately $20 million to finish out the school year. Gosh, don’t the kids in CUSD deserve to know that their schools will be open until the end of the year?

Finally, click here for a draft legislative proposal that several PA state legislators have recently made public.  Marked confidential, the draft proposal document is titled “Chester Upland Fiscal Distress” and dated November 4, 2011.  Interesting to note that this draft proposal was written prior to CUSD’s request to the state for financial help.  The proposal calls for the state to take over school districts in financial distress (starting with Chester Upland) and run the school district with the use of an oversight board – a ‘Special Board of Control’.

This special board would have the legal authority to cancel teacher contracts, turn district schools into charter schools, reassign or suspend staff and to close schools. To be clear, this is only a draft proposal and no formal legislation has yet been introduced – however, this draft would suggest that the ‘handwriting is the wall’  for the introduction of this, or similar legislation.

Looks like Chester Upland School District could become the model for all distressed school districts across the state. It is probably a fair assumption that how the state decides to handle the financial crisis in CUSD will be duplicated in every other failing school district in Pennsylvania.

Drucker defeated opponent Guy Ciarrocchi (R) on November 4, 2008 to succeed retiring Republican Carole Rubley.  If you recall, the Drucker-Ciarrocchi race had the distinction of being the most expensive (and possibly the nastiest) race in the state in 2008.  A close race for the legislative district 157, Drucker defeated Ciarrocchi by a margin of 50.95% to 49.1%.

After serving 2 years as our State Representative, Drucker was defeated in 2010 in his re-election bid by Republican Warren Kampf.  Earlier this month, Kampf formally announced his decision to seek a second term to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

The Chester County Democratic Party held their nominating convention tonight. Democratic Committeepersons and proxies cast their votes and by the end of the night, Drucker emerged from the convention endorsement process as the chosen endorsed PA House of Representative democratic candidate for District 157.

The Pennsylvania Primary Election date is April 24, 2012 and is likely an uncontested primary for both Kampf and Drucker.

Looking ahead to this rematch between Drucker and Kampf, can we hope that the candidates, and their campaign committees, will stick to the actual voting records and history on issues of their opponent?

In reading his notes, a couple of observations about the Facilities Committee are noteworthy.  The District’s maintenance departments needs for storage facilities has been discussed for a number of years.  There are preliminary plans for construction of a maintenance building on District-owned property on Old Lancaster Rd., down from the T/E Middle School.  But according to Ray’s notes, it would seem that the Facilities Committee is now looking at other options, including non-District owned property.  Maybe that option is for leasing facilities space rather than new construction – I hope the option is not suggesting that the District purchase additional property.

It is interesting to note that the Facilities Committee will revisit the IT plan at their next meeting – further discussion wireless in the school district.  Maybe I am remembering incorrectly, but I thought at one point there was discussion of hiring an IT consultant to review the District’s current situation and to offer recommendations.  I thought the consultant fee was in last year’s budget . . . perhaps I am not recalling this correctly.

Here are Ray’s notes  – as always, I thank him for taking the time to send his commentary.

• The preliminary budget was approved 8 -1. Liz Mercogliano changed her position with no explanation. As approved, there is a $2.5 million deficit that the Board has to close either through expense cuts or fund balance usage. Also, as approved, there is no increase in teacher salaries (but the same benefits plan and that 47% increase in the pension contribution). When asked if changes to the benefit plan are on the table, the comment from Dr Brake was that they “could be”. Of course they are! Why not say so?

• Class room capacity was discussed in the committee reports. Computer labs are being repurposed at TEMS and Devon Elementary, but at the latter it seems that this will only buy one classroom and one year. There will be 7 or 8 sections of first graders there next year. The administration has been charged to study options for 2013/14; these could include re-districting. Devon has 550 students, Beaumont has 450. It wasn’t completely clear, but I thought I heard that the enrollment trends will require another 3.6 FTEs beyond the 444.4 budgeted for 2012/13.

• Important topics for the next Facilities Committee on Feb 17th at 2pm. First, the never-ending discussion of facilities for the maintenance department will continue, with a presentation of non-district owned options. Second, the IT strategy discussion has been resurrected, and we’ll hear a plan to make the schools wireless. Let’s hope for something that clearly promises improvement in educational quality and reductions in cost to justify investment of – dare I say it – some of that fat Fund Balance.

• President Karen Cruickshank thanked Mrs. Graham for a “wonderfully thorough” legislative report, which was mostly a lengthy advocacy for the community to lobby the state for increased funding in advance of the Corbett budget announcement on Feb 7th.

As anyone knows who has lived in the township for the last couple of years, the sidewalks at St. Davids has been a seemingly endless tale including the threat of a lawsuit by a resident, a special Sidewalk Subcommittee, a new sidewalks ordinance, and on and on.  Last night at the Board of Supervisors meeting came the announcement from supervisor Mike Heaberg that St. Davids Golf Club has officially notified the township that they will build the sidewalks, thus completing their land development agreement.  The start date was given as March-April.

Regardless of whether you believe the sidewalks at St. Davids are the ‘sidewalk to nowhere’ a catch phrase coined by some, or you think that sidewalks are an important part of the Green Route Network, I think that we can all be grateful that this open township issue will finally be put to rest.

Answer:  Occupy Tredyffrin, populism and a little Tea Party, or . . .  a couple of friends who love their community and want to help make it better.

In this case, friends Sean Moir and Rich Brake, pooled their interests and love of community and came up with a plan for the people – for all of us.  Calling their initiative, “The Devon Petitions: Community Solutions for a Better Tredyffrin”, they are convinced that  “. . . there’s a way to stay to true to your principles, sometimes disagree but in the end be able to forge common ground that can move Tredyffrin forward.”

Theirs is a two-step approach.  First, they ask community members to answer a simple four-question on-line survey that asks us to provide ideas on how to improve the economy and the schools.  Click here for the survey.

The second part of their Community Solutions plan includes presenting the survey results in a citizen forum on Monday, February 20, 7 – 9 PM at Saint Luke Lutheran Church, 203 North Valley Forge Road, Devon, 19333.

Appropriately choosing President’s Day for their citizen forum, Moir and Brake hope to engage the public in a town hall-style meeting for an exchange of ideas to discuss and deliberate over some of the big issues facing our community.

According to Moir, “. . . we are providing an un-intimidating forum where all citizens are invited to lend their talents to help develop solutions to the current budgetary situation.”  Brake offers, “. . . Bottom line – we think that we are performing a public service, and we hope to foster a sense of deliberation and empowerment among the Tredyffrin citizenry.”

Encouraging all of us to participate in the survey and the citizen’s forum, these two friends say, “. . . they believe that this is about small “d” democracy and the virtues of local self-government.”  Based on survey results and the citizen’s forum, they plan to forward the recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and the School Board.

I have told Sean and Rich that I completely support their community initiative.  I will take the survey and encourage all who are reading this, to do the same and then pass it along. Your voice counts — and the success of the project is tied directly to the number of respondents.

Is ‘Community Solutions for a Better Tredyffrin’ a bit like mixing Occupy Tredyffrin, populism and the Tea Party movement together? Maybe . . . but I say, its two guys that care about our community just trying to make it better! 

I know where I will be on President’s Day 2012 and . . . I think that George Washington would have approved!

In discussing the need for pension reform, in December 2010, I wrote . . .

“did you know that more than half the state’s municipal pension plans are less than 90 percent funded?  Calculated as the ratio of assets to liabilities, 644 municipal pension plans are labeled as “distressed” by the state’s Public Employee Retirement Commission (PERC).  Of those, 26 are less than 50 percent funded and branded as “severely distressed.”

I cannot speak for the accuracy of those numbers thirteen months later, but I have to believe that they have not improved.

One of the last bills signed into law as Gov. Rendell was leaving office was HB 2497, which became Act 120.  But instead of reforming the defined-benefit pension system, this legislation ‘kicked the pension can’ further down the road, by deferring pension payments and increasing the unfunded liability by billions of dollars in lost investments and interest – in essence, leaving the problem on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.

In the old days, the nature of traditional pension coverage in the private and public sector was quite similar; the majority of all employees were covered by a defined benefit plan where the liability of the pension lies with the employer. However, there is a reason why in the last decade that the vast majority of private sector employees have turned away from defined benefit plans to some form of a 401(k) type plan – the challenge of keeping a defined-benefit plan, particularly in our unstable economic climate, has proven too great for most companies to bear.

Defined-benefit plans may provide the best financial safety net for employees, but most private sectors can no longer afford to maintain them – the strain on the company balance sheets has proved too large for firms to withstand.  And even in the case where a company struggled to keep a traditional defined-benefit plan in place, the economic downturn has prompted plan changes whether they were preferred or not.

Teachers and state workers should not be targeted as public enemies because of their benefit packages. However, I just do not see how their defined-benefit plan (in its present form) is sustainable for the future.  Clearly, pension reform should not affect any vested state employees or pensioners already in the system – changes should only affect future employees.

From the taxpayer side, we are angry because we have to make up the state’s pension fund losses as we watch our own 401(k) accounts depleting. The teachers argue they never took a vacation from paying into the system and that a pension is necessary to attract and keep good teachers.  Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) the state’s largest teachers union is on record that will oppose any proposed changes to Act 120, such as a 401(k) type of defined contribution plan. This is a catch-22 situation; we want to maintain a high quality of teachers and state workers in Pennsylvania, but we cannot afford the current pension price tag.

During the last election cycle, there was much discussion from school board candidates about the District’s financial situation and possible solutions, including imposing an earned income tax.  Some candidates believed that because the financial problems were caused by Harrisburg, that it should be up to the state to find the solution, not the school districts (taxpayers).  Candidate and now re-elected school board president Karen Cruickshank called on the state to “fix your mess” and suggested that residents contact their legislators and the governor to push for pension reform.

State Rep Warren Kampf (R-157) has an editorial, “Change the pension system to help taxpayers” in today’s Phoenixville Patch. In the article, Kampf states that his pension reform legislation,

“will require all new state employees and those hired by school districts to participate in a defined contribution plan (like the 401k-style plan that is prevalent in the private sector) where the taxpayer would  be required only to match the employee’s contribution. This would be in lieu of the traditional defined benefit pension plan”. 

Under Kampf’s plan, state employees would have a system similar to the private sector where an employee owns their 401(k) plan and takes it with them if they leave the job.  In a Community Matters article from December 2010 (cited earlier) I wrote,

“. . . As another form of fiscal responsibility, Kampf announced that he would not be taking the state’s defined-benefit pension plan and will work on the creation of a defined 401K-type plan for legislators and state employees.” 

I have not agreed with all of Kampf’s votes since he took office, but to give credit where due . . .  Kampf’s promise to work on pension reform were made prior to his taking office in 2011, and today we learn that he plans to introduce his proposed reform legislation this spring.  (Click here to read the Phoenixville Patch editorial).

Econsult has been hired by Coatesville to conduct a study to get ideas about Coatesville today and what people would like Coatesville to look in 5 to 10 years.  As part of the study, Econsult will gather citizen and stakeholder input on three main areas:

• What types of buildings and uses are appropriate downtown;
• What kind of retail options are most valuable; and
• What kind of amenities would help make Coatesville a better place to live, work, and play

Here are the links to the Econsult survey:

English version:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/767P22J

Spanish version:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/S7BTDP7

Aside from singing at the Coatesville Veterans Hospitalwith the Noteables, my exposure to Coatesville has been limited.  However, some of you may be more qualified to respond to the survey.

The Econsult survey reminds me of a couple of things –

(1)  Recently Tredyfffrin Twp received a $50K grant from the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission’s (DVRPC) Transportation and Community Development Initiative (TCDI) grant program.  The township has issued a RFP, “Request for Proposals for Analysis and Revisions of Zoning Ordinance Commercial Districts”.  The township seeks a consult team to “analyze ways to consolidate and modernize its commercial zoning regulations, and to lead an effort to inform and educate Township officials and stakeholders on optimal approaches that have led to successful implementation in other communities”.

(2) In November, the Board of Supervisors formed the Tredyffrin Business Development Advisory Council, which included 6 members, 4 liaison community members and township staff.  As I understand it, the 6 members were to help plan and develop strategies for business and economic development.  I have been told that the members are meeting regularly and that they will make their report public within 4 months.  As the advisory council moves forward with their project, they are to make periodic updates to the Board of Supervisors.

Communities all over the country are experiencing rapid changes that will set precedence for the future. We need a vision of what could be but what is also realistically possible.  Is that part of the job of the economic development advisory council?

Communities that refuse to plan for growth and for change, or that refuse to put infrastructure in place that allow for positive changes are always going to play “catch up”.  We can look around and see where some communities – Media, Phoenixville, Wayne, West Chester have been successful and where others seem to be stuck in a time warp.  Of course, we all know that the economy is unstable.  But if we wait until the national economy stabilizes, it will be impossible to plan for the future.  The future is coming whether the economy stabilizes or not.  Those places that improve the quality of life for their citizens are going to grow and prosper, no matter what happens to the national economy.

“Quality of life” is nebulous and hard to define but it is a condition that sets communities apart from one another.  We have all traveled to areas where we think to ourselves, “this place is nice” and conversely, we have all been to neighborhoods where the feeling is anything but nice.  Quality of life is a force that can affect housing values, residential and commercial growth and . . . local pride.  And quality of life is very hard to maintain.  Once it begins, deterioration can be rapid.  There are signs of deterioration  here in this community – the empty commercial and retail spaces, infrastructure improvement needs, maintenance in township park issues . . .  and even light bulbs!

What does it take to insure that the quality of life grows with a community?  It takes vision to see what could be and what is possible and practical.  It takes creativity to think outside the box and maybe stop thinking that we have to do it the way it has been done before.  And of course, it does take money.   Instead of complaining about the situation, and questioning why things are not getting done, why not ask ourselves what ‘we’ can do?

If the proposed photo ID bill (HB 934) becomes law before the November election, it will require every Pennsylvania voter to show a current Pennsylvania license or federal government-issued ID, college photo ID or a care facility-issued ID.  If the voter does not have one of these photo IDs, he/she will not be permitted to vote.

Currently, Pennsylvania voters are only required to show identification if they are voting in a polling place for the first time – and it does not require that the voter to use a photo ID.  Acceptable IDs include firearms permit, a bank statement, a paycheck or a current utility bill as long as the ID has a name and address (photo not required).

You need an ID to be able to check out a book at the library.  Why shouldn’t you need one at the polls?  The answer is that our right to vote is constitutionally protected whereas library privileges are not.  A library can charge a fee for a library card but we would cringe at the idea of a poll tax.

Supporters of the voter ID bill believe that the legislation will increase voter participation and lower the chances of electoral fraud.  They suggest that voter ID is the only way to keep our elections fair and that voter identification legislation ensures ballot integrity.

However, those that oppose the voter ID bill say it unfairly targets the poor, elderly and minority voters who, more often than others, don’t have a photo ID.  Critics of voter identification legislation further claim that there has been almost no evidence of rampant voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

The debate of the PA voter ID bill is fraught with racial and political implications.  The debate is a divisive issue with strong partisan overtones.  Opponents of voter ID legislation say that requiring a photo ID will disenfranchise certain voting groups.  Since these voting groups tend to vote for Democrats, the opposition to voter ID laws tends to come from Democrats.

Democrats are wary of the motivations of the Republicans, saying that the Republicans want to take votes away from the Democrats.   Conversely, the Republicans are wary of the Democrats’ motivations, saying that the Democrats are relying on voter fraud to get their votes.

My view?  I see both sides of the debate.

From my pro voter ID viewpoint, I believe that requiring identification to vote sounds logical.  Unless we have something to hide, what is the problem with showing an ID whenever we vote?  It makes sense that requiring photo identification to vote helps ensure election integrity and protect the rights of voters.

Defending his proposed voter ID bill, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R –Butler County) states “. . . my Pennsylvania Voter Identification Protection Act (House Bill 934) is a common-sense safeguard that will only disenfranchise integrity-deficient individuals seeking to perpetuate fraud and corruption at the polls.”

However, my opposing voter ID viewpoint does not want to see seniors, low-income citizens and minorities disproportionately impacted by the proposed voter identification legislation.  Plus, there is the cost to Pennsylvania taxpayers to implement the voter ID process; especially at a time when our state (like the rest of the country) is struggling financially.  According to a study by nonpartisan PA Budget and Policy Center, HB 934 will cost Pennsylvania taxpayers more than $11 million in the first year alone, with millions more every year after that.

Bottom line . . .  I think a legitimate voter’s right to vote absolutely should not be curtailed.  I also want the integrity of the voting process ensured; voter fraud should not be allowed to happen.  Where does that leave me on HB 934 – seeing both sides.

Is the proposed PA Voter ID Bill necessary or costly and unfair?