Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tom Hogan

Chester County DA Race . . . Steve Kelly to Withdraw, & then there were 2!

As a follow-up to my recent post concerning the Chester County DA race — Steve Kelly has notified all the Republican committee members via email that he will be withdrawing his name from the nomination process tomorrow night at the convention.

A true gentlemen, Kelly had kind words for both of the remaining candidates, Pat Carmody and Tom Hogan, including ” . . . I know that each shares a great passion in seeking justice for victims in our community. Yours is not an easy decision. . . “

Kelly goes on to explain his long association and friendship with Carmody and the decision to go public with his support was difficult. However, in the end, Kelly says, ” . . . as a committeeman, an Area Chair and as a career prosecutor, I know I have a duty that transcends my personal life – a duty to see that the best leader takes the helm in the DA’s Office. Consequently, I would urge you to support Tom Hogan. . . “

The District Attorney race just got more interesting . . . will Kelly’s supporters give their vote to Hogan? Would those votes be enough for Hogan to get the needed 60% for endorsement? Has Carmody managed to change some minds of committee people since the straw polls? Will either candidate stay in the race without party endorsement?

I think that there are around 400 committee votes at stake and pre-Kelly’s withdrawing, only 2 votes separating Carmody and Hogan.

Political Notes . . . Brazunas Will Not Run in 2011; Chester County Republican Convention Tomorrow – District Attorney Race

A couple of noteworthy political items . . .

There has been speculation as to whether Eamon Brazunas would be throwing his hat in the campaign ring again for the Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors. Eamon emailed friends and supporters today with his decision not to run in the 2011 supervisor’s race. Here is an excerpt from the email:

“After careful consideration I have decided not to seek election to the Board of Supervisors this year. Therefore, I will not be running in the 2011 election cycle. While it has been a goal of mine to serve the residents in Tredyffrin on the Board, I will be taking this year to fully appreciate the first year of Stella’s life.

I will continue to work with my fellow colleagues in the fire service and with the Board of Supervisors in both Tredyffrin and Easttown to improve the Fire/EMS services in our community. We have made significant progress with communications publicly at Township meetings, established a communications network to link Fire/EMS/Police and other stakeholders and made strides towards a long-term funding solution. There is more work to be done and I will continue to contribute in this area, which I have devoted much time to over the past 13 years.”

In December, Eamon and his wife Ali became first-time parents to daughter Stella Nicola. I think we would all agree that this is a very special time in the Brazunas family and should be enjoyed! I appreciate that Eamon was a supervisor candidate in the past and that he recently participated as a candidate for the interim supervisor vacancy. The entire community appreciates his continued service as a Berwyn volunteer firefighter!

On another political note . . . tomorrow is the Chester County Republican Convention and I will be attending. A couple of years ago, I attended the convention to support Judy DiFilippo when she was running for the State House and was interested in the process.

If you recall, over the last several weeks, I have written about Chester County’s district attorney race. The race is very close for Republican candidates Pat Carmody, Tom Hogan and Steve Kelly. After the county straw polls, Carmody was ahead of Hogan, but only by two votes and Kelly was in third place. Based on my experience, the straw polls may (or may not) be an indicator of the voting at the convention.

To avoid a primary race between Republican candidates would require that one of these three candidates receive 60% of the votes cast at the convention. If committee members are unable to attend the convention, they need to give their proxy vote to someone to attend in their absence. Good news is that the weather tomorrow should not be a factor to keep anyone home. All the votes are important and could be the deciding factor in whose name will appear on the May primary ballot.

Although it was my understanding that the Republican Convention was open to the public, I did call ahead to double-check that Community Matters would be welcomed. I received a very friendly welcoming response to my inquiry from Maria at the Chester County Republican Headquarters; and I look forward to attending (and following the DA race!)

Chester County Commission Political Buzz

Gosh, things are buzzing at the Chester County Commission this week! There was the application deadline for the interim County Commissioner position vacated by Carol Aichele, who left for a job in Gov. Corbett’s administration. The deadline was Monday, January 30 at 12 noon – but at the close of business on Friday, there were zero applications received at the Common Pleas Court of Judges.

An article appeared in the Sunday edition of the Daily Local advertising the fact that there were no applications. Apparently, the notice did the trick and created a last-minute crush of interest! By the 12 noon deadline on Monday, there were 39 applications received for the vacancy! Upon review, six were removed from consideration because the applicants were Democrats and the appointment will go to a Republican. Although the judges hope to shorten the list, it looks like the interview process is going to be quite the undertaking!

Another item out of the County Commissioner’s Office. . . there is some unsettling news circulating about Republican Commissioner Terrance Farrell’s re-election campaign. This past November, he held a kick-off fundraiser, “A Pint of Chester County” for his campaign. The emailed invitation encouraged recipients to become sponsors with a suggested donation range of $250 – $2,500. When I received Farrell’s invitation, I found it curious that I was on his email list. Never having donated to Farrell and not knowing how they had my address, I emailed Farrell’s campaign but never received a response.

Today, I learned that my receiving Farrell’s email invitation was not an anomaly and some people are none too pleased, including State Sen. Andy Dinniman (D-Chester). Farrell’s fundraising email invitation was sent to government and personal email addresses, including Sen. Dinniman. Farrell emailed the fundraiser invitation to Sen. Dinniman’s district office.

Senator Dinniman’s staff sent Mr. Farrell’s campaign a letter stating that he was allowed to send political mail to a state senate office. Dinniman reported that his office received complaints by at least three other individuals, all Democrats complaining that Farrell had sent them the fundraising invitation to personal email accounts. Farrell’s response to accusations of misusing emails for his re-election campaign — he was just keeping his constituents informed. Whoops!

Things are really getting interesting for county races . . . from DA candidates to the Common Pleas Judge candidates and now the news about the County Commissioner candidates. It will be curious how the hyperbole plays out at the County Republican Convention on February 15.

Speaking of politics . . . so, you think you know where you stand, politically speaking? Think again. A friend sent me this short test and the results may surprise and give you food for thought. You will be asked just 10 questions, and it instantly tells you where you stand politically.

The results will show your position as a red dot on a “political map” so you will see exactly where you score. The most interesting thing about the quiz is that it beyond the Democrat, Republican, and Independent.

The Quiz has gotten a lot of praise . . . The Washington Post said it has “gained respect as a valid measure of a person’s political leanings.” The Fraser Institute said it’s a “fast, fun and accurate assessment of a person’s overall political views”. Suite University said it is the “most concise and accurate
political quiz out there.”

I took the test and was not surprised to score a ‘Centrist’ label for my efforts. According to the Quiz website, . . . “a Centrist prefer a ‘middle ground’ regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose “political extremes,” and emphasize what they describe as “practical” solutions to problems”.

Take the Quiz — it’s fun and will not take you more than 5 min. It would be great if you would share your results! Here is the link for the Quiz:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

Chester County DA Candidate Steve Kelly Provides His Comments

Below are comments that I received from Steve Kelly, the third candidate in the Chester County District Attorney race. Mr. Kelly states that he was not given an opportunity to respond for the Daily Local article. If this is accurate, than I am particularly pleased to offer Mr. Kelly the forum for his remarks. Mr. Kelly mentions that the straw poll vote count is incorrect . . . can someone please provide the correct numbers?

There are two remaining Chester County Republican Committee interviews scheduled for the district attorney candidates, tonight and tomorrow nights. I understand the politics of this process but I am hopeful that committee people give all three candidates fair and honest consideration.

Dear Pattye,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the newspaper article in the Daily Local. I am disappointed that I was not given an opportunity to respond by the author of the article. I saw that the reporter stated that he made an attempt to reach me but I never received a telephone message or email from the reporter and so I question whether there was a sincere attempt to reach me. I am also disappointed that the article incorrectly reported my straw vote total although I am told there was a correction in the newspaper today.

At this point, I believe that the District Attorney and First Assistant adequately addressed the substantive issues raised by the newspaper reporter. It is my desire to refrain from criticism of the other candidates and to focus on the positive message offered by my campaign. I believe the other candidates are fine gentleman and are certainly qualified to be DA. I am as well.

I graduated from the National College of District Attorney’s Career Prosecutors Course in 1993 and was one of a few prosecutors in the nation to be invited back to teach on the faculty. I have over twenty years under my belt as a prosecutor and wear many hats in the office. I supervise a team of prosecutors, run the grand jury and help direct most of the major investigations in the county, oversee our HIDTA drug task force and oversee all major drug trafficking investigations, act as director of police training and I maintain a trial caseload. I tried two murder trials last year and since 1990, I have tried more jury trials in our courthouse than any other attorney. I have also litigated death penalty cases and won record setting sentences.

My goals are influenced by my training in the field of economics and I want to start with the recognition that we have to do a better job of preventing crime. Most crimes are committed at night and are committed by repeat offenders so I want to lead an effort to place curfews on felons who are on probation or parole. Such curfews should be enforced by probation officers partnering with police. The current model of supervision that relies on probation officers working 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. simply is not sufficiently effective. I also want a strong prisoner re-entry program. Because we know that idle time is the devil’s workshop, if a parolee is not working, looking for a job or going to school, then he or she should be performing community service. At the same time, I want the justice system to collaborate with church groups to enlist their help with mentoring parolees. I want a renewed emphasis on addressing truancy. If we can keep kids in school, they have a better chance of graduating and becoming contributing crime-free members of society. I want to partner with our secondary schools and colleges to help identify and address common problems.

There are many community-policing concepts that help save lives and money and I have the experience to implement them. Using many of these same ideas, I led a highly praised effort from 2001 to 2003 that earned Coatesville the Pennsylvania award for the “Weed and Seed Community of the Year.”

Another goal I have concerns training. Our police officers risk their lives every day as they respond to crime and they do a fantastic job. They would agree with me however that better training of police and prosecutors will lead to improved service to our community. What is more, better training can lead to cost savings in the criminal justice system. With travel and overnight accommodation expenses, outside training can be expensive. Therefore, we need to provide high quality in-house training for attorneys and detectives. I have had tremendous success in providing training to local members of the Pennsylvania State Police. I also started a police-training unit three years ago that designed and implemented an accredited CSI training program for local and federal agents. Graduates receive certificates as certified crime scene technicians. We just had a graduation ceremony this past Friday and I was proud to see over twenty officers and FBI agents complete this intensive ten-month program.

Thank you again for this opportunity and please know that I will continue the fight to keep Chester County a safe and welcoming community.

Steve Kelly

Chester County DA Candidate Tom Hogan Responds

Chester County district attorney candidate Tom Hogan has responded to my email request for comment to yesterday’s Community Matters post, “Chester County DA Race is Heating Up . . . Candidates Taking the Gloves Off” — his remarks are below.

Mr. Hogan’s comments and the earlier remarks of Mr. Carmody would indicate that the gloves in the DA race are indeed off!

Pattye –

I am aware of Mr. Carmody’s communications with the Republican committee people of Chester County as we are both working to earn their endorsement; I am certain that Mr. Carmody has seen my communications to committee people as well. I have heard rumblings throughout the committee process and from the DA’s office about use of County resources in campaigns.

The taxpayers of Chester County want open government and fiscal responsibility that separates the partisan political from good government. If it is proven to be true that Mr. Carmody has utilized taxpayer-paid resources for his campaign, this is very troubling and could be detrimental to the Republican ticket as well as open Mr. Carmody to legal actions being brought against him. For his sake and the sake of the office, I hope it is not true.

In the coming weeks, I will continue to present my positive record as a county and federal prosecutor, as well as my endorsements from the law enforcement community to the committee people and citizens of Chester County. I believe that when they compare my record to that of my opponents, they will agree I am the best choice to serve as their District Attorney.

Thank You.

Chester County DA Race is Heating Up . . . Candidates Taking Off the Gloves

Following November’s mid-term election, I wrote of news in the Chester County District Attorney’s office . . . District Attorney Joseph Carroll decision to run for Common Pleas Court judge seat and not seek re-election as the county DA. At the time of the announcement, there was speculation about possible DA candidates including Tredyffrin’s solicitor Tom Hogan among others.

Fast forward, a couple of months and the district attorney race is now in full campaign mode. Three candidates, Tom Hogan, former prosecutor and partner in Lamb McErlane law firm; Assistant District Attorney Pat Carmody and Deputy District Attorney Stephen Kelly are vying for the endorsement of Chester County Republican Committee and it appears that the candidates are taking the gloves off for this race!

The GOP is conducting interviews with the district attorney candidates at various locations throughout the county. So far, the organization has held three straw polls and the voting of the committee members is as follows:

West Chester area: Carmody 47 votes; Hogan 24 votes; Kelly 10 votes
Tredyffrin area: Hogan 51 votes; Carmody 16 votes; Kelly none.
Southern Chester County area: Hogan 31 votes; Carmody 30 votes; Kelly 18 votes

If my math is correct, the current vote count has Hogan leading with 106 votes to Carmody’s 93 votes and Kelly’s 28 votes. There are two more straw polls this week leading up to the Chester County Republican Convention on February 15 that decides the candidate endorsement.

I do not typically weigh in on county politics, (there is more than enough going on with Tredyffrin and our neighboring townships to keep me busy) but I will make an exception with the district attorney race. The Sunday Daily Local ran an article on the district attorney race that caught my attention. In the article, the writer claims that during a GOP interview, DA candidate Hogan suggested administrative inconsistencies and the need to ‘clean up’ the district attorney office.

I was surprised by the immediate defensive reaction to Hogan’s criticism of the district attorney office by District Attorney Carroll and Assistant DA Carmody. I believe citizens prefer placing their confidence in a district attorney, like candidate Tom Hogan, who is willing to take a stand to improve the process and to make government better. There is nothing wrong with Hogan suggesting there is room for improvement in the DA office. You set your goals, ever-increasing the level of standard, and then work to achieve that objective. As taxpayers, isn’t that what we should expect and what we want from our elected officials?

We know that change can be difficult for some; people get comfortable with doing things the same way they have always been done; my guess is that the Chester County District Attorney office is no different. From my association with Tom Hogan over the last few years, his approach does not simply accept status quo but rather an approach that seeks to make government more accountable, and more efficient. ‘Raising the bar’ by raising expectations makes for good government.

Yesterday, I received an anonymous email in regards to the district attorney race from a concerned Chester County resident. Attached to the email were several Carmody campaign-related documents, including his campaign business card. The individual who sent the email was concerned that candidate Carmody was using his personal cell phone number on the literature. I did no appreciate the individual’s concern until I opened the attachment containing the official telephone contact list from the DA office. Curiously, the same cell phone number that Carmody uses on campaign materials is also his office contact number in the District Attorney office.

So what does this mean? Is Carmody’s cell phone personally owned or county-issued? Regardless if the phone is county owned property or personally owned by Carmody; it is interesting that he uses the same telephone number in his campaign literature and his county office. Would this imply that Carmody takes campaign calls at the district attorney office? Is this but a small legal campaign detail overlooked by a person running our legal system? Does this suggest that the district attorney’s office doubles as his campaign headquarters? If nothing else, Carmody’s actions make me wonder about what line is drawn between campaigning and working for the people of Chester County. The merging of political activities with the people’s work is a fine line.

Certainly, I lay no claim to understanding the inner-workings of the District Attorney’s office but as a response to Carroll and Carmody over Hogan’s criticism of the DA’s office, I am reminded of a line from Hamlet . . . “you doth protest too much me thinks”. Perhaps, Hogan’s criticisms were hitting a little too close to home.

Tredyffrin’s ‘Personnel Committee’ to Interview Supervisor Candidates

Here is the latest installment on the Tredyffrin’s interim supervisor appointment . . . I feel like keeping this interview process transparent has become my life’s work. With so many things going on in the world, why is it so important that this township process work correctly? Because it just is.

So where does the interview process currently stand? Well, here goes. I emailed our township manager Mimi Gleason (and copied township solicitor Tom Hogan and the Board of Supervisors) the link to the specific Community Matters post, along with reader comments. In my email, I addressed the issue of the supervisor’s Personnel Committee conducting the candidate interviews vs. the Board of Supervisors. I suggested “. . . the appointment of an elected official is not a personnel matter.” Further suggested that the “. . . situation could be easily remedied if all the supervisors were in attendance on January 26 and participated in the interview process.”

Here is Mimi’s response to that email:

Pattye,

The full Board must vote on the appointment of the interim Supervisor in a public meeting and will do so.

There is no problem with the Personnel Committee, or any other subcommittee of the Board, interviewing the candidates. The Home Rule Charter does not require the Board of Supervisors to interview the candidates. However, in the interests of full transparency, the Board has chosen to have interviews conducted by the Personnel Committee and has invited the public to the interviews. The Board is going beyond the minimum requirements of the Home Rule Charter and the Sunshine Act in order to provide even greater public access to this process.

I’ll be around all afternoon. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Mimi

After receiving this email, I still had questions for Mimi and sent the following email (copying Tom Hogan and Board of Supervisors):

Mimi –

Thank you for your response, however I do still have a few questions.

(1) You say that the Personnel Committee, or any subcommittee of the Board of Supervisors can interview the candidates, then why the ‘Personnel Committee’ vs. the Finance Committee or any other subcommittee? If appointing an elected official is not a personnel matter, why choose the ‘Personnel’ Committee for the interviews?

(2) Bob Lamina stated at the Board of Supervisors meeting that the candidates would be interviewed by the supervisors. By having a ‘committee’ rather than the Board of Supervisors interview, is this really meeting the objective?

(3) I appreciate that there is no requirement for the Board of Supervisors to interview the candidates in public; however, didn’t that option go away when the township advertised and solicited resumes for the vacancy; which was then followed by Bob Lamina’s statement that the supervisors would interview the candidates. Bob made a commitment to the residents that the supervisors would interview the candidates – there was no caveat from him that the interviews would be conducted by a subcommittee, Personnel Committee, etc. The implication of his words was ‘all the supervisors’ would interview.

(4) If only 3 of the supervisors are going to interview the candidates in the Community Room (without it being televised) how is that the other 3 supervisors (Olson, Richter, DiBuonaventuro) will know the candidates responses to the questions. If this interview process is public, will there be minutes taken of the meeting? How do the 3 supervisors who conduct the interviews discuss the matter with the 3 supervisors who do not attend the interviews, without breaking the Sunshine Law. I understand that the vote will be in public, but how can the supervisors discuss this matter prior to the public vote if 50% of the board does not participate in the interviews?

Mimi, you say that the supervisors are going beyond the requirements to provide transparency. If that is the case, then why not just have a quorum with 4 supervisors present for the interview process and remove doubt and questions about the process. The Board of Supervisors have an opportunity to make this process right.

I will put off posting information related to this topic on Community Matters until after business hours today. It is my hope that all supervisors appreciate the importance of the interview process and will be encouraged to participate . . . or at a minimum, one more supervisor beyond the 3 supervisors currently onboard.

Pattye

Rather than emailing her responses, Mimi called and we talked through my questions/concerns. Here is where we stand . . . the Personnel Committee, consisting of three supervisors (Lamina, Kichline, and Donahue) will conduct the supervisor interviews on Wednesday, January 26 at 7 PM; the public is welcome. Neither Mimi nor any other township staff will be present for the interviews and there will be no minutes of the meeting taken. The three candidates conducting the interview will apparently brief the other three supervisors on the interview process and the candidates.

Mimi explained that it was difficult to find an available date for all supervisors for the interviews. I asked if that was the reason there were only three supervisors instead of all six supervisors attending the interviews and she was not sure why. I suggested that an easy scheduling solution would be for the interviews to be conducted before or after the regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, January 24. Presumably, all supervisors could attend and since it was a public meeting, there would be a record of the meeting with minutes. I was told that this option was considered but not accepted . . . it was thought the interview process would take too long and they wanted the candidates to have sufficient time.

Although I encouraged a fourth supervisor should attend the interview process to have a quorum, at this point that appears unlikely. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if one of the other three supervisors, either JD, Paul Olson or Evelyn Richter, stepped up and agreed to participate in the interview process on January 26?

The appointment of an interim supervisor is a serious duty of our elected officials (even if only for a few months) and I do not want to see the process manipulated by politics.

What do I mean manipulated . . . ? Only one of the four supervisor candidates, John Bravacos, has stated that he will not be on the ballot for the Special Election in May. Presumably, the other three candidates, Eamon Brazunas, Mike Heaberg and Kristen Mayock, all intend to participate in the Special Election required to fill the vacancy.

To be clear, I am not questioning the credentials of these three candidates but the only non-political appointment for this interim supervisor position is John Bravacos. Additionally, John Bravacos is a former township supervisor and former chair. To appoint one of the other three candidates would be politically motivated and give an advantage to that individual in May’s Special Election. For the record, a Republican (Warren Kampf) held the vacated seat and John Bravacos is a Republican.

Dust Barely Settled on Tuesday’s Election . . . Announcement on Upcoming Available Chester County District Attorney Position

In reading today’s Daily Local newspaper, I glanced at the headline that Chester County District Attorney Joseph Carroll has announced that he will not seek re-election but instead will take a run at judge of the Chester County Common Pleas Court.

You might wonder what the connection is between Community Matters and the Chester County DA; and why my interest. Over the last few months, I had heard rumblings that District Attorney Carroll might be moving on but my real interest was with talk of one of the possible DA candidates.

I had heard that Tredyffrin’s solicitor, Tom Hogan, a partner in the West Chester law firm Lamb McErlane (and former Assistant DA) might be on the list of those considering the District Attorney opportunity. This rumor was confirmed in today’s Daily Local article. When asked by the reporter about the DA possibility, Tom Hogan’s response — “At this point, the (midterm) elections have just finished. At some point I’ll sit down and talk with my family, and talk with law enforcement (groups) and make a decision.”

In addition to Tom Hogan, other possible candidates being discussed are First Assistant DA Patrick Carmody, Former Chief DA Susan DiGiacomo, Deputy DA Stephen Kelly and Assistant DA Norman Pine. I do understand the discussion is early in the process and names can come and go on the ‘list’.

I have known Tom for several years and he is truly one of the good guys. In addition to his service to our township, Tom and his wife Victoria have continued to be very supportive of historic preservation and Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust. Tom has generously served as a sponsor of many Trust activities including our Annual Historic House Tour and our annual In the Mood fundraiser.

Obviously, if Tom decided on the District Attorney direction, it would be a loss to our township but the residents of Chester County would be the winners. For what it is worth, I will state that if Tom Hogan decides to run for Chester County District Attorney he has my complete support!

Township Park Ordinance in Violation of State Law . . . so says resident and member of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association

A couple of days ago I received an anonymous comment from gunrights-tredyffrintownship. This was an interesting comment for several reasons. Those of you who have been following Community Matters will recall my fascination and naivete over the recent firearms in national parks legislation. That discussion extended to a broader discussion of gun control in the community. Of all the issues that have been discussed on Community Matters, I think this topic generated more dinner table conversation and heated debate than anything else. Recently I met someone for the first time and they brought up the gun control discussion on Community Matters . . . go figure.

This brings me to today’s posting. Below you will find a series of email exchanges between gunrights-tredyffrintownship (an anonymous Community Matters commentor using that name) and the Board of Supervisors and discussion with Tom Hogan. At issue is the signage in our township parks in regards to guns. When it comes to the ability to carry guns in our township parks, apparently Tredyffrin Township’s park ordinance and signs are in violation of Pennsylvania state law. I never read the small print on our township park signs but I guess I will the next time I visit. This person has all of his/her emails with the township posted on the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association forum, located at: http://forum.pafoa.org. It appeared that the email trail ended with a conversation with Tom Hogan late last year. There was an addendeum to the comment that stated the resident was waiting for a further update in regards to the park signage, but so far in 2010 has not received anything further.

There is a cost to changing the signs (the commentator offers suggestions) . . . what do you think? Should our park signs be corrected? From the timeline of this email discussion, it would suggest that this person has been waiting for an answer. Do you think that it should be addressed at a Board of Supervisors meeting?

Preemption Violation – Tredyffrin Township

Dear Board of Supervisors,

I am a resident of Tredyffrin Township and a member of an organization called The Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association. I would like to bring to the attention of the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors a township ordinance that appears to be in violation of state law. I became aware of this issue when I recently visited Louis D’Ambrosia Park and read the park rules sign posted there.

Further research led me to Chapter 138 of the Township Code, Parks and Playgrounds, Section 3 Regulations, Subsection J, which states the following:

“No person, other than township active duty police officers employed in the execution of their duties, shall carry or possess or discharge or use firearms or weapons of any type in a township park. [Amended 6-1-1998 by Ord. No. HR-270]”

This law is in violation of Title 18, Chapter 61, Subchapter A (otherwise known as The Uniform Firearms Act), specifically §6120 (a) that states:

“General rule: No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth.”

The preemption statute I quoted was passed in 1995. I am unsure when regulation J was passed. It may have been in place before 1995, explaining why it could have been overlooked. Unfortunately there was no grandfathering of existing limitations when The Uniform Firearms Act was passed. Regulation “J” as it stands today is invalid with regards to the carrying or possessing a firearm in a township park.

I know some people might want to know why someone would want to carry a firearm in a township park. The answer may be as simple as they carry a firearm daily. I know I do. But that question is not really the issue.

The preemption statute I quoted is very important for Pennsylvanians that legally carry a firearm, in that it removes the problem of a traveling citizen running afoul of a myriad of local laws prohibiting where you can and cannot carry a firearm. In other words, licensed or otherwise legal carriers of firearms in Pennsylvania can carry everywhere not prohibited by state or federal law.

Of particular interest to Tredyffrin Township is that since this rule is unenforceable, there could be negative consequences should an unknowing person, or even one choosing to ignore the rule knowing it is null and void, happen to be cited or otherwise confronted. If a police officer were to enforce such rule or ordinance, wrongful arrest and other charges could be laid on the officer, the police department and Tredyffrin Township– not an inexpensive proposition.

I respectfully ask that the Board of Supervisors look into this matter. Please let me know how you and your colleagues will proceed with bringing Tredyffrin Township in compliance with state law. A copy of §6120 is also attached.

Awaiting your response, I remain,

Most respectfully yours,

I sent the first letter on September 22nd. After receiving no response, I sent the following e-mail to the Chairman on October 7th.

Quote:

From: xxxxxxx xxxxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx@verizon.net]
To: Warren E. Kampf
Subject: Initial correspondence

Warren,
Several weeks ago I sent a letter to you and your fellow supervisors
regarding a township park ordinance. As of today I have not received a
response. Did you receive my initial correspondence?

Thank You,

Today I received this reply:

Quote:
Warren E. Kampf wrote:
we did and we are looking into it.

My response tonight was:

Quote:
Warren,
Thanks for getting back to me. I assume the Township Solicitor will be in touch with me when he is complete?

Thanks,

Since they meet twice a month, every other Monday, it shouldn’t be difficult to attend a meeting if I fail to hear from the solicitor soon. I also was contacted by a local newspaper reporter and have been keeping him in the loop regarding progress. I will continue to update as things move forward.

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

________________________________

Update, 6 days ago the Chairman sent me this reply:

Quote:
Warren E. Kampf wrote:
we did and we are looking into it.

My response to that was:

Quote:
Warren,
Thanks for getting back to me. I assume the Township Solicitor will be in touch with me when he is complete?

Thanks,

Yesterday I received this:

Quote:
Either he will or someone from township will.

Nice one sentence responses I get from the Chairman. You would think the least he would do is properly address the person he is communicating with and maybe sign the end of the e-mail.

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

——————————————————————————–

That lets you know how important you are, in his eyes. Perhaps it’s time to start campaigning to elect a new chairman?
__________________

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

___________________

Good news to report here. I received a letter on Friday from the township solicitor, Thomas Hogan, requesting I call him to discuss the letter I sent the supervisors. Around 2:30 pm I called his office. After exchanging greetings with him, the first words out of his mouth were, “I’m in receipt of your letter, and am in complete agreement with your legal position.” I almost fell off my chair.

After reading threads about defiant townships, boroughs, etc, this is not the answer I expected. He also informed me he made a call to the Chief of Police, Andy Chambers. He said he would probably speak with him over the weekend and inform him that the department could not enforce the ordinance because it violates the state preemption law. I almost fell off the chair again.

In the next few minutes of our discussion, Mr. Hogan asked me if I had any immediate concerns, upcoming events in a township park, or if I was worried about this particular ordinance. I reiterated what I said in my letter to the supervisors about gun carriers dodging a myriad of local regulations and if someone were falsely arrested due to this ordinance it would not be right.

I then told him I was happy to see he was in agreement with my concerns and stated the next steps needed to be a repeal/revision of the ordinance, and modifying the signs in the township parks. He said he would speak with the supervisors about how they would like to handle the ordinance part of my concerns. Then came the sign issue. He went on to say the township has a lot of parks and signs and the cost associated with changing all the signs would be an expensive proposition, but next time they change the signs they could modify them.

I told him they could either cover up the part about firearms, or heat up the stick on letters and peel them off. He said he would contact the public works department for how to handle this. Since he was very cooperative and understanding of my concerns, I didn’t want to press him too hard on the sign issue yet. He seems dedicated to addressing these two issues and bringing them to a resolution that is to my satisfaction, so I will continue to work with him. He said I should hear back from him in about one week. He said I might need to appear before the supervisors with him and ask for the ordinance to be repealed/modified. This depends on how the supervisors wish to handle it.

This is how all of the preemption violations we contest should be handled. Mr. Hogan’s professionalism was very refreshing. While many of us are quick to fire off letters and e-mails to persons who infringe on our rights, we should also thank those who work with us in the preservation of those rights and follow the rule of law.

Attorney-Client Privilege . . . Understanding the Relationship Between Elected Officials & Township Solicitor. . . Where Does that Leave the Residents?

I know that many residents in the audience at the February 8 Board of Supervisors Meeting were confused and frustrated when they would pose specific questions to our elected officials and receive no response. The supervisors would turn to the Township Solicitor Tom Hogan for an opinion on a legal question and he would say that he could not answer, invoking attorney-client privilege. In conversation with residents since the meeting, there has been much discussion on the attorney-client privilege shared between Mr. Hogan and the supervisors. I know Tom Hogan personally; he’s one of the good guys and I need to believe that he would have given the residents his opinion (if permitted). But the fact remains that the public has legal questions in regards to St. Davids Golf Club, the return of the escrow, precedent set by the vote, ongoing liability to the township and its residents, etc.

If we cannot receive answers from our elected officials or township solicitor, where do we take our unanswered questions? Do community members have to hire their own attorney to receive answers?

I was greatly interested to received the following information from a reader, JudgeNJury on the subject of attorney-client privilege. I do not know the identity of this reader, but I am guessing that he/she could be a municipal attorney. An interesting read.

JudgeNJury 2010/02/10 wrote:

Under an opinion issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Jan. 29, it is far from clear that Hogan’s invocation of attorney-client privilege is correct. A link to a detailed article discussing the case follows, but this quote from the article is the main point: “The court issued a per curiam order in Nationwide v. Fleming Friday, upholding a Superior Court ruling that attorney-client privilege only applies to information given to the attorney by the client, not the other way around.”

(http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202441905939&Pa_High_Court_Justices_Cant_Agree_on_AttorneyClient_Privilege_Dispute).

In other words, there is a good argument to be made that the Supervisors can invoke the privilege to refuse to answer questions about what they told Hogan, but Hogan cannot invoke the privilege to refuse to answer questions about what he told the Supervisors. Personally, I think the court’s decision is absurd. But the law is the law.

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme