Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Easttown Township

Radnor’s Proposed Budget Calls for 17% Real Estate Tax Increase; Phoenixville Talks of Cutting Police Force & Lower Merion Residents Collecting Signatures in Opposition of Their Tax Increase

November 21, 2010
28 Comments

Lower Merion’s proposed 2011 budget indicates a 14.7% real estate tax increase . . . Phoenixville is working with a 24.7% proposed increase . . . Easttown Township announced their proposed budget includes a 5.3% real estate tax increase and on Friday, Radnor Township released their 2011 operating budget which indicates a 17 percent real estate tax increase! Radnor residents will be facing this 17 percent real estate tax increase for 2011 on the heels of 2010’s 11 percent increase.

Radnor’s administration points to similar problems as other neighboring municipalities due to the economy and that the municipality is struggling to recover from the recession. With revenue growth slowed, Radnor is looking at various ways to reduce operating expenditures. Included with Radnor’s budgetary information, is a memorandum from the assistant township manager, William Martin which details some suggestions for increased revenue. Some of these suggestions are interesting – I wonder if any of these revenue recommendations or expenditure reductions are suggestions that Tredyffrin should consider. I have highlighted some of Martin’s suggestions below:

Revenue Recommendations

  • Sell Selected Parcels of Township-owned Land
  • Negotiate Payment in Lieu of Tax with Universities and Colleges
  • Lease Office Space in Township Building
  • Perform audit of Cable TV Franchise License and permit fees
  • Increase Youth Sports Program Field Maintenance Fee for non-resident participants to $25 per participant
  • Consider corporate naming rights for select Township assets

Expenditure Reductions Suggestions

  • Reduce total employee expenses by 8% in 2011
  • Implement a moratorium on acquisition of land or open space
  • Reduce Township facility costs to maximize the value
  • Reduce Legal Expenses
  • Mandate within legal limits that employees use accrued vacation
  • Explore share services agreements with neighboring townships
  • Evaluate Parks and Recreation Programs that do not met expenses
  • Review status of government and public access television channels
  • Perform energy audit
  • Reduce usage of Township vehicles
  • Rely on Citizen groups instead of hiring consultants
  • Perform audit of purchases to insure sales taxes are not paid

In looking at various ways to increase charges for services in Radnor, the administration is proposing to amend the local inspection laws to include mandatory inspection of all rental units in Radnor Township (to include colleges/universities) and to increase the fee to better align it with the cost of providing these inspections (rather than having a general tax). I am imagining all kinds of problems with this mandatory inspection . . . cost of inspection and scheduling issues, privacy concerns, etc. It would appear that managing a mandatory inspection idea would not be easy. Owning a rental property myself in Tredyffrin, I am not sure how I feel about this idea.

Still grappling with the 24.7% proposed real estate tax increase in Phoenixville, there is some discussion about cutting two police officers from the budget to help lower the $600K+ deficit. It is my understanding that Phoenixville is already understaffed with their current police force. With the economic downturn and unemployment rising, it would seem that crime could also be on the increase (particularly with the holidays coming) . . . so I’m not sure that cutting back the police force is the correct approach. Apparently all departments have reduced costs by 10% and that all that is left is to look at reducing the police force.

The recently announced proposed 12.7% proposed real estate tax increase in Lower Merion has residents rightfully upset. To counter the proposed 2011 budget, residents are getting their voices heard through an online petition (1400+ signatures to date). Wonder if the Lower Merion’s Commissioners are likely to give any credence to the petition? http://www.petitiononline.com/lmcrb11/petition.html

To: The Commissions of Lower Merion Township

Petition – 2011 Lower Merion Township Proposed Budget

Economic indicators demonstrate that our Country is still struggling to recover from recession.

Since 2002, Lower Merion Township has raised the real estate tax millage rate by a total of 44.3% and has doubled its indebtedness (from $56 million to $112 million).

Lower Merion Township has raised the real estate tax millage rate in seven (7) of the last eight (8) years.

In 2010, Lower Merion Township raised trash collection fees between 10% – 41% for most residents.

Now, the Township Manager of Lower Merion Township has proposed a 12.7% increase in the real estate tax millage rate for 2011 which, if passed, would mean a cumulative increase of 62.6% since 2002, the year in which the current Township Manager was appointed.

The Lower Merion Township Manager proposes to increase 2011 spending by 5.5% over 2010 spending, which adds to past additional spending and represents a cumulative increase in spending of 45% since 2002.

By contrast, since 2002, inflation has increased 20.44% (through September 30), and overall national wages have grown just 22% (through 2009).

Further, the Township Manager has targeted a 17% General Fund Reserve Balance. The Township’s reserve policy has a goal of maintaining the General Fund Reserve Balance in the range of 15% – 18% of the Township’s prior year general fund expenditures.

While it is the Township Manager’s role to propose a budget each year, it is the responsibility of elected Township Commissioners to determine the amount of spending to authorize and to approve a final budget.

We believe that a 12.7% real estate tax increase is an unaffordable, unsustainable and unacceptable outcome and implore the Township Commissioners to significantly reduce proposed 2011 general fund expenditures, to draw down the General Fund Reserve Balance to 15%, and to avoid much or all of the proposed real estate tax increase at this difficult economic time.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

TESD Facilities Committee Meeting – Presentation of $3 Million Plan to Upgrade IT Network

November 12, 2010
12 Comments

Ray Clarke attended the school district’s Facilities Committee meeting and graciously sent me notes. Although I have been married to a computer marketing guru for 30 years, I certainly don’t claim to have any understanding of the IT world. However, it is almost certain that when organizations make significant IT changes/upgrades — they are nearly out of date by the time they are installed. Because computer technology is constantly changing and advancing in today’s world, it can be difficult (and costly) to stay current. Technology experts — we could use your thoughts on the school district’s IT network upgrade plans.

Ray Clarke’s TESD Facilities Committee Meeting Notes . . .

Friday’s TESD Facilities Committee meeting was most notable for a presentation of a $3 million plan to upgrade the IT network. Happily, the Committee gave approval for only initial consultant planning work. Hopefully more of the community can be present for that report to learn what exactly is to be done, when, and what the practical user benefits will be.

The basic argument went as follows: “Text books and teaching materials are becoming more available electronically. Therefore we need a) higher speeds in the district network, and b) wireless network availability throughout the high school (already in place?), the middle schools and eventually the elementary schools.” The consultant waved his iPad, and stated it was useless without a network. But, is the converse also true?

Are we therefore setting the District up for an ongoing cascade of expenditure? The Committee was adamantly against the provision of mobile devices to students. Will they therefore be able to bring their own? Will our classrooms come to resemble the Ivy League class my wife and I sat in on, where 90% of the students were on Facebook, playing video games, IM’ing their buddies a few rows down, etc.?

The $3 million will expand the network speed from 1 to 10 gigabtyes per second. That’s nice. Is the network slow now? What’s the current capacity? What’s the correlation between capacity and response time perceived by the user? How much capacity does a “multi-media-rich, interactive web-based” class need? How many such classes could the current network support? What would happen if every class had one of those presentations at the same time? (And if they did, what would that say about our ability to have our students actually engage in stimulating discussion with the teacher and their peers, and actually learn to THINK?)

We’ll know the temperature and humidity in the switch closets. Also nice to know, but are we having sauna/steam room problems now? Further, it would be nice to have every phone in the school have immediate emergency power before the generators kick in, but what problems are created by the current situation?

I trust that there are answers to these and other questions. Dr Motel and the Committee were absolutely right in not giving carte blanche to this proposal and in asking for a real plan. Perhaps the bottom line question should be: How will our students benefit?

The 10 year capital plan – without solutions for district storage and maintenance facilities and with no provision for ongoing IT needs – shows the $15 million from last year’s bond being used up during 2014/15. The next tranche of bond funds at the same interest rate would be available just in time (I think (?)). Otherwise that $9 million designated for capital in the General Fund (if indeed it’s still there) would be needed.

Not much leeway, it seems to me.

PA Turnpike Update Open House – Tuesday, November 16

November 9, 2010
Comments

Public Invited to Turnpike Open House for Update on Six-Lane Widening Project West of Valley Forge Exit

  • Project Update
  • Open House Plans Display
  • Total Reconstruction & Widening Project, Mileposts 320-326
  • Future Rt. 29 Interchange – Valley Forge Interchange

Tuesday, November 16, 2010
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Clarion Hotel
(Valley Forge Ballroom)
480 N. Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission invites the community to attend a project update open house to view revised engineering design plans to rebuild and widen the Turnpike between Milepost 320 (Future Rt. 29 All Electronic Interchange) and Milepost 326 (Valley Forge Interchange) in Chester and Montgomery Counties.

Informative project displays and mapping will be available for public review and representatives from the community, the Turnpike and its consultant team will be on hand to answer questions.

Questions can be directed to Don Steele or Mimi Doyle at the Pennsylvania Turnpike’s Eastern Regional Office (610-279-1645) 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m., Monday – Friday. The meeting facility is ADA accessible; however, requests for special needs or accommodations to facilitate public participation should be directed to Mimi Doyle.

For Project Updates Visit www.paturnpike.com

Tredyffrin’s 2011 Budget Unveiled – No Tax Increase! TESD Finance Comittee News Not as Positive

November 9, 2010
19 Comments

Due to last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting change (due to Election Day), I was unable to attend. However, I have received an update about the township’s proposed 2011 budget. (Here is a link to the proposed 2011 budget). It is my understanding that the proposed budget includes (1) no increase in taxes; (2) no reduction in township services or personnel; and (3) restoring of fire company contributions to 2009 levels. Considering that Lower Merion’s residents are facing a 12.7% tax increase in their 2011 budget, last night’s news is particularly good for Tredyffrin residents!

Having not see the proposed budget and having not attended last night’s supervisors meeting, I do have a question for anyone who did attend — how was the township building’s HVAC capital expense factored in to the 2011 budget? If you recall, there has been much discussion about valve and duct work replacement in the HVAC system and the associated costs. Does anyone have information how the needed HVAC work was treated in the proposed 2011 budget?

Although last night’s supervisors meeting was over by 8:15 PM, it seems that there was more discussion at TESD’s Finance Committee meeting. I counted on my friend, Ray Clarke to provide notes from the meeting and as usual, his detailed notes did not let me down. Thank you Ray!

TESD Finance Committee Notes from Ray Clarke —

Monday’s TESD Finance Committee meeting was largely devoting to laying the groundwork for property tax increases.

This year’s revenues and expenses are largely in balance, with the shortfall in transfer taxes offset by Harrisburg’s deferral of PSERS costs and many smaller ups (eg salaries) and downs (eg FTEs). The projection for next year remains for the moment at a $6.9 million deficit, but a detailed review of the assumptions in the model revealed another $1 million of overly optimistic assumptions: a 1% increase in assessed value and a 2% return on investments. (The $1 million over-generous (in today’s times) transfer tax formula was not discussed). The model will be re-worked with new assumptions (a 0.26% assessment decline and a 1% investment return, not done at the meeting), but it seems clear to me that the deficit is going to be north of $8 million, as discussed here last month.

Leftover 2010/11 budget strategies likely to be implemented in 2011/12 could be worth a benefit of $0.8 million, although they would have to be phased in only as attrition allows.

The Board then reviewed the timetable for the processes required to a) define and request available exceptions to the increase property taxes beyond the Act 1 limit ($1.2 million) and b) prepare a referendum question for a property tax increase beyond the probable [Act 1 + Exception] limit ($2.8 million).

What this means is that the proposed preliminary budget must be discussed at the next Finance Committee meeting on December 13th if the School Board is to vote on requesting exceptions at its January 24th meeting.

If there is any intent to raise taxes above the Act 1 limit, the 2011/12 budget must be adopted by mid-February.

So, the pressure is on in the next couple of months. If the Board voted against even considering whether to ask the community to implement an EIT that 40% are already paying, can they really ask for a referendum to increase property taxes by a greater amount? The alternative is likely to be raiding the General Fund for the $5 million shortfall (bringing it down to $23 million), and thus pushing off the problem until 2012/13, . Likely still OK for the bond rating.

In that year, of course, the PSERS problem will hit hard under the current formula – a $5 – 6 million net cost increase. Plus of course another 4.5% TENIG increase and a new TEEA contract. A deficit, after more property tax increases, of $10 million, say. That would take the fiund balance into tricky territory. There was much discussion of the need for a state fix to PSERS and the spectre of School District bankruptcies (not TESD!) was raised.

Maybe it will actually take defaults and bond-holder restructuring to force the kind of constitutional changes needed to reform current pension plans. Dealing with the problem by squeezing new hires may solve long run accounting, but will there be enough cash to get through the short term, and if we do, how will we be able to attract a next generation of teachers of the needed caliber?

There’s probably more to comment on, but I’ll stop with the interesting sidebar that the average wage cost of a teacher used in calculation of budget strategy savings was raised from $73,000 to $80,000 – a 9.6% increase. This recognizes the actual individual year-on-year salary increase built in to the current contract and hidden in the 5% numbers much publicized officially.

Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board’s Finance Committee Meeting – Tonight – As Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors Unveil their Proposed 2011 Budget

November 8, 2010
2 Comments

The T/E School Board’s Finance Committee Meeting is tonight, Monday, Nov. 8, at 7:30 PM. The next school-board meeting is scheduled for Monday, Nov. 22, at 7:30 PM. Meetings are held at the school district’s administration offices, Room 200, West Valley Business Center, 940 W. Valley Road, Suite 1700, Wayne. Here is the Finance Committee agenda.

A visit to the school district’s website offers Earned Income Tax information, updated on October 26 after the T/E School Board decided not to move forward with the EIT referendum at their October 25 school board meeting.

As a follow-up to the last T/E school board meeting, here is an article that appeared in yesterday’s Main Line Media paper. The school board’s Finance Committee meeting occurs tonight as the township’s Board of Supervisors unveil their proposed 2011 budget. Could be an interesting night on both accounts!

T/E School Board shelves EIT; 2011-12 budget gap remains
By Alan Thomas

Hang on. There may be a collision.

The Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board decided not to push an earned income tax of 1 percent for Tredyffrin and Easttown residents for 2011-12 during its Oct. 25 meeting while, at the same time, its Web site notes that the district is facing a “projected budget gap for the 2011-12 school year of $6.9 million.”

The tax proposal would have been subject to approval in a May 2011 primary-election-ballot referendum. And so the EIT proposal was apparently advanced as the preferred way of avoiding hitting the budget gap head-on. Or so it might have seemed.

At a community informational meeting held at Conestoga High School Oct. 18, around 100 residents heard presentations from Pennsylvania Economy League representative Steve Wray and school-district solicitor Kenneth Roos laying out both advantages and disadvantages to the levy. A week later the board decided not to move forward with the EIT while also moving to “further study” the topic in 2011.

Board secretary and business manager Arthur J. McDonnell said that “the process [of looking at the possibility of an EIT] was started about a year ago. We came up with a series of strategies [to overcome the projected budget gap].” With the present proposal now tabled, McDonnell said that the board would “begin studying it [again] in early spring.” McDonnell did not comment on reasons why the board had made an apparent U-turn.

According to a Web-obtained document attributed to “Inquirer research on county ballot documents,” 63 school districts in Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties have or are proposing either EITs or PITs. Personal income taxes (PITs) include dividends, interest, income from trusts, bonds, insurance and stocks as taxable whereas EITs do not.

According to Berkheimer Tax Administrator and posted on the school district’s FAQ Web page, “one-third of the T/E residents currently employed are paying an EIT [to another school district, totaling $3.58 million].”

The projected budget gap will be there.

Berwyn Fire Company’s Annual Halloween Parade – Saturday, October 30th – Public Invited!

October 27, 2010
Comments

You are Invited!

Berwyn Fire Company’s Annual Halloween Parade
When: Saturday, October 30
Time: 7 – 8:30 PM
Where: Parade starts at First & Bridge Ave. Berwyn and ends at the Berwyn Fire Company

The Annual Halloween Parade in Berwyn is this Saturday and the community is invited! Sponsored by the Devon-Berwyn Business Association, the Berwyn Fire Company is hosting their Annual Halloween Parade for the community.

Please arrive by 6:45 PM so that the parade can begin at 7 PM. Open to all ages there will be prizes for the scariest, funniest, and cutest costumes. Following the parade, light refreshments will be served at the fire station – and judging of costumes!

Thank you Berwyn Fire Company and Devon-Berwyn Business Association!

School Board Votes Against Continuing EIT Discussion at this Time

October 26, 2010
52 Comments

The vote last night by the T/E School Board stunned me – they voted 7-2 against sending a notification letter to the Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships that the school district would consider a voter referendum on the EIT on the May ballot. Their vote last night was only to continue the process of discovery – there was no downside to the notification to the townships. The School Board would still have until the March 18, 2011 deadline to decide whether to take it to voter referendum in May. Kevin Mahoney and Anne Crowley believed that it was important to continue the public discussion and voted in favor of sending the notification to the townships; the other 7 members of the school board voted against.

I do not understand this school board decision. Faced with a $7 million deficit that needs to be funded, why would these seven board members take an option off the table prematurely? The school board may not have enough details now to make a decision about the voter referendum but the beauty of the vote last night was that they did not need to make a decision now – just buy themselves some more time by notifying the townships and continuing to work towards a March decision. After continuing to research their options, if the March 18, 2011 deadline came and the School Board was not comfortable with a voter referendum on the issue, they could decide then not to take if any further. However, by taking it ‘off the table’ last night, seven members of the School Board took away that option.

Why did the School Board go to the trouble of having a public meeting on EIT if this was going to be the outcome? Why not handle the decision democratically and let the public weigh in? Whether it is an increase in property taxes, imposing an EIT, cutting programs and/or staff . . . something is going to have to change and there will be a cost to the taxpayers and/or to the school district programming. Again, why remove one of the options unnecessarily without full discussion?

A reason to vote against continuing the process by some of the School Board members could be the thought that the EIT referendum would fail out the polls in May . . . but without a crystal ball, how could they know?

In my opinion, with the school district facing a $7 million deficit, keeping all options on the table as long as possible should be the goal of the school board, rather than second-guessing the future. Perhaps the 7 members of the School Board have some kind of funding solution in mind for the future . . . taking on the teacher union at the next contract negotations?

Ray Clark attended last night’s School Board meeting and provided the following notes:

At its meeting on Monday, the School Board voted 7-2 against sending to the Townships a letter of intent regarding the implementation of an EIT in 2011/12 and for setting up a Commission to study the issue between May and September 2011. Kevin Mahoney was in favor of sending the letter to allow continued discussion this year, while Anne Crowley wanted further information for another Board meeting before the November deadline for the letter.

The most common reasons advanced in favor of the delay were:
– An EIT could maybe be a good idea, but in the opinion of the Board, the voters would vote it down if presented with options and asked next year.
– There is not enough time (5 months (October 26 2010 to March 18 2011) to resolve the many unknowns (versus May to September 2011?).
– Because T/E will have to solve the $8 million gap problem by cutting education programs, drawing down the fund balance and/or going to a property tax referendum, there will be pressure on the unions to accept compensation reductions in the contract beginning 2012/13 and 2013/14.
– Harrisburg will eventually fund PSERS at no incremental cost to T/E.
– That an EIT will harm property values more than a property tax increase.

Betsy Fadem introduced a nice piece of analysis by calculating the percentage of residents (seniors, income earners, children, maybe pets [just kidding!]) who are currently paying an EIT, and implying that all the remaining residents would have to pay an EIT if it were introduced by T/E. Thankfully Kevin Mahoney was able to point out that there are five residents in his household, but only one is, and would be, paying an EIT!

Separately, but relatedly, Karen Cruickshank noted that the Education Committee had voted in favor of increasing teacher workload at CHS and of an effective reduction in CHS periods (combined expense-saving potential, assuming workforce reduction through attrition, approx $1.5 million per year).

I would definitely encourage residents to watch the replay of the meeting to assess their representatives’ perspectives.

Ray Clarke Pens Letter to the Editor in Favor of a TESD Earned Income Tax Consideration

October 20, 2010
27 Comments

Ray Clarke attended the T/E School District’s Earned Income Tax presentation this week and wrote the following Letter to the Editor. On Monday, October 25 the School Board will decide whether to move forward with a May referendum on the EIT. As Ray explains, the school district will not be able to move forward with an EIT unless it receives the vote of the residents. I hope that the School Board members will vote on Monday to continue the process . . . it’s important that residents have the opportunity to participate with their vote in May.

Pro-TESD EIT

To the Editor:

Next Monday, Oct. 25, the Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board will take a vote that is critical to the financial prospects of the district and its residents: should it go forward with consideration of an Earned Income Tax (EIT) as one tool to fill the looming budget gap? Last night (Oct. 18) the board held an excellent, well-attended information session explaining the tax and its implementation, and I encourage all residents to watch the broadcast (times on the TESD Web site, www.tesd.k12.pa.us) and then make their views known to the board.

School-district expenses are continuing their inexorable rise, fueled by compensation costs: contracted salary increases, health-care costs and pension costs. The official projection for 2011-12 is for a $7-million gap with extremely favorable assumptions for investment income and transfer taxes risking another $2 million. Last year T/E cut some $6 million in expenses, drew down its Fund Balance reserves and contained its property-tax increase to the Act 1 limit of 2.9 percent. This year the options are more limited. Salaries can only be reduced through attrition, even if programs are cut. Supplies expenses are already back to 2008-9 levels. Real-estate assessments are being appealed at record rates. The state cap on property-tax increases is worth only $1.2 million.

An EIT would be one way to limit the pain for taxpayers, 40 percent of whom already pay such a tax to the municipality in which they work. This money (perhaps as much as $6 million) would come back to benefit the district. The tax is low-cost to collect, diversifies the tax base away from dependence on the property market and would not, by definition, impact those who have lost their jobs. Ninety-five percent of jurisdictions in the state have an EIT: those that do not are mostly clustered around Philadelphia. This is a legacy of the days when taxes paid in the city would not benefit the taxing locality; now there is the potential for gaming revenues to fill that gap and directly offset property taxes if there is a local EIT.

The school district cannot implement an EIT without approval from residents voting in the primary next May. The process to put the question on the ballot requires a – non-binding – notice to the townships of the intent to put the question on the ballot. This is the reason for next week’s board vote.

Many unknowns remain. In particular, would the townships jump on the coattails and claim the 50/50 split of the revenue to which they are entitled? How much can expenses be cut? What is the best-case budget gap? How large would the property-tax increase have to be absent an EIT, and would that increase have to be put to voter referendum? What would the EIT rate be and how much money would it raise? What would be the likely property-tax offset, if any?

It’s important that the school board vote to continue to explore these questions, and allow the voters to make their voice heard next May.

Raymond F. Clarke, Malvern

T/E School Board Holds Public Informational Meeting Tonight on Earned Income Tax (EIT)

October 18, 2010
2 Comments

As the T/E School District begins the budget development process for 2011-2012, a budget balancing strategy from last year was to determine the effect an earned income tax (EIT) would have on the school district and its residents. Tonight (7:30 – 9:00 PM, Conestoga High School auditorium) is an informational presentation from a representative from the Pennsylvania Economy League.

The School Board will not make a decision tonight; in regards to an EIT; the session is strictly informational. Again, I applaud the efforts of the School Board in their willingness to disseminate the EIT information in a transparent, public manner. This public meeting tonight is a good first step — educating the School Board and the community on EIT so an informed decision can be made at a later date.

On the subject of the School Board, the following letter came across my desk today from the president-CEO of the nonprofit research and educational group, Commonwealth Foundation. There are some harsh words for the teacher unions. With many of the local teacher contracts up for negotiations, it is going to be interesting to see how wide-spread the negativity towards teacher unions is and how it will affect the process.

Dear Commonwealth Foundation Friends:

Support for school choice is becoming more and more bipartisan, as both sides of the ideological aisle begin to realize that maybe—just maybe—the teachers unions have their own agenda, and that ensuring the best possible education for our kids may not be their first priority.

In last Monday’s update, I mentioned that I was scheduled to testify that Wednesday before a Senate Education Committee hearing on the future of school choice and opportunity scholarships. It was quite an experience: an all-day free-for-all that included a remarkable exchange between Senator Andrew Dinniman, the Democratic Chairman of the committee, and a Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) representative, whom Sen. Dinniman sharply criticized for frustrating committee efforts to meet to discuss reform measures. Sen. Dinniman event went so as to wonder alond whether PSEA’s commitment to students is just “window dressing.”

We’ve known all along that teacher union bosses care first and foremost about one thing: preserving their own taxpayer-funded perks and cushy pensions, while at the same time making sure that they are never made to justify any of it. Meanwhile, the poorest and most vulnerable of our kids are being warehoused in failing schools, while these well-paid union reps stand at the schoolhouse door, blocking any reform that might make a real difference in the lives and futures of these kids. It’s outrageous.

We know that whoever wins next month’s gubernatorial campaign, our next governor will be sympathetic to the issue of choice in education. Though we may be getting a friendlier and more receptive set of ears in the Governor’s Mansion come January, this debate is by no means over. Any measures to reform our schools will be seen as a threat to the teachers unions and to the entrenched bureaucrats whose very careers and livelihoods depend on maintaining the status quo. We’re going to keep up the good fight. Together, we will work to ensure that every child in the Commonwealth has access to a safe, top-notch education, regardless of his or her family income, or the zip code in which he or she happens to live!

Fighting for Your Freedom,

Matthew J. Brouillette
President & CEO

Would the Founding Fathers Be Happy?

October 17, 2010
30 Comments

It’s only 2-1/2 weeks until Election Day 2010, and it’s not easy to find something that Americans agree on these days.

Referencing our own backyard, the Philadelphia Inquirer today refers to the Drucker-Kampf Race as a ‘battleground house race’. With just a couple of weeks remaining until Election Day, the rhetoric continues at a heightened level with much at stake . . . both sides dissatisfied with the other and both parties anxious to see their candidate win. The growing tension is recognized everywhere we look . . . I am receiving nearly daily robocalls from campaigns in addition to regular candidate mailings.

We turn on the news and there is more mud-slinging and political divide. We have witnessed the emergence of the Tea-Party Movement, describing themselves as a “community committed to standing together, shoulder to shoulder, to protect our country and the Constitution upon which we were founded.”

Locally, the Valley Forge Patriots website claims Tea-Party Conservative status and the goal of their organization “to protest and act to remove: out of control federal spending, impending huge taxation of ALL Americans, governmental and corporate fraud and abuse, and legislation which will reduce our Freedoms, Invade, and Control our Personal Lives.” The group honors Glenn Beck and asks that supporters join their weekly mall rallies on Rt. 202, King of Prussia, noon to 3 PM each Saturday. I find myself struggling to understand some of the tea-party viewpoints; but it is apparent that others do support and are following their cause.

Anger, hatred, discontent . . . it’s so hard to see this in America today. Will the results of Election Day 2010 somehow ‘right’ the wrongs of the past and satisfy those looking for a change? Will Americans wake up the morning after Election Day and believe that the government will now self-correct to their liking with the election results? Will having their candidate win on Election Day suddenly improve their quality of life? Will the partisan political divide somehow lessen based on who wins the election?

Interesting questions . . . especially, as we look at our own battleground and the Drucker-Kampf state house race.

Pressure on for Pa. midterm . . . The balance of power in Harrisburg is at stake, and both parties are fighting hard to help their chances.
By Angela Couloumbis
Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG – Outside the halls of the Capitol, in the main streets of small towns and big cities, Democrats and Republicans are waging a fierce battle for control of the state House of Representatives. Just three seats separate haves from have-nots in the 203-member House, where Democrats hold the majority and the power that comes with it: the coveted ability to drive the legislative agenda and, next year, the upper hand in the once-a-decade redistricting process.

With so much at stake, both parties have been feverishly fund-raising, spending, and strategizing to get voters to pull the lever for them Nov. 2 . . .

Battleground House races in the Philadelphia suburbs include Rep. Barbara McIlvaine Smith (D., Chester) against Dan Truitt, Rep. Paul Drucker (D., Montgomery) against Warren Kampf, Rep. Steve Santarsiero (D., Bucks) against Rob Ciervo, Rep. Matt Bradford (D., Montgomery) against Jay Moyer, and Rep. Rick Taylor (D., Montgomery) against Todd Stephens.

G. Terry Madonna, veteran pollster at Franklin and Marshall College, said that given the political stakes, voters could expect to hear a lot in the next few weeks about these and other legislative races.

For starters, there is redistricting. State legislative and congressional districts are redrawn every 10 years based on the census. The process will start in earnest with the new legislature next year. If the GOP controls both chambers, the party could redraw the maps to benefit its candidates.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme