Pattye Benson

Community Matters

PA State House 157

Questions Posed to State Representative Candidates . . . Should Voters Expect Responses from Drucker & Kampf

July 22, 2010
58 Comments

Voters can visit the campaign websites of State House 157 candidates Paul Drucker and Warren Kampf and read about the issues . . . explore how the candidates feel about jobs, economy, spending, education, environment, etc. Using social media as an integral component of their campaigns, the candidates suggest that you follow them on Twitter, become their Facebook fan . . . sign up for email updates, etc. Drucker and Kampf give voters contact information including special campaign email addresses and encourage questions or comments from the public. Just this week, Kampf tweeted, “. . . if you have any questions or comments feel free to contact the campaign at contact@warrenkampf.com.”

Representing Community Matters, I recently contacted each of the candidates through their campaign websites. Based on Community Matters discussion and questions posed from readers, my questions to Drucker and Kampf were straightforward and non-confrontational. Candidates encourage questions from the public so I asked each a question and the results are in . . . below are the questions that I posed to Drucker and Kampf and their respective responses.

Recently, Drucker presented a $1 million check from the Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program to Strategic Realty for phase 1 funding of the Paoli Transit Center. In the press release, Drucker stated that the project would “. . . ultimately create more than 5,000 construction jobs and more than 2,000 permanent jobs in Paoli.”

My question to Drucker: Could you please provide the analysis for the 2,000 permanent jobs in Paoli that would be provided by the Paoli Transit Center Project?

Peter Monaghan, president of Strategic Realty provided Rep Drucker with further details on temporary job and permanent job estimates for the Paoli Transit Center Project. Estimates for permanent job creation are based on the square footage of planned office, retail and residential space. The private development component of the Paoli Transit Center project will yield approx. 300,000 sq. ft of office space, 75,000 sf of retail space and 525,000 sf of residential space. The formula for permanent jobs is as follows:

  • Retail: 75,000 sf @ 1 job/500sf = 150 jobs
  • Office: 300,000 sf @ 1 job/200sf = 1,500 jobs
  • Residential: 525,000 sf @ 1 job/10,000sf = 53 jobs
  • Transit: 50 jobs

A recent post on Community Matters prompted 80+ comments (including Phoenixville Councilman Ken Buckwalter). The subject of the post – the current FBI investigation of local attorney Jeffrey Rotwitt for his role in the Family Court land development project scandal in Philadelphia. In April, Rotwitt hosted a campaign fundraiser for State Rep candidate Warren Kampf. As a result of Kampf’s association with Jeffrey Rotwitt, Rep. Drucker released a statement calling for Kampf to return of money raised at the Rotwitt fundraiser. Hoping to provide Kampf an opportunity to respond to Drucker and to the resident’s interest in the topic, I contacted Kampf for a response.

My question to Kampf: Do you have an official response to Mr. Drucker concerning the FBI investigation of Mr. Rotwitt and money raised at your April political campaign fundraiser hosted by Mr. Rotwitt?

Unfortunately, there was not a response to my email by Kampf nor any acknowledgement of my communication. Not receiving a reply, I sent a follow-up email that repeated the question . . . to date, there remains no response. For me, I am left to wonder why Mr. Kampf sent this tweet to his followers “. . . if you have any questions or comments feel free to contact the campaign at contact@warrenkampf.com.”

State’s Rights of Interstate Tolling May Pose an Additional Transportation Issue for Drucker & Kampf . . . Tolling of I-95 in Pennsylvania?

July 17, 2010
Comments

The topic of 422 tolling has spurred much debate and discussion on Community Matters – along with the cost to develop the proposed 422 master plan and questions about how it would be financed. As a result, I was interested to read that there are plans in the works in Harrisburg for a special session to discuss transportation issues state-wide.

After recently passing the state’s budget, the idea is that the special session on transportation would present an opportunity to address Pennsylvania’s estimated $3 billion in needed revenue for transportation projects. A funding gap of $450 million was created when the Federal Highway Administration denied the tolling of I-80; the special session focus is to encourage the lawmakers to reach a consensus on how to fund the transportation funding gap.

Unfortunately, the $450 million number continues to increase. In May, the Transportation Advisory Committee said that it would take $3.5 billion annually to maintain Pennsylvania’s roadways over the next 20 years. That need is strongly linked to the increase of traffic predicted for the state’s roads. One report estimates that the number of trucks on Pennsylvania’s interstates will increase by 50% by 2030.

No date yet set for the special session but probably will occur in late August. It is hoped the meeting will encourage consensus building in tackling the considerable transportation issues. One of the specific areas of focus for the lawmakers will be I-95 as it runs through Philadelphia. This section is one of the most expensive to maintain because it is elevated nearly its entire route through the city. But I-95 is also one of the most important roads through the city and not an easy one to close for repairs and upgrades.

With tolling of I-80 off the table, I have read about some interesting proposals to help the transportation shortfall including a series of suggestions by State Rep Rick Geist (R-Blair) who serves as the minority chair of the Transportation Committee. One of Blair’s suggestions is to ask the federal government for the right to toll I-95 as it did for I-80. I don’t really see how there is any difference between the request to toll I-95 vs. I-80. In denying the I-80 toll request, the US Department of Transportation told the governor no tolling because state plans for use of the proceeds are not permitted under existing federal law.

My guess is that there is a grassroots effort to encourage the change in the law and to give the use of the state tolling revenue back to the individual states and out of the federal government hands. This poses an interesting situation regarding federal vs states rights as it relates to tolling of interstate highways. The state of North Carolina has determined that if they were to toll their 185 mi. stretch of I-95, revenue would be $300-350 million annually. So maybe the lawmakers in Harrisburg are going to seriously consider the tolling of I-95. But to expect a different outcome than received from the I-80 toll request would require Pennsylvania to join the movement to change the federal law and give authority of how the tolling dollars are spent to the individual states. How do we feel about changing federal law and giving more rights to the individual states as applied to interstate tolling? Remember the federal vs. state control issues . . .

Another idea of Griest’s is to raise the ceiling on the Oil Company Franchise Tax, which reached its current ceiling in 2006, and divesting the state police from the Motor License Fund, which could free up $500 million annual for transportation.

The chair of the House Transportation Committee, State Rep Joseph Markosek (D-Allegheny) said one idea which had gained some support was the use of public-private partnerships (known as P3’s), which allow private firms to manage public properties such as highways.

As an aside, a toll increase on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in January will make it the most expensive long toll road in the nation. This past week the Turnpike Commission approved a 3 percent increase for users of E-ZPass and 10 percent increase for cash customers, effective Jan. 2, 2011. That will raise the cash cost of driving the turnpike to 8.5 cents per mile, highest of the 11 U.S. toll roads of 100 miles or longer. Currently, the Pennsylvania and New Jersey turnpikes are tied at 7.7 cents per mile.

It is looking like 422 tolling may not be the only transportation topic debated in the upcoming Drucker – Kampf square off . . . I look forward to hearing the 157 candidate’s opinion on I-95 tolling and on federal vs. state’s rights on interstate tolling.

And just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water . . .

PA State House 157 Candidates Drucker & Kampf . . . Campaign Finance Reporting

June 16, 2010
32 Comments

In the days leading up to the May Primary, comparison of expenditures between State House 157 Republican candidates Ken Buckwalter and Warren Kampf was discussed on Community Matters. At that time, some Community Matters readers criticized me for not discussing the expenditures of Democrat candidate State House Representative Paul Drucker. I explained that as an unopposed, endorsed candidate I thought it would be more appropriate to compare Drucker’s campaign expenses after the Primary (when we knew the identify of his Republican opponent). However, as a reader has recently commented, the Primary is over, Warren Kampf is the Republican candidate and the campaign finance reports are available.

Comparing the latest campaign finance reports of 5/3/10 of both Drucker and Kampf was an interesting exercise. (Campaign finance reports are public documents). Looking at the campaign finance reports shows you various things, including the level of funding received by candidates, listing of candidates expenditures and specific donations received by the candidates.

Here are the candidates totals as of 5/3/10:

  • Combining candidates contributions carried over from 2009 with funds raised during the first 4 months of 2010: Drucker $65,925.02; Kampf $58,448.49.
  • Total expenditures of candidates: Drucker $53,297.25; Kampf $33,896.18.
  • Ending available balance of candidates (after deducting expenditures and unpaid debts): Drucker $9,627.77; Kampf $14,907.31.

Looking at Schedule III of the campaign finance reports for Drucker and Kampf, it is interesting to look at how each candidate spent money. Below is a breakdown of the top expenses of each campaign:

  • Major Drucker Campaign Expenses: $33,716.98 consulting; Paoli office rental $1,000/mo plus utilities; Phoenixville office rental $450/mo; $1,025 computer software.
  • Major Kampf Campaign Expenses: $14,445 mailers; $6,535 consulting; $7,107 postage; $5,500 website; $1,982 signs

So where did the candidates receive their major campaign funding to date? The campaign finance report details the (1) Political Committee Contributions of $50.01 to $250 and over $250 and (2) All Other Contributions of $50.01 to $250 and over $250. Any contribution of $50 or less is not required to be reported.

Both candidates have received many donations from generous supporters. For the purposes of this discussion, I am only going to focus on the contributions that are $1,000 or greater.

In the category of Political Committee Contributions $1,000 or greater, the candidates received the following donations:

  • Drucker: Bricklayers Local 1 $1,000; Citizens Elect Dwight Evans for State Rep $2,500; International Electrical Workers $1,000; Iron Workers Local 401 $1,000; LawPac $1,000
  • Kampf: Aqua America Political Action Committee $1,000, White and Williams LLP PAC $2,000

In the category of All Other Contributions $1,000 or greater, the candidates received the following donations:

  • Drucker: Michael Barrett, Esq. $1,000; Larry Bendesky, Esq. $1,000; Stewart Eisenberg, Esq. $1,000; Ronald Kovlar, Esq. $1,000; Robert Mongeluzzi, Esq. $1,000; Deborah Willig, Esq. $1,000
  • Kampf: Paul Olson $2,500; John Piasecki $1,000; Robin Kohn $1,000; Edmund McGurk $1,000; James McErlane, Esq. $5,000

I remember hearing that the State House 157 race between Paul Drucker and Guy Ciarrocchi was the most expensive race in Pennsylvania’s 2008 election year. The amount of money spent on the 2008 race was shocking. How will the contributions in the Drucker and Kampf match up to the 2008 level of funding? Although the campaign contributions and expenditures indicated in the campaign finance report for Drucker and Kampf would seem high, I think it is safe to assume that raising money in today’s economic climate will be far more difficult than just a couple of years ago.

But then again, should it really need to cost $500K or more to win a Pennsylvania state representative seat? Personally, I would hate to think that Drucker and Kampf will expend anywhere near that kind of money between now and November’s general election. Much time can be spent by candidates “dialing for dollars” to a select few rather than talking with a wide range of voters about their beliefs, hopes and needs. It would seem that the endless competition for funds from special interest groups weakens the role of civic dialogue and can create ineffective governance.

Pennsylvania is one of only five states that have no contribution limits and no public financing of elections. As a state representative in Pennsylvania, with a 2-year term, you no sooner are elected than you are soliciting funds for the next campaign – almost as if fundraising becomes a second profession. The lax laws mean a candidate can spend an enormous amount of money on a campaign. This puts pressure on incumbents to keep their coffers filled in case of a well-financed challenge.

The rules on funding campaigns in Pennsylvania need to change. There are good proposals out there; lawmakers just need courage to vote on them.

Tredyffrin’s Police Union Fundraising . . . a sign of the times?

June 11, 2010
53 Comments

All residents and business owners in Tredyffrin Township received a letter in the last few days from the Tredyffrin Township Police Association, the union for the police officers in Tredyffrin’s police department.

The letter from Kevin Moore (president of the local police union) stated that this was the first annual letter drive and that contributions were needed by the police for ‘local community programs’ and to ‘support our employee assistance fund’. Many thoughts went through my mind as I read the letter; I wondered about the authenticity of the letter and the fundraising effort by the police. Just a few weeks ago, our local firefighters had warned residents to be aware of professional solicitors asking for donations while claiming that they were raising funds for our local firefighters. Initially I wondered if this was a similar scam; the unsigned letter did not provide a contact telephone number or email address. Although I have been unable to authenticate the letter, I am going to assume that it is legitimate.

Since receiving the police solicitation letter, I have received a number of emails and phone calls from residents with comments, questions and concerns about the solicitation by Tredyffrin’s police union. In addition to wondering whether the letter from the police union was legitimate, I have been asked if this solicitation implies that the police force is not fully funded by our tax dollars. The letter stated the police would use the funds for community funds — what kind of programs and (if the programs are required) why are the programs not currently funded. Another comment I received from a resident, was in regards to the timing of the fundraising and would this resident and business solicitation somehow affect the volunteer firefighters funding efforts.

I am not exactly sure how I feel about the solicitation letter by our local police. I have a few questions about this fundraising effort; specifically, I would appreciate further details on the use of our contributions. Do police departments in our neighboring municipalities fundraise? Fundraising is a common practice by police departments in other areas of the country so maybe this is a sign of the times. I’d be very interested how others feel on this topic.

State Representative Paul Drucker Supports Legislative Reform in Harrisburg

May 31, 2010
4 Comments

Over the holiday weekend, Pennsylvania State Representative Paul Drucker made a foray in to the world of local journalism. Coming on the heels of a statewide grand jury report which detailed reform proposals in the Commonwealth, was an article by Rep. Drucker discussing legislative reform policy which appeared in the May 30th edition of the Daily Local newspaper. (see complete article below).

I completely support Rep. Drucker’s appeal to terminate or at least drastically reduce taxpayer-funded political caucuses. As a start, I would appreciate the imposing of tougher ethics practices and the halt of all payments and benefits to staffers on leave to campaigns and ban compensatory time. If lasting reform is to be recognized in the Commonwealth, the polarization of party politics in Harrisburg needs to end.

Several months ago in Community Matters, I wrote about our state representatives usage of per diem (Pennsylvania legislators can use tax-free per diems for home purchase . . . what about taxability issues for fraud issues?)amounting to $155+/day and its ‘use’ considered a ‘legal perk’ of the job. Some Pennsylvania state legislators are using tax-free per diems as a means of financing real estate purchases. Annually, Pennsylvania taxpayers finance approximately $2.7 million in reimbursed per diems for our elected officials. Previously, I have voiced my concern to Rep Drucker in regards to what I view as misuse of per diems by some of our legislators (although seemingly legal); I am pleased to read that Rep. Drucker supports reform in this area. I would like to see the per diem payments to lawmakers stopped, or at least tied to actual expenses. Why should the taxpayers finance tax-free per diems for home purchases by our legislators?

The inherent problem is that any changes in Harrisburg require legislative approval and I’m betting that the legislature is in no rush to address these reforms. It is good to know that our own state representative supports change; and is willing to take a stand on behalf of Pennsylvania taxpayers.

Everybody Knows Reforms Are Needed

By PAUL DRUCKER, Guest Columnist

It is a sad day when it takes a grand jury to point out what the rest of us already know — that the state Legislature is in serious need of reform. In case you missed it, the grand jury that has been looking at the Bonusgate scandal for the past two years issued a report this week suggesting some badly needed changes to the way business is done in Harrisburg.

There are many of us who have been saying this for years. In fact, the need to make state government more responsive — and more deserving of the public’s trust — was one of the main reasons I decided to run for the state Legislature. I hope the grand jury recommendations are a wake-up call for those in the Legislature who want to keep things as they are. I personally think that when an impartial group of Pennsylvania citizens speaks about an issue this important, we should listen.

As outlined in a story printed in the Daily Local News this week, there are a number of recommendations made by the grand jury that I believe should be implemented, in order to restore public faith in state government and ensure its efficient functioning. Among these suggestions are:

Reducing the number of state employees. The average number of employees per state legislator is nine employees. I agree that this number is too high. I currently employ three full-time staff members for two offices, and one staff member who only works one day per week. Despite this, in 2009 my office was in the top 15 of constituents served out of all Democratic state representatives.

Fixing the budget process. The state budget process, as we all know, is broken. The lack of line-item control by the rank and file is frustrating and non-productive. The lack of communication between the two caucuses during budget negotiations sets the stage for budget battles and gridlock. As the grand jury recommends, I believe taxpayer-funded political caucuses should either be terminated, or modified drastically to help reduce paralyzing partisan politics.

Reforming discretionary accounts. The problem with these accounts is not the projects that are funded as much as the secretive process. I believe discretionary grant-making should be publicly disclosed, as Congress has done with appropriations earmarks.

The fact that there are separate, taxpayer-funded human resources, information technology and print shops for the Democratic and Republican caucuses is a waste of taxpayer dollars. State legislators’ staff should be employed by the state — not a political caucus. Salaries and job descriptions and all personnel matters should be handled by one state non-partisan office, as should IT support and print and copy needs.

The outdated practice of blanket per-diem payments needs to be modified. It is certainly fair to reimburse legislators when they are required to be in Harrisburg, away from home. I do accept per diem payments when I am required to be in Harrisburg, but I believe I have been prudent and have not abused the system. In addition, I do not use a state car, I do not accept reimbursement for mileage to attend district events (which would amount to a large sum of taxpayer dollars), my staff salary total is in the lower end of all representatives, and my staff has not received any raise in salary since my term began.

In July 2009, I stood with a bipartisan group of legislators and introduced a package of reforms. It included legislation that would require state representatives to pay a percentage of their salary toward their health care costs, redistricting legislation, and a ban on bonuses for all state employees. It also included legislation to create a searchable Web site to track all state legislative expenses over $1,000, and restrict the awarding of contracts that may result in public officials’ financial gain, including the financial gain of family members. These bills are now awaiting action by committees. They are all good ideas, and they need to be enacted into law, but it is unlikely that they will move unless all the members of the General Assembly feel more pressure for reform.

This is why the grand jury report this week is so important, and why we should be thanking them for their work — not dismissing them. Legislative reform must be one of the top priorities in Harrisburg, because important duties, like passing a responsible budget our constituents deserve — cannot be done efficiently until the house has been reformed.

For my part, I will continue to work toward change. I will press my colleagues to act on the package of reforms we introduced last year, and I will support legislation that improves the way Harrisburg works.

(Paul Drucker, of Wayne, represents the 157th Legislative District in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.)

Republicans Make their Choice for the 157. . . Drucker will Oppose Kampf in November

May 19, 2010
29 Comments

The Republicans in the 157th House District (which includes Phoenixville, Schuylkill and Tredyffrin townships in Chester County, and portions of Lower Providence and West Norriton in Montgomery County) have made their choice. The battle of the Republicans has determined that it will be Warren Kampf facing off against incumbent Democratic State Rep Paul Drucker in November.

Phoenixville Borough Councilman Ken Buckwalter captured the Phoenixville precincts but Kampf’s strong showing in the Tredyffrin area and Montgomery County became the deciding factor and ultimate victory for Kampf.

On the Democratic side, Drucker, who ran unopposed yesterday, is completing his first term in Harrisburg. Drucker filled the seat after he succeeded longtime Republican Carol Rubley, who retired in 2008. In a nail-biting close race, Drucker defeated Republican opponent Guy Ciarrocchi by a narrow margin of 50.9 percent to 49.1 percent in 2008.

As was the case with the Drucker-Ciarrocchi race, the November election for the 157 will pit two local attorneys against each other. Interestingly, both candidates from Paoli and also from the same precinct – W2. As this new phase of the State House race starts today, here’s hoping for a campaign of civility and one focused on the issues.

Pottstown newspaper, The Mercury . . . ‘Two Vie for 157th House in Republican Primary Tuesday’

May 17, 2010
8 Comments

The clock is ticking down to the start of Primary Election Day. The Pottstown newspaper, The Mercury has an article written by Dennis Wright which details the Republican race between Ken Buckwalter and Warren Kampf for the Pennsylvania State House 157 race. The winner of the Republican Primary race will appear on the ballot with incumbent Democrat Paul Drucker in November’s General Election.

Don’t let the forecasted cold temperatures and rainy weather keep you from the polls tomorrow. Participate in democracy and get out and vote. The polls open at 7 AM and will remain open until 8 PM. Here’s hoping for a good turnout of voters tomorrow and best wishes for the candidates and their families.

Two vie for 157th House seat in Republican primary Tuesday

By Dennis J. Wright

PHOENIXVILLE — Two spirited Republicans — Kendrick Buckwalter and Warren Kampf — will compete Tuesday for the chance to take on incumbent Democratic state Rep. Paul Drucker in the 157th House District.

Drucker is completing his first term in Harrisburg after he succeeded longtime Republican Carole Rubley, who retired in 2008. He defeated Republican opponent Guy Ciarrocchi by a narrow margin of 50.9 percent to 49.1 percent and the race is expected to be competitive again this year.

Buckwalter, a Phoenixville borough councilman, announced his seeking of the Republican nomination in January. A Phoenixville resident, Buckwalter is a small businessman and 15-year veteran of municipal government in the borough. He has served as chairman of Phoenixville’s zoning hearing board, and has been elected to two terms on Borough Council, where he currently serves. He has also volunteered as a firefighter, and is well-known for his support of the work they do.

Buckwalter said he is running for the seat to utilize the experience he’s gained over the past two decades. “I’m at the point of my life where I can take the experience I’ve gained over the last 22 years of public service to represent the people in the 157th District,” Buckwalter said. “I can do this now as a full-time citizen legislator.”

While he wants to see reforms in state government, Buckwalter said change takes time. “I’m not running to try to change everything overnight,” he said. “I’m just one person. I’m trying to use my experience as a fiscal conservative and apply it to the state budget and the pension problem. We got to get to a point where we don’t bankrupt the state while fulfilling the pension obligation.

Kampf is an attorney with White and Williams LLP, and has served on the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors for the past six years, including serving as chairman in 2008 and 2009. Prior to becoming a supervisor, Kampf served on the Tredyffrin Zoning Hearing Board. Kampf said he is looking to bring his experience with him to Harrisburg.

“I’m running because I think state government is fundamentally broken as far as our taxes go,” Kampf said. “It spends too much and delivers so little as far as education and economical development. While a Tredyffrin Board Supervisor, I’ve helped deliver four no-tax budgets so everyone can live within their means. I think it is that kind of experience is what we need in Harrisburg.”

Fiscal discipline in state government is needed, Kampf said.”I hope to bring this strong fiscal discipline to our state government,” he said. “There are voices talking about that, and I would like to join them. There is also education and job safety, and if we focus on those priorities, and eliminate things like waste and outdated programs,”

The 157th House District includes Phoenixville, Schuylkill and Tredyffrin townships in Chester County, and portions of Lower Providence and West Norriton in Montgomery County.

A Weekend of Celebration . . . medical school graduation!

May 17, 2010
1 Comment

Apologies in advance for a bit of personal indulgence . . .

This was a weekend of celebration in Cleveland for my husband and I. Our only child, Lyndsey graduated from the Cleveland Clinic Lerner School of Medicine. With the distinction as the youngest in her class at 25, Lyndsey was 1 of 27 in her med school graduation class receiving her MD. This week she is off to Chicago with her attorney husband (of 2 weeks!) to find an apartment and prepare to start OB/GYN – fertility surgery residency in mid-June at the University of Chicago Medical Hospital.

Returning from Cleveland last night, my husband and I were overwhelmed with pride of Lyndsey’s accomplishment; it is so hard for us to believe that we are now parents of a Doctor! And the realization that after 23 years of private school tuition, the Benson bank will now finally close with yesterday’s medical school graduation!

Now on to the Primary Election tomorrow — I have read various reports that are forecasting a low turnout tomorrow. Let’s see if Tredyffrin can ride the tide of higher than expected voters. The polls open at 7 AM and stay open until 8 PM. Don’t let a few rain drops keep you away . . . don’t sit on the sidelines . . . make a difference by voting!

Polls Open in Less than 48 Hours, Final Push is on for Kampf and Buckwalter

May 16, 2010
12 Comments

The Sunday edition of the Daily Local is leading with a candidate overview of the PA State House 157 race for the Republican nomination between Ken Buckwalter and Warren Kampf. Although for the most part, Dan Kristie’s article does not provide new ideology distinctions between the two candidates, we do read that both candidates support charter school and gun rights.

Kristie’s article primarily focuses on an Kampf’s campaign mailers against Buckwalter and Buckwalter’s responses, we do see a small difference when it comes to same-sex marriage. Although both candidates are on record not supporting same-sex couple to marry, Buckwalter does support limited civil unions between same-sex couples, while Kamps said is would reserve comment until presented with a specific civil union proposal.

Polls open in less than 48 hours, the 11th hour push is on for the candidates. The following article provides a good summary of the candidates . . . if you are still on the fence, it may provide you with some needed information.

Buckwalter, Kampf face off in 157th

By DAN KRISTIE, Staff Writer

Kendrick Buckwalter, a small-business owner and Phoenixville borough councilman, and Warren Kampf, an attorney and Tredyffrin supervisor, are vying for the Republican nomination to run against incumbent Democratic state Rep. Paul Drucker in the 157th District.

The Chester County Republican Committee has recommended both Republicans, as neither was able to get enough votes at this year’s GOP nominating convention to secure the party’s endorsement. Drucker, of Tredyffrin, an attorney and former Tredyffrin supervisor, is running opposed in the Democratic primary. He was first elected in 2008, and this November’s election will prove whether a Democrat can maintain power in the traditionally Republican 157th District. Buckwalter and Kampf have focused their campaigns on electability and past behavior. They have not sought to draw sharp ideological distinctions.

Buckwalter, who owns a framing shop in Malvern, said he is popular with Phoenixville’s Democratic voters. As evidence, he points to the fact that even though Phoenixville has a high concentration of Democratic voters, he has held onto his council seat since 2002.

Local political observers speculate that Phoenixville Democrats helped put Drucker in office — Drucker beat Republican Guy Ciarrocchi by just 2 percent in 2008. Longtime Republican 157th District state Rep. Carole Rubley retired in 2008, making the seat competitive for the first time in recent memory.

Kampf, however, enjoys a geographic advantage that could propel him to victory in the primary. He is from Tredyffrin, the largest township in the 157th District and the place where most of the district’s Republican voters live.

Tredyffrin’s Republican committeepeople tend to favor candidates from their own township. Earlier this year, they endorsed Kampf, and their endorsement could prompt the township’s Republican voters to favor him on primary day. Buckwalter, however, has the endorsement of Rubley, who is well-liked by both the district’s Republicans and Democrats. But it is uncertain how much her endorsement will sway the vote.

Kampf has aggressively campaigned against Buckwalter, criticizing him for, among other things, proposing a tax on alcoholic beverages and suing his own borough council.Buckwalter suggested in 2008 that Phoenixville look into assessing a tax on all alcoholic beverages the borough’s liquor licensees serve. The revenues, Buckwalter said, could be used to support continued revitalization of the borough’s downtown. But Kampf said Buckwalter’s drink tax proposal indicates he is not fully committed to lowering taxes and helping small businesses. Kampf also criticized Buckwalter for filing a lawsuit against Phoenixville’s borough council. Council voted in 2006 to immediately eliminate the stipends council members receive.

But Buckwalter opposed the measure on the grounds that the Pennsylvania constitution prohibits legislators from changing the salary they receive for the term during which they are currently serving. This provision, Buckwalter argued, prohibits legislators from raising and lowering their own pay. Buckwalter took the suit all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court voted 7-0 in Buckwalter’s favor.

Kampf said that Buckwalter’s lawsuit unnecessarily cost Phoenixville taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. “While he was technically correct, there may have been a way for him to make his point,” Kampf said. Buckwalter said it was council that cost Phoenixville taxpayers that money. “I was not the one who cost those taxpayer dollars,” Buckwalter said. “It was the borough council members who chose to defend their position, which was found by Supreme Court to be the wrong position.”

During an interview about issues that face the state, Buckwalter put emphasis on turning to the Pennsylvania constitution for answers. Kampf’s answers centered around the theme of upholding and better enforcing laws that are already on the books. Both Buckwalter and Kampf said they support reducing the state tax burden on businesses and corporations. And both said they support gun rights. Both candidates also said they support charter schools. Kampf said that he supports school vouchers in districts that have sub-par schools, but Buckwalter said he would need to further study vouchers before deciding where he stands.

Both candidates said that they do not support allowing same-sex couples to marry. Buckwalter said that he supports limited civil unions between same-sex couples, while Kampf said he is cautious about allowing civil unions. He said he would reserve comment until a specific civil union proposal came before him.

Voting in Tuesday’s Primary Election . . . A Public Fiduciary Responsibility

May 15, 2010
Comments

With just a few days until Primary Election Day, I thought that the following Letter to the Editor which appears in this week’s Suburban Main Line Life newspaper is particularly appropriate. Please take the time to read the words of attorney Eugene Grace of Paoli — it is important for all of us to be part of the process. In Mr. Grace’s words, ” . . . Our right to vote empowers us to choose officials to whom we entrust our most sacred possession, our freedom. . . “

To the Editor:

A fiduciary is a person or entity who serves another party in a representative capacity, subject to a fiduciary obligation. A fiduciary obligation is a legal principle that requires the fiduciary to act solely in the best interest of the party being represented (principal). A fiduciary obligation may require that a fiduciary act contrary to self-interests in pursuit of the best interests of the principal.

Public officials are elected to office with the understanding that they will pursue the best interests of their respective constituencies. Public officials are heavily burdened with ethical requirements to ensure that their conduct is not self-interested. Another thread in the American form of government is that we are a republic. This means that legislative matters are voted upon by elected officials, not by the people directly. Essentially we give our legislators the power of our proxy. This governmental form gives the elected official a certain degree of flexibility in interpreting his or her mandate in carrying out the will of the people as he or she understands it. This allows an elected official to introduce an element of personal conscience into the calculus of his or her vote on a particular issue. Elected officials must determine whether their constituency is for, against, confused or neutral on any matter.

Politicians risk their office if they disregard the desires of their electoral base. Like a fiduciary, they cannot vote to bestow a benefit on themselves and should not vote in a manner which is inconsistent with the proxy given to them by their electorate. It is up to each separate electoral district to determine whether its legislators’ overall voting record is consistent with their core values of freedom, due process and common sense.

The law requires that a fiduciary be faithful to his or her principal. Elected officials owe that duty to their constituents. Every election day, constituents have the final say on the degree to which their elected officials have been faithful to those principles. Remember that many local elections are settled on primary day, which will be next Tuesday, May 18. Our right to vote empowers us to choose officials to whom we entrust our most sacred possession, our freedom. Please vote.

Eugene P. Grace, Paoli

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme