Arthur McDonnell

Apply Now — Vacancy on Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, District 1 (East) and Region 3 Vacancy Filled on T/E School Board

A vacancy on Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors was announced at its meeting this week. The vacated position of Township Supervisor in District 1 (East) was held by long-serving supervisor Paul Olson, who recently sold his home and moved from the township.

A Republican, Olson was first elected as a Tredyffrin supervisor in 1976 and has served 43 years, losing only one election.  Committed to serving the community, Paul was involved with many organizations, including the Red Cross, Tredyffrin Library, Surrey Services and the Carr School in Mt. Pleasant, to name a few.  On a personal note, the ongoing support of Paul (and his wife Andrea) to historic preservation was much appreciated by myself and the other members of Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust Board of Directors. As an elected official, he truly understood the importance of our local history and its preservation!

The Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors will make an interim appointment to fill the District 1 (East) seat. Persons interested in being considered for the appointment must be residents of District 1 (East) and voters of the E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 or M2 voting precincts. The Board of Supervisors will accept letters of interest (with resumes) through Friday, July 26 addressed to Tredyffrin Township, c/o Murph Wysocki, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors at Tredyffrin@tredyffrin.org.

The Personnel Committee of the Board of Supervisors (3 supervisors) will interview the candidates in a public meeting on Monday, August 5 at 7 PM at the township building. The Personnel Committee will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the Board will vote on the appointment at its next meeting, on Monday, August 19.

It will be curious to see what happens with this supervisor appointment – will the Board of Supervisors, which currently holds a Democrat majority (4-2) honor the long-held Republican seat and appoint a Republican candidate? Or would the Board stick to the party line and appoint a ‘D’ to fill the vacancy?

The District 1 (East) seat is on the November ballot, making the vacancy an interim appointment. Although Julie Gosse (D) and Raffi Terzian (R) are the endorsed candidates for the seat in the November election, all residents of District (1) and registered voters (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 or M2 precincts) are eligible to apply for the interim appointment.

Perhaps not wanting to appear partisan, the Board of Supervisors could appoint an ‘Independent’ registered candidate and make history – the township has never had an ‘I’ as a member of the Board of Supervisors. Of course, that assumes a registered Independent in District 1 (East) applies for the position.  Over the last few years there have been many new people moving in to the township — applying for the interim supervisor position would be a great way to get involved in the community!

On the same night as the Board of Supervisors officially announced its vacancy on the Board, the T/E School District Board interviewed and appointed to fill its Region 3 vacancy – if you recall, last month Heather Ward (D) from Easttown resigned from the school board after serving 18 months of the 4 year term, stating that she would be taking a new job and moving out of state.

Ray Clarke attended the July 15 school board meeting and offers his comments on the interview and selection process and notes from the regular meeting.  Although the school board agreed at its June meeting to correct the $1.2 million accounting error, it is noted that a month later the issue remains open.  As has been stated repeatedly, there is a process with the PA Department of Education to make the necessary correction so the question from the public, remains WHY hasn’t it been done? The District’s Business Manager Art McDonnell was missing from the meeting – certainly not working on fixing the District’s accounting problem, guess it summer vacation for him. Remember folks, McDonnell received a new 5-year contract (with a raise!) starting July 1.

School Board Meeting Comments from Ray Clarke –

 The TESD Board of Directors held special meetings on Monday; first to interview candidates to replace Heather Ward and second an official Board meeting to select one of them.  Six Easttown residents applied and all presented themselves well, having relevant (but different) experiences and skills, with a good general understanding of the issues confronting TE and the role of the Board.  In the formal Board meeting, three of the candidates were nominated and in the first round of voting Mary Garrett Itin was selected in a party line 5-2 vote (Tina Whitlow was out of the country). She has a social work and child mental health background and spoke of favoring a fact-based, objective and transparent approach. Kate Murphy and Ed Sweeney nominated applicants with legal and financial backgrounds who I thought might have been very well equipped to hold the Administration to account, but they were the sole supporters of their nominees.

The need for that oversight was starkly demonstrated in response to public comment during the remainder of the board meeting.  Many different tacks were taken in an attempt to ascertain any information about actions taken in response to the Board vote to correct the Annual Financial Report filings with the state.  All approaches elicited the same response: we’re working on it (in some unspecified manner) and you’ll find out more in the next scheduled Board meeting on August 26th.

Both aspects of the meeting then led to a round-about discussion of the ways to include qualified and motivated community members (such as the Board applicants) more directly in Committee deliberations.  As a specific example, involved parents continued to advocate for their participation in the direction of the reading curriculum and spoke of insights from a recent academic conference. Ed Sweeney moved to include the general question of Committee make up as part of the strategic planning process, but in the end it was agreed (Kyle Boyer excepting) to consider the issue in the first Policy Committee meeting of the new academic year (perhaps a quicker forum).  There are different approaches (eg voting/non-voting) and pros and cons to this, and it is a question well worthy of discussion.

Notably, at the end, the Solicitor reported that an Executive Session was held last week to discuss collective bargaining.  The teacher contract is up for renewal at the end of the coming school year.  In the new normal of budget deficits and cost pressures the usual issues of process transparency and compensation/program trade-offs may be more contentious than usual.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

T/E School District News: 3.91% Tax Increase, District to Correct $1.2M Accounting Error & School Board Member Resigns

The five-hour marathon school board meeting last night lasted until 12:30 AM, albeit the audience was kept waiting with a 30-minute late start.  For those community members who stayed the course until the end of the school board meeting, thank you!

Although I was unable to attend the meeting, I received multiple updates throughout the evening followed up with several phone calls today. The significant takeaways from the evening included the (1) 2019-20 tax increase decision of 3.91%, (2) the Board vote for the District to take responsibility for the accounting error and to correct the Annual Financial Reports (AFR) with PA Department of Education (although sadly all Board members were not in favor of “doing what’s right”) and (3) the announcement of the resignation of a school board member.

Luckily, we have Ray Clarke providing comments on the school board meeting until he left at 11 PM (following the 3.91% tax increase vote). At that point, Mike Heaberg picks up the commentary until the meeting finally ended at 12:35 AM.  See their remarks below — thank you both!

From Ray Clarke:

– Dramatically larger attendance than a typical meeting, which multiplied the persistent disregard for the community’s time when the meeting started half an hour late

– A long plea from the rugby club for Varsity status, but notably none stayed for the Budget discussion which might have suggested funding limitations

– The Board based its discussion around just the 3.91% tax increase, not all the other options (2.8% or 4.33%)

– The Board agreed to amend the 3.91% budget motion with an investment in the new elementary reading program as a $300,000 one-time “below-the-line” expense, contingent on a number of conditions. This did not satisfy parents who are advocating for parent involvement in selection of any new program

– The amended motion passed 7-2, with Kate Murphy and Ed Sweeney allied for a lower number. Todd Kantorczyk and Roberta Hotinski reluctantly went along with a lower number than they would prefer, the former (correctly) noting that budget and actual deficits cannot continue, while the latter continues (inexplicably) to want to move the following year’s – potential – exception forward into the coming Budget year.

All Board members seemed to agree that the Budget process is broken.  Board President Scott Dorsey wants to separate the budget from the routine Finance process. He spoke forcefully about his outrage at this and the $700,000 expense surprise revealed at the last meeting.  He warned of “someone paying the price” for any similar issues in the future.

– The District’s Solicitor (reportedly with financial experience, not Ken Roos but from the same law firm, Wisler Pearlstine) advised the Board that Annual Financial Reports to the state CAN be corrected, provided that there are new audited statements and if certified by a new auditing firm or individual.  The Business Manager reported logistical, cost, PDE and outcome risk issues with this, although to the audience it seemed that those were grossly over-stated.

– A wide cross-section of community members spoke compellingly in favor of the District basing its decisions on the correct financials, about the pattern of behavior that has got us to this point, and about the need for process and personnel changes

– Unfortunately many had to leave at 11pm after the budget vote, but the AFR revision discussion continued.

Mike Heaberg picks up the commentary on the school board meeting at this point, including the Board’s acknowledgement of the administration’s accounting error and subsequent vote to correct the District audits, the Annual Financial Reports (AFR) and resubmit.  Thanks so much Mike!

From Mike Heaberg:

– After the Board acted on the consent agenda, other action items, and “final” public comments, Ed Sweeney made a motion to begin the process of correcting the District audits and Annual Financial Reports for 2016-17 and 2017-18.  Kate Murphy seconded it.

A long Board discussion ensued including input from the District’s Solicitor, Business Manager, Superintendent and the public. At one point, Todd Kantorczyk made a motion to table action until a future meeting – the next scheduled is August 26. On a roll call vote, his motion failed 5-4.  After more discussion, the vote was held via roll call. It won 6-3.  Voting in favor of correcting the audits and AFRs were Ed Sweeney, Kate Murphy, Scott Dorsey, Michele Burger, Heather Ward, and Tina Whitlow.   Todd Kantorczyk, Roberta Hotinski, and Kyle Boyer voted against correcting the audits and AFRs.

– At the very end, about 12:15 AM, Heather Ward announced she is moving out of the District and resigning from the Board effective 6/16/19.  The Board has not sorted out the replacement process. Heather made gracious comments and her colleagues offered thanks and praise for her service to the District.

The 2019-20 budget process was one for the books with final changes and decisions coming in at the eleventh hour (or in this case 12:30 AM!).  I am appreciative that in the end, school board member Ed Sweeney had the resolve and courage to push forward for correction of the District audits and Annual Financial Reports.  I thank him and the other five Board members (Kate Murphy, Scott Dorsey, Michele Burger, Heather Ward and Tina Whitlow) for “doing what’s right” and voting to correct the District audits and AFRs but simply do not understand why the other three Board members opposed the action.

Over many months, much time and energy was expended by the public in urging the Board to do “what’s right” — I’m left wondering why it took months of meetings, emails and phone calls (many by resident financial experts) plus an official letter of complaint to the PA Dept. of Education to finally achieve this goal.

In my opinion, there is an imbalance in power and control in the school district administration. All roads lead back to (or through) Art McDonnell, the Business Manager and the 2019-20 budget process debacle was a direct  result of his actions.  The Board (and the District’s taxpayers!) are ill-served by this business manager and we deserve better!  When is enough, enough?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

T/E School District Tax Increase — Will it be 2.8%, 3.91% or 4.33%? “To Be Continued”

On the eve of June 1st and days away from the end of school year, the school board still does not have an agreed up tax increase number for the budget! How is that possible? What we do know is that the tax increase will be less than the 6% that we have heard since the middle of December and the increase was approved in the draft final budget.  However, we are left with three numbers — 2.8%, 3.91% and 4.33%.  Exactly how did the Board come up with these various numbers? What are the numbers based on? And how does the incorrect accounting of the Special Ed expenses factor into the tax increase?

Although I was unable to attend the school board meeting this week because it was the same night as the digital billboard appeal, Doug Anestad attended and offer his remarks below. Plus the video of the May 29 school board meeting is now available on the District’s website, click here to view.

After reading Doug’s comments, my first takeaway is that maybe the TESD 2019-20 budget process should be renamed, “To Be Continued …”!  

The school board met Wednesday night. The agenda was very light.

What was interesting was that no new budget discussions happened. It is very late in the game not to come to a final tax rate increase. Therefore, the 2.8%, 3.91%, and 4.33% tax increases are all still on the table.

The board proposed changes to Regulation 2110: Job Responsibilities for Superintendent of School. The proposed change says that if one or more invoices from the same vendor above $200k is accounted for in the wrong fiscal year, the Superintendent must be notified and the Superintendent must inform the school board.

Of course, this proposed change in regulation came about because the administration didn’t tell the the school board about $1.2M in special education expenditures from 2016-2017 that were wrongly recorded against 2017-2018. I spoke about the regulation and said that if you have to tell the administration when $1.2M is misstated they should notify the board, it is not a policy issue, it is a personnel issue and they should treat it as such. Kyle Boyer also had concerns about it being a personnel and not a policy issue. The vote was 8-1 on the regulation change.

When the administration started discussing the launch of updating the Strategic Plan at a cost of $50k, some of the board members raised concerns. This is highly unusual as this item is not even normally voted on as a separate item. Multiple board members said that they thought that the district was not in a position to deal with a Strategic Plan. The final vote was 5-4 with Michele Burger, Kate Murphy, Ed Sweeney, and Heather Ward all voting against the motion. I believe that this close vote demonstrates that multiple board members are not happy with the current situation and the administration.

Major kudos to Ed Sweeney for bringing up the issue of revising the finance numbers for the prior years to be the actual numbers. He asked, and the board agreed, to look into the financial and legal ramifications of fixing the numbers to be the real numbers.  They seem to be most concerned about double dipping next year since they already got a higher taxing authorization from the state based on the wrong numbers.

I am not sure why so many on the school board continue to be so hesitant to figure out the truth. Why have they still not asked the auditors when Art McDonnell informed the auditors about the $1.2M account error? Why haven’t they already figured out what the process is to correct the numbers? Why haven’t they asked the state how revising the financial statements to be the real numbers will impact their taxing authority?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Weeks to Final Budget Vote & T/E Tax Increase Remains at 6% — Community needs to ‘Trust’ School Board Oversight!

With just two weeks until the final budget is approved for the school district, where is the school board in the process? We know that the 6% tax increase proposed in mid-December has not changed. Rumors continue that the school board will approve a lower tax increase yet the public remains in the dark.

For months, community members have requested school board action regarding the Special Ed $1.3 million accounting errors that impact the proposed (and future)budgets without resolution. Requests for the auditor to attend a public meeting are met with “not available” responses by the District’s business manager Art McDonnell. Then this past week we learned that the District posted a job opening for a new controller with a start date “ASAP” – apparently the District’s current controller is leaving for another job. Any secrets can remain safe if the controller is absent from public meetings and the controller leaves the District.

In my opinion, there is an imbalance in power and control in the school district administration. All roads lead back to (or through) Art McDonnell, the business manager. Many on the school board seemingly depend on (and support) the words of McDonnell, even when presented with evidence and opposing facts from financial experts in the community. Why is that?

We need to trust the school board as our oversight – to demonstrate leadership, courage and the will to govern on our behalf. At the core, the associated budget issues, including accounting errors, revolve around trust. As taxpayers, how are we supposed to trust the accuracy of this proposed budget (read “tax increase)?

We need a brave school board member to honor their responsibility to the community by making a motion requiring the administration to correct the $1.3 million Special Ed accounting error.

As a lead-up to the final budget vote on June 10th, there are two important meetings for school board members (and the public!) to speak out this week. There is a Finance Committee meeting Tuesday, May 28, 7 PM (click here for agenda) and regular school board meeting on Wednesday, May 29, 7:30 PM (click here for agenda).

Below Ray Clarke provides his personal commentary on the budget and related Special Ed accounting problem and his thoughts on the District’s business manager Art McDonnell.

Another month has gone by in the annual cycle of operas that is the TESD budget process.  On Tuesday the Finance Committee holds it last meeting before the June 10th vote on the Final budget.  It is increasing clear that the Board is ill-served by its Business Manager and that it is time for a fresh approach.

A few more facts are on the table.  In the last two weeks, the budget deficit for the current year has jumped by $700,000 of “Other” expenditures.  The Administration now presents a range of tax increases from the Index 2.3% to the erroneous Exceptions of 5.964%, and appears to be promoting 4.64%.  This is based solely on creating a budget deficit equal to the average of the last five years’ budgets without any further program changes. 

Also, the auditor’s Management Letter that accompanies the wrong financials for both years is quite clear that “our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you [the Board] or management of its respective responsibilities”.  The Letters for both years make no reference to the CCIU invoice mis-classification, even though dated in December of both following years, a month to a year after the issue came to light.

Some questions that arise:

  • Is the Administration proposing a $1.3 million budget deficit because they know that expenses are over- and revenues are under-budgeted?
  • What caused the last minute increase in projected expenses for the current year, and further, what impact does that have on next year’s budget?
  • How can the Board make informed budget decisions when the basic information about departmental level trends underlying that budget were presented so long ago (and in very broad strokes) and have been impacted by the disconnected list of programs under consideration? Most important, those financials are in one case just plain wrong.
  • Is the Board comfortable with basing a tax decision – impacting both this year and next – on authority granted by PDE based on erroneous information?
  • Has the Board received confirmation from its Auditor that, per its Management Letter, in December 2018 it either did not identify the CCIU error that was identified over 12 months earlier, or that it considered the matter “trivial”?
  • What is the Board going to do about Mr. Sweeney’s suggestion two weeks ago that the Budget process should be improved?

The mis-representations, cover up and associated taxing and budget debacle is the culmination of years of the TESD Board being treated by the Business Manager like a set of the proverbial mushrooms.  Other districts provide models for informed decision-making.  It’s time for the Board to exercise its contractual rights and make a change.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

T/E School District’s $1.3 Million Accounting Error/Act 1 Violation discussion continues – Taxpayers facing large tax increase with less than 30 days until School Board’s final vote!

In addition to other residents, I attended the T/E School Board Finance Committee meeting last night. The meeting lasted nearly three hours but we stayed; hopeful for resolution on the District’s $1.3 million Act 1 accounting error and its impact on the proposed 6% tax increase. Sadly, the evening ended no closer to a solution than when it began.

With less than 30 days before the Board must take a vote on the final budget, much of the meeting was spent discussing budget strategies to reduce the District’s spending and increase revenue. Possible budget strategies ranged from increasing student parking and activity fees to delaying the new reading program.  All the discussion about cost-cutting measures was a bit like getting the cart before the horse since the large “elephant in the room” was the $1.3 million accounting error and its impact on the current budget process and the proposed tax increase.

Residents who had attended the finance committee meeting in April (including myself) expected answers from the auditor. School board member Tina Whitlow had asked Art McDonnell, the District’s business manager to have the auditor attend last night’s meeting but (according to McDonnell) he was not available. Actually the absence of the auditor was no surprise; as his responses to taxpayer questions would probably not have bolstered the business manager’s position on the District’s serious accounting mistake.

The most disturbing part of the meeting was the response by Todd Kantorczyk, the finance committee chair, to residents Doug Anestad and Mike Heaberg regarding the District’s erroneous accounting of $1.3 million Special Ed invoices to the Pennsylvania State Board of Education.

Both Doug and Mike cited the “Manual of Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pennsylvania Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)”, Principle 9 – Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting in the Basic Financial Statements (pg. 15), which states, in part that “Revenues should be recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable. Expenditures should be recognized in the accounting period in which the fund liability is incurred …” (Clearly, this means that the $1.3 million Special Ed invoices need to be accurately reported in the year in which the expenses occurred.)

Kantorczyk dismissed the state’s accounting practices as referenced by Doug and Mike, as if to suggest that somehow the T/E School District was exempt from these regulations!  A remarkable moment – he remained unmoved by the follow-up comments questioning the Board’s actual taxing authority, possible Act 1 violation, the prospect of legal action and pleas to “just do the right thing”.

The evening ended with a discussion by Board members about the proposed tax increase which; to be clear, is still 6%.  Certain Board members stated that they needed counsel by the District solicitor Ken Roos, regarding the accounting error and possible legal ramifications, before finalizing their thoughts on the proposed budget. Finance committee member Kate Murphy was particularly thoughtful; sharing her concerns and need for further information. Likewise, Heather Ward, also a member of the finance committee, shared those concerns.

Resident Neal Colligan attended the meeting and offers his notes on the Board members ideas regarding the final tax increase:

  • Todd Kantorczyk indicated that he was comfortable with the District’s taxing authority at 6% but did not want to see the entire amount imposed in one year; he did not offer another number but seemed inclined to a tax increase short of 5%.

  • Michelle Burger wanted to sleep on the discussion points but was quick to point out that “she heard what the community said in their comments”.

  • Kate Murphy acknowledged that there’s “too much noise” surrounding the Special Education Exception. She can only, at this point support a 2.32% tax increase (Act 1 allowance and the Special Exception for PSERS cost increases).  In the sanest approach of the evening (my opinion); she related that if she can’t explain it to the constituents she meets at the Acme; she’s not voting for it.

  • Heather Ward echoed those thoughts and again asked for a meeting with the District’s auditor (that Tina Whitlow requested a month ago). She seemed willing to possibly accept a 3.91% tax increase…maybe (this would be the full taxing authority of the District IF they had submitted correct Special Education spending amounts to the Department of Education).

  • Tina Whitlow again raised questions of the District’s taxing authority particularly related to the Special Education Exception and again mentioned in her comments a 3.91% possible tax increase.

  • Roberta Hotinski is in favor of a 4.72% tax increase; this number would include the 3.91% mentioned above AND .81% increase derived from a calculation of what Last Year’s Special Education exception would have been if the numbers submitted to the State were correct.

  • Scott Dorsey, ever the Board Member balancing the fairness of a tax increase vs. the needs of the schools, favors an increase of 3.91%…his position has not changed in some time.

  • Ed Sweeney leans towards the 2.3-2.5% tax increase range. He did point out that the Budget process is in dire need of change as only now, with a month to go, are we “getting into the brass tacks”.  He also mentioned that a Board needs to trust the numbers it is given when considering a budget … it is clear he has doubts.

  • Kyle Boyer was the last to weigh in … his support level is around the 3.91% range but may be convinced to go a little higher. He mentioned that he keeps a District tax increase chart on his phone and that in 2008 the District raised taxes at the highest level in the last 15 years … and he’d like to stay below that 4.3% figure.

The Top Answer to tax increase percentage was 3.91%.  At this level; the potential Final Budget would have an imbalance of a $2.662 MM of deficit that will need to be filled by Fund Balance Commitment.  No Budget Strategies have been offered that could fill that imbalance.  Board Members left the “hard analysis” behind and expressed their “feel” for the correct tax increase. The normal Budget process which could have looked delved into the need for a 5.5% spending increase OR at why the District habitually under-states revenues and over-states expenses in the Budget process has been hijacked by the Accounting Timing Error fiasco.  On this point, Ed Sweeney is clearly correct.  With a month to go … it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Downingtown Area School District Approves Zero Tax Increase for 4th Year in a Row – TE School District Set to Approve 3.6% Increase (12th consecutive year of tax increase)

Tax-increase 2016

At tonight’s TE School District meeting (7:30 PM, Conestoga High School), the school board will vote on the 2016-17 final budget and property tax rate.

In January, the board had adopted the preliminary budget which contained a 4.3% tax increase – they approved the budget with the Act 1 Index of 2.4% and allowable Act 1 Exceptions of 1.9%.  At the April 25, 2016 regular school board meeting, the proposed final budget reduced the property tax rate from January, from 4.3% down to 3.875%.

According to the meeting agenda and budget materials (click here) the board will vote on the District’s 2016-17 final budget with an Act 1 Index of 2.4% and Referendum Exceptions of 1.2% for a 3.6% tax increase to the taxpayers.

The following chart shows TESD tax increases over the last twelve years.   2004-05 was the last zero tax increase year.

  • 2015-16: 3.81%
  • 2014-15: 3.4%
  • 2013-14: 1.7%
  • 2012-13: 3.3%
  • 2011-12: 3.77%
  • 2010-11: 2.9%
  • 2009-10: 2.95%
  • 2008-09: 4.37%
  • 2007-08: 3.37%
  • 2006-07: 3.90%
  • 2005-06: 1.40%
  • 2004-05: Zero Tax Increase

The TE School District residents can take solace that they are not alone in their tax increase. According to Adam Farence’s Daily Local article, 11 out of the 12 school districts in Chester County contain 2016-17 budgets with tax increases.

The only Chester County school district without a 2016-17 tax increase is Downingtown Area School District.  DASD recently approved their 2016-17 budget with no tax increase but what is more fascinating is that this is the fourth year in a row without a tax increase!

Looking at TESD tax increase chart above for the last four years, you have to wonder how it is that DASD delivered zero tax increases to its residents during the same time period. According to the Daily Local article, the DASD chief financial officer Rich Fazio “attributes the four-year streak of not raising taxes to the foresight of prior school boards.”  Fazio states that, “We were fortunate to prudently allocate funds and accumulate savings. Because of that we have not had a tax increase for four years.” He further indicated that DASD “will strive to duplicate a zero increase in taxes for as long as possible.”  

The total operating budget for Downingtown Areas School District is $210 million versus TE School District operating budget of approximately $129 million. DASD has a fund balance of approx. $24.5 million versus approx.  $32 million in TESD indicating that both districts understand the importance of saving for the future.

Someone is going to have to help me understand how these two Chester County school districts can operate so differently financially – and yes, I understand that TESD is ranked academically higher than DASD.

TE School District has always been an academic powerhouse, so other than 20 miles of separation between the two Chester County school districts, how is it possible that DASD repeatedly holds the zero tax increase to its residents and TESD has had 12 consecutive years of tax increases? Perhaps TESD business manager Art McDonnell could have coffee with DASD chief finaicial officer Rich Fazio to compare notes and discuss financial strategies!

DASD proudly displays the following 2015-16 tax increase chart on their website:

Tax Increase vs Act 1 Index Chart

According to the agenda budget materials for tonight’s TE School Board meeting, there were spending cuts before, during and after budget approval to reduce expenditures in the 2016-17 budget.  An explanation of those specific reductions would be helpful to taxpayers.

Back in January, school board members Ed Sweeney and Scott Dorsey spoke out against the preliminary tax increase of 4.3% as unacceptable … will they now be OK with 3.6% tax increase?  Instead of a typical roll call vote on the TESD 2016-17 final budget, I encourage board members to be accountable and offer the public an explanation of their vote.

Many of the newly school board members used fiscal responsibility and accountability as a campaign platform – now is the time to deliver on those promises.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

School fencing is important school safety issue to TE School Board — Why not same level of safety concern for 5th grader?

stopped school bus

 During one of the two comment periods of the TE School Board meeting on September 21, District residents Mr. and Mrs. John Alexander asked the school board directors for assistance with a busing situation pertaining to their son Jackson. The Alexander’s, who live on Valley Forge Mountain, had previously attempted resolution through email and phone calls to the District but were unsuccessful. After their passionate appeal at the school board meeting, the District’s business manager Art McDonnell intervened to say that this was a bus schedule matter and any school bus policy changes need to go to the Policy Committee the following month. The Board concurred with no further discussion.

Although I may not have fully known the specifics of the situation, it was obvious that McDonnell understood the Alexander’s request.  A couple of days after the school board meeting, John Alexander called me.  After speaking with him, I asked that he provide me with a summary of the situation for Community Matters —

Our son, Jackson, is taking a school district shuttle bus from VFMS to VFES to ride the elementary school bus home two days a week, so that he can participate in 5th grade band and chorus as after school extracurricular activities since both my wife and I work outside of the home. The problem is that even though the elementary school bus passes right by our house twice on its route, the school district’s procedure is to only stop at the closest current elementary school stops. This means that Jackson has to get off almost a half a mile away at the nearest established elementary school stop and walk back to our house which unnecessarily increases his risk of being hurt or otherwise harmed, especially since there are no sidewalks on Valley Forge Mountain.

We had hoped that a simple phone call and/or e-mail requesting the bus to let him off at his old elementary school bus stop from last year would settle the issue and be a Win-Win situation since there would be less risk of danger to our son and the School District wins because there is less risk of an incident for which they would be liable while not impacting other students & families in any material way.

Our bottom line – It seems like the school district is more concerned with minimizing disruptions in their bureaucratic process & procedures rather than taking simple & reasonable steps to increase the safety of a child in returning to their home from school. Shouldn’t student safety be paramount and outweigh bureaucratic processes when reasonable alternatives exist? Now, we are faced with waiting for the Policy Committee to review this in the middle of next month with no guarantee of a favorable decision/ruling.

John Alexander

Over the last couple of years, the school board has focused much attention on school safety, including trying to convince residents that ‘fencing schools’ is the answer to keeping our children safe.  Yet, here we have a 10 year old boy walking ½ mile from the school bus on Valley Forge Mountain to his home, after the bus passes his house twice on the route.

The District is endangering a child and risking liability to allow this child to walk this distance and on roads without sidewalks! This makes no ‘safety sense’ whatsoever! The Alexander’s have been told that to change the bus route for them could mean that other families may want similar changes. However, when Alexander pressed McDonnell on how many ‘other’ families have ever had a bus schedule situation which required a change, he was given no response. The bus route included a stop at the Alexander’s house for the 2014-15 school year. As Alexander states, “Shouldn’t student safety be paramount and outweigh bureaucratic processes when reasonable alternatives exist?”

Beyond the obvious safety aspects of this situation, where is the open communication between the Board and this TE School District family.  Jackson is the youngest of the Alexander’s four children, so the parents fully understand how the school district works and are not seeking preferential treatment.  According to John Alexander, he had previously inquired about the existing “bus policy” cited by Art McDonnell; however, it was not provided. Rather than showing leadership and finding a reasonable solution, the school board accepted the business manager’s approach to “kick the can” to the Policy Committee meeting next month.

The Alexander’s have to wait a month to take their reasonable request (and simple solution) to the Policy Committee. To be clear, the Policy Committee can only hear the policy request and make recommendations. At best, the Alexander’s will have to wait until the next school board meeting for full board discussion. However, most policy changes, take more than one Policy Committee for recommendations so who knows how long this “simple family request” will take for resolution?

I do not understand “why” all school district roads seem to lead to Art McDonnell, the business manager. Beyond the expected business/financial related aspects of his job description, McDonnell is the keeper of the gate for the District’s communications and the Board’s emails from residents, the Public Information officer and the Right-to-Know request recipient. We learned at the last school board meeting that McDonnell ‘hand-picked’ the school safety consultant (without issuing an RFP) and now we find that apparently he is in charge of the District’s bus schedule!

I have sat through many regular and committee meetings of the District and have witnessed an alarming trend…many of the Board’s discussions/decisions seem to defer to Art McDonnell!  In my opinion, the decision making powers of Art McDonnell seems to extend well beyond the normal and expected business manager boundaries.  As of July 1, the District hired a new Superintendent; so where’s Dr. Gusick’s voice on these issues?

As residents, we didn’t elect Art McDonnell to govern the District – we elected the School Board. Plan to support those school board candidates in the upcoming election on November 3rd who will do their homework and govern with independent thought! We need effective leadership!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Next round on Valley Forge Middle School fencing project: TE School Board hires safety consultant

Fencing April 2015

What’s that proverb about a “bad penny always coming back”?  After last week’s TE School Board meeting, that could be a fair description of the Valley Forge Middle School fencing project.

Residents who attended the District’s June 12th Facilities Meeting expected the fencing discussion at Valley Forge Middle School to finally end.  But instead, the public learned that after many, many meetings and months of legal bills for the District (i.e. taxpayers), the Chesterbrook Civic Association and Green Hills homeowners, Board President Kris Graham’s proposed hiring a safety consultant for the Valley Forge Middle School.

The Board has repeatedly cited the 2013 safety report by Andy Chambers (the former Tredyffrin Township Police Chief) as the rationale for building fences around the District’s eight schools. However the public was not provided input for the safety study and the Board, citing safety reasons, never permitted the public to see the report.

Although District residents have not read the Chambers’ safety report, the Board claimed that its safety suggestions included fencing all schools. Taxpayers paid (“not to exceed $11,500”) for the safety report two years ago, so did the Board decide to spend more money on another study (to focus specifically on VFMS).  During the Facilities Committee meeting the Board was quick to point out that the District would send out a RFP for the VFMS safety consultant, which they admit was not done before they hired Chambers in 2013.

During the committee reports at the June 15 regular school board meeting, Dr. Motel (chair of the Facilities Committee) presented the following update,

The Facilities Committee met Friday, June 12 at the district offices on West Valley Road and the meeting was open to the public.

We discussed again the possible installation of additional fencing at Valley Forge Middle School. The committee has decided after many meetings of which this issue was discussed to obtain a second opinion from an additional safety consultant who will review the Valley Forge Middle School site specifically and make recommendations as to whether or not additional fencing at the site is advisable and if so what it should look like and where it should be placed.

The process will be an RFP will go out this summer for a school safety consultant. The selection of the safety consultant will begin at the next committee meeting in public with public input. I want to clarify that this means no new fencing will be installed at Valley Forge Middle School this summer.

Fast forward three months to last week’s school board meeting and the safety consultant discussion – a discussion which was troubling on many levels:

  1. Initially the hiring of the safety consultant appeared as part of the school board’s consent agenda but was later removed to allow for discussion.
  2. Contrary to what the Board previously stated on at the Facilities Committee meeting on June 12 and at the June 15 School Board meeting, no RFP was released.
  3. The Business manager Art McDonnell contacted three safety security companies and asked them for a proposal.
  4. McDonnell ‘picked’ the company, National School Safety & Security Service at a cost of $15,500.
  5. No District signed contract for National School Safety’s services. Responding to Board and resident questions, McDonnell suggested that a contract was not necessary and pointed to the company’s proposal on the TESD website. (The proposal is found on pg. 177 of the Sept. 21 school board agenda}.
  6. Residents asked the cost of the other 2 safety security companies. McDonnell did not have the exact figures but thought one was around $4,000 and the other $20K.
  7. National School Safety’s proposal contains no dates for the deliverables. Their consulting fee of $15,500 is for pre-visit phone calls and review of existing documents, 3 day visit which includes 1-1/2 days of interviews and site visits, 1/2 day of debriefing and presentation to committee and written report of recommendations.
  8. No public meeting on this topic is included in the company’s proposal.
  9. McDonnell stated that earlier fencing correspondence, emails, etc. would be given to the consultant. However, when further questioned on this topic, McDonnell acknowledged he was not sure how long the District kept emails!  (What is the policy on email retention?)
  10. When pressed on the need for the safety consultant to receive public input on fencing, etc., McDonnell referenced a proposed public meeting for Thursday, Nov. 19 with a preliminary safety report from the consultant to be given on Friday, Nov. 20 at the 2 PM Facilities Committee meeting.
  11. What is the value of resident input if the public meeting is held less than 24 hrs. before National School Safety delivers their preliminary report at the Facilities Committee meeting.
  12. Several residents and Board members questioned McDonnell regarding the ‘scope’ of the consultant’s work without the benefit of an RFP. How would the company know the District’s expectations?
  13. In the end, the Board offered that residents could send emails about the fencing project to schoolboard@tesd.net and they would forward to the safety consultant. For the record, Art McDonnell is the public information person and all emails to the school board must go through him first.

I have attended many school board and committee meetings but the discussion to hire a safety consultant for Valley Forge Middle School had to be one of the most troubling I have ever witnessed.  The decision to hire the safety consultant lacked process …there was no RFP outlining the District’s expectations as the Board previously stated  – no dates for deliverables – no contract – no resident input provision, etc.  Even with all the questions and uncertainty the Valley Forge Middle School security consultant, the Board voted 9-0 to hire National School Safety & Security Services at a cost of $15,500.

Where’s the P.R.O.C.E.S.S.?  The public is repeatedly told that the ‘real work’ goes on at committee meetings. Really?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

TESD Facility Meeting to discuss school fencing project and mega-million dollar maintenance building

The proposed middle school and high school fencing project and the mega-million dollar Maintenance Building are two of the agenda items for the District’s Facilities Meeting tomorrow, Friday, June 12 at 12 Noon.

The school fencing project, specifically at Valley Forge Middle School, has seen a lot of attention in recent months. The school property abuts the property of some of the Green Hills properties in Chesterbrook. and initially the plan had the fencing going directly behind the Green Hills homes. It now appears that the District has agreed to move the proposed fencing away from the homeowner’s back doors but unanswered questions remain.

Discussion (debate?) continues on the placement of the interior fencing, the height of the fence (4 ft, 5 ft. or 6 ft.), the type of fencing material, signage, etc. The five District elementary schools received chain link fencing but the Chesterbrook residents are asking for a material upgrade to white vinyl fencing to match existing fencing in the planned community.  There appears to be an agreement that any upgrade materials fee from chain link to white vinyl will be split between Chesterbrook residents and the District’s taxpayers.  The white vinyl fencing is to run along the side of VFMS property on Valley Forge Road (Rt. 252).  This upgrade fencing option would only ‘mark’ the District’s property and cannot be viewed as a safety feature.

The construction start date for school fencing at Valley Forge Middle, TE Middle and Conestoga is June 24 with a scheduled completion date of August 14.  Since there is a change order for the originally approved fencing at VFMS, the Facilities Committee will need to decide the next step – will it need to go back to the full Board on Monday, June 15?

Although the District has been unwilling to publically state how many residents have contacted the Board regarding the proposed fencing – I know that the number continues to rise.  Many residents have copied me on their correspondence with the District and then complained when they have received no response. To be clear, there may be residents who support the fencing project, but I have personally not received copies of any such correspondence.

Below is a copy of a recent email to the school board from Mr. Gary Wolf, a Chesterbrook resident.  This email is included below with his approval.

Dear School Board,

Our tax dollars are irresponsibly and continually misused by the T/E School Board.  One of my choices to address this concern, besides moving out of our Tredyffrin home that my wife and I have lived in for 27 years, was to exercise my right to vote … which I did.  I chose not to vote for Kris Graham on May 19th.  While my vote is only one in many, I’m fed up with our taxes being increased and our school board acting as though this district is a “money pit.”  Specifically, we don’t need fences at our schools to the tune of almost a quarter million dollars.

My wife worked at VFES for 19 years, and saw the waste and misdirected funding of the T/E administration.  For example, the kids had a paltry allocation of $1.00/year/student for their first aid care while the principal bought new office furniture essentially every year, applying the “use or lose his budget” mentality.  If I managed my department for my employer in that manner, I’d be out of work.  And … we continue to pay for Dan Waters’ amenities and life style that even us reasonably blessed professionals will never realize.   Spend it on the kids!!  Enough is enough!

Gary C. Wolf

Another of the major discussion items on the agenda is agenda items is the new Maintenance & Storage Building.  As we learned at Monday’s Finance Committee meeting, the bids for this project were due in this week on June 9.  The project bid will not include any of the costs leading up to this point – the legal and architectural fees, traffic studies, township permits, eco soil testing, etc.

When the Business Manager was asked about a total of those pre-construction costs, Art McDonnell stated that he would provide a total of those costs as well as the construction bid costs at the Facilities Meeting. At this point, the District has already invested a lot of money on the maintenance building project. Because this project has greatly exceeded initial estimates, it would be fiscally responsible for the Board to thoroughly analyze the costs, and review all available options, before granting final approval. According to the District, the construction start date for the maintenance building is August 17, 2015 with a scheduled completion date of June 29, 2016.

Regarding this week’s Finance Meeting, the proposed tax increase has now edged up to 3.81% for the 2015-16 school year. Should this tax increase be approved, it will mark the eleventh year in a row that residents have seen their taxes go up — you would have to go back a decade to 2004-05 to find the last time that there was no real estate tax increase. Is this really the best time to spend $4-5 million for a maintenance & storage building?

There were a number of school board candidates at the Finance Meeting, it would be interesting to know their thoughts about the proposed budget. There was a brief mention about the District’s food service budget and something about a $400K loss but … that the department really didn’t have a loss but actually had a profit! I have no idea what this is about — is the District practicing a form of ‘new math’?  Perhaps my friend Ray Clarke can enlighten us!

———————————————————————————————

Update: Neal Colligan sent the following email to the T/E School Board Thursday evening regarding the District’s proposed Maintenance & Storage Building and provided a copy for posting on Community Matters.

Dear School Board,

Apologizes for not being able to join you at the Facilities Meeting tomorrow. I did want to take this opportunity to give you some thoughts on your maintenance building that you will be discussing tomorrow.

Much has been said on that project and I see know need to go into its history… You’ll already have reviews all that.  The choice you may make tomorrow is to recommend a contract for the construction of this 14,000 SF facility that has been in the planning stage for so long. At the last Facilities meeting, the revised estimate for the construction of the building is almost $4 MM. After you add the cost of land acquisition, planning and architects, legal, and other sunk costs… This facility could well coat almost $5 MM. On a price per square foot basis, this gets pretty close to $300/SF.

I work financing commercial real estate and I’d like to share some insights.  In a commercial loan scenario, a lender would give you only a portion of the value of a piece of real estate (typically 65-75%). This discipline is adhered to for obvious reasons..,. The lender would like to get paid back.  If they don’t get paid back frontmen owner, they’d like to see their way to get their money back through taking the real estate back and selling it. Why is the germane?  You’re a not for profit building for your own needs. Here’s why the above is important:  you are borrower inc the money. Further you’re borrowing it on the back of the taxpayers. You just completed a large bond offering.  You have a AAA rating based primarily on the ability of the citizens of our community to pay taxes. Indeed, WE; the taxpayer, are the security for this loan.

As THE security for your bond issue, I would appreciate it if you would apply the same discipline that you would see from a normal commercial real estate deal. If you had that building appraised… You would find out it’s worth about $1 MM. Don’t believe that?  Find out…have it appraised OR ask Tripp Lukens on the Planning Board…. He’s a commercial appraiser and would be happy to speak on value, likely for no charge. At least investigate it…please don’t pay 4x value for a non-strategic asset (one where no learning takes place).

I know you’ve spent considerable time on THIS plan but now it’s costs have far out-stripped it’s utility/value….my opinion. And my opinion should matter; I guaranteed the bond issue by being a citizen of this community. You should not pay anywhere near the amounts recently released by Facility for this asset. There ARE other alternatives….lease/buy an older building/etc. At $4-$5 MM of money borrowed on the credit of this community; you must go look at new alternatives.

Thank you-and I apologize for any miss-spellings; writing on my handheld without glasses.

Neal Colligan

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

New Twist in TESD Aides & Paraeducators Outsourcing — Neal Colligan v. Tredyffrin Easttown School District in PA Open Records Case

During the last two years, the aides and paraeducators working in the Tredyffrin Easttown School District have lived with the threat of outsourcing. Given that we live in a wealthy Philadelphia suburb with an award right_to_know_squarewinning, nationally ranked school district, it is difficult to understand how the TESD leaders would seek to outsource valuable employee jobs rather than offer health care benefits as required by the Affordable Care Act. Due to the delay of ACA compliance enforcement, the aides and paras were able to continue their employment through the 2014/15 school year.

With the outsourcing threat present since 2013, residents continued to support the aides and paras, the only group of District employees not covered by health insurance (and the only group of employees without collective bargaining status).  Many in the community questioned the Board’s decision to outsource to avoid the cost of complying with ACA and … if this was the right alternative for the TE School District.

The journey of the District aides and paras moved forward during the 2014/15 school year, knowing that the Board continued to discuss their outsourcing future as a budget strategy. In a surprise move, the School Board approved a resolution to change the employment status of the 73 full-time aides and paras at the February 3, 2015 TESD meeting. The action was taken without notice, other than listing ‘Affordable Care Act Update’ on the meeting agenda, and after five secret executive session discussions held on November 5, 2014, December 16, 2014, January 12, 2015,  January 20, 2015 and February 3, 2015.

The Board’s February 3, 2015 action to outsource disrespected our expectation of good government.  Some residents believed that a PA Sunshine Act violation had occurred by the Board’s action, whether by misinterpretation or misapplication of the language of the Act, or … by intention.  Adding insult to injury, the affected group of aides and paras, learned of the Board’s decision via email at 10:30 PM following the February 3 Board meeting.

The Sunshine Act defines when government bodies must conduct official business in public and private, when they should allow public comment, and how and when to advertise meetings. The Act is a mechanism to increase public participation in the democratic process by minimizing secrecy in public affairs.  The School Board has had a longstanding practice of meeting in executive session before its regular meetings. In the case of the February 3 policy decision regarding the Affordable Care Act, the discussions were held in private during 5 Executive Sessions, out of the light of the public eye and without benefit of public deliberation.

Believing that the Board’s actions of February 3 regarding the aides and paras violated the spirit and letter of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, a small group of concerned citizens (Neal Colligan, Ray Clarke, Barbara Jackson, Peggy Layden, Jerry Henige and I) sent a February 13, 2015 letter to the Board.  The request was simple … they asked the School Board to re-open the outsourcing discussion at the School Board meeting on February 23, to provide a thorough financial analysis of the ACA options and strategies, an explanation of suggested policy changes, and to allow for adequate resident commentary. As residents, these residents believed that with quick action at the February 23 meeting, the Board could remedy the process and maintain the trust of the community in the integrity of the District’s governance. The resident’s suggestion to re-open the outsourcing discussion was disregarded.

In an email dated February 20, the District’s solicitor Ken Roos responded (on behalf of the Board) to the residents’ letter of February 13, stating in part, “… At no time was the Sunshine Act violated. Moreover, the February 3, 2015 Board vote on this fully disclosed agenda item occurred after a lengthy public presentation, public Board discussion and public comment in full compliance with the Sunshine Act…”

Troubled by the dismissive and trivializing response, it remained clear that the District had not provided adequate notice to the public regarding the proposed policy changes nor specific reasons for each of the five Executive Session discussions of the Affordable Care Act; further adding to the Sunshine Act violation case. Residents and signers of the February 13 letter appealed to the Board to step from behind the words of the solicitor, to take the situation seriously and to think independently.  Again, there was no response from the Board in this regard.

Lacking an adequate response from TESD and the School Board to the February 13 letter, Neal Colligan filed a Right-to-Know Request with the District, on February 18 with the following request:

“All records relating to the implementation and execution of the TESD Resolution of February 3, 2015 regarding the Affordable Care Act updates since November 1, 2014, including all documents used to formulate, communicate, explain or justify the ACA Resolution not disseminated in public meetings.

Of particular interest are the 5 closed (Executive Session) meetings referenced by the Board President on 2/3/15, and all written communications and meeting notices and records thereof related to the discussion on this topic.”

On March 27, Colligan received a response to his RTK request from the District’s Open Records Officer Art McDonnell with two attachments – the public power point presentation of the Affordable Care Act presented at the February 3 Board Meeting and an email exchange between School Board member Virginia Lastner and a resident. Neither of these items related to the Executive Session ‘behind closed door’ ACA discussions and the outsourcing of the District’s aides and paras.  McDonnell’s response to Colligan’s RTK request:

Art McDonnell response

Colligan resplied to McDonnell and the School Board via email on March 27, 2015, noting that that both his first and last name were spelled incorrectly in the response and added that,  although his RTK request was made using his personal e-mail address, McDonnell’s response was sent to Colligan’s business email. The remainder of Colligan’s email reads as follows:

Your response and timing of response in this matter is very disappointing to me.  I’ve made a number of Open Records requests over the years and this is the second one DENIED.  Interestingly, those are the only two responses that took the maximum 30 days to receive.  While you are certainly within the boundaries of the law on these responses, I would think a Denial could be formulated much sooner in the process.  Water under the bridge….

My request was plainly written and, I assumed, easy to understand.

I was asking for the documents related to the closed Executive Sessions that occurred before the presentation on February 3, 2015 on this year; to the extent they were available and public.  What I received (attached) was the Power Point presentation from the 2/3/15 meeting and several e-mail chains between citizens and Mrs. Lastner dated after this critical meeting date.  Added to this was your denial that includes three different legal reasons for the denial of the request.  Wholly unsatisfying to this member of the community who was as puzzled as the rest of us regarding how a sensitive issue like this could have been made in a series of closed-door Executive Sessions.  I was hopeful that some light could be shed on your deliberations and decision-making thought matrix but that is not going to be the case.

It seems you have done a great deal of legal work here although the legal opinion and defenses articulated in your reply likely did not take outside research.  I’m sorry if you choose to spend valuable legal dollars just to deny this request.  If that was the intent, the response could have been forwarded last month when I made the request for Open Records.  The inclusion of post 2/3/15 items was outside of the scope of my request and it is my firm hope that you did not pay for legal review of these (and other post meeting communications) for redaction/exclusion for this Open Records response.

I’m not a lawyer and will not argue your various legal reasons for denying the request.  I know plenty of smart lawyers would tell me the counter to each of these defenses but I’m not looking to play that game.  I do know that there are many groups/organizations/people/firms dedicated to good and open government in the Commonwealth.  I’m also aware that the process for appeal of Open Records denials is a fairly simple and user friendly process…this is to insure that average citizens can shed light on the deliberations of government bodies in PA.  I’m very likely to take those steps and seek that help.  First I will confer with the other members of our community who supported me in this endeavor.  But I ask each of you: Is this the level of openness and transparency that you think appropriate for this issue?  Really, when you stood for election to your seat; is this the relationship with the community you wanted?  This is not the first time that transparency has become as issue; isn’t there one/some of you who would like to see this relationship change; the School Board become more open in process?  I know the answer is YES but we need someone brave enough to voice the opinion and insist on transparent government and it can’t come from the public.

Colligan shared the District’s response to the RTK request and his reply to Art McDonnell (above) with the other signers of the February 13 letter.  The District’s response did not support the claim for exemption from public access and those claims are not applicable in this specific case.  Although McDonnell states that the RTK was granted ‘in part’ —  neither of the two records provided are germane to the request. The District’s RTK denial request contained provisions for an appeal to Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, part of PA Department of Community and Economic Development, within fifteen business days.

On March 28, 2015, Colligan took the next step in the process and filed an appeal with the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records office. He provided requested background documentation, including copies of the original RTK request, response and records from the District. The case, Colligan v. Tredyffrin-Easttown School District, Docket No. 2015-0442 is assigned to Appeals Officer Jill Wolfe, Esq. in Harrisburg.  Colligan is required to provide all supporting information and a legal argument by Wednesday, April 8 to the Open Records Office.  A final ruling on the appeal will be made within 30 days.

Transparency in government is not a new issue. John Adams, 2nd president of the United States, wrote, “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right and a desire to know.”  Through his Right-to-Know request and his open records appeal, Neal Colligan is asking for transparency and easily accessible information which should be public information.  He is not looking to unearth government secrets … simply asking for public information.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Community Matters © 2019 Frontier Theme