Pattye Benson

Community Matters

St. Davids Golf Club on Agenda for Board of Supervisors Meeting . . . Lawsuit on Hold Pending Outcome of Meeting

Late yesterday, the township posted the agenda for Monday night’s Board of Supervisors Meeting, which includes St. Davids Golf Club. Or, rather under Township Business, the agenda item actually reads, ‘St. Davids path’. I think that this is a good first step and shows a degree of willingness on the part of the supervisors to continue the dialogue with the residents. Although I am pleased that our supervisors have agreed to add St. Davids to the agenda, for me the true test will come Monday night. I am hopeful that the voices of this community have been heard and that the supervisors will make the right decision about St. Davids.

Along the same lines, John Petersen’s complaint against the township and Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter is now on hold; it will not be filed today. With the addition of St. Davids to the agenda for the Board of Supervisors meeting, John has decided to hold off filing the lawsuit until after Monday night’s meeting. Right now we are all in the ‘wait and see’ mode until Monday night; but depending on the outcome of the Supervisors Meeting maybe a lawsuit will no longer be needed.

Community does Matter. I am excited that our voices are being heard . . . Come Monday night we will see if the supervisors are listening. This will be an important meeting and I encourage you to attend or watch the meeting from home.


Post Update:

Since this morning’s post, John Petersen has done an interview with Blair Meadowcroft of Main Line Suburban Life. John reiterates his decision to put the lawsuit ‘on hold’ pending the outcome of Monday’s Board of Supervisors Meeting. To read the article, here is a link.


We don’t accomplish anything in this world alone . . . and whatever happens is the result of the whole tapestry of one’s life and all the weavings of individual threads from one to another that creates something.

– Sandra Day O’Connor

Share or Like:


Add a Comment
  1. Being the cynic, I am not convinced that Lamina, Olson, Kampf and Richter are going to back down. But I guess to change the outcome on Monday night – only one of them has to change their vote. I hope that the Republican Committee people have been watching the antics of Warren Kampf – I certainly hope they decide against endorsing him on Saturday. His kind of governing is the last thing that we need in Harrisburg.

    BTW, As a registered Republican, I happen to believe that the voters got it wrong in November in Tredyffrin. Look at EJ’s performance to date! What were the voters thinking, after 3 meetings she is named in a lawsuit. Great representation for the local GOP.

    1. Disgusted Republican,
      As I have said over and over, give E.J. A chance! As someone tied to the GOP locally, I beleive we the voters got it right in November! We have three tremendous new supervisors in Michelle Kichline, Phil Donahue AND EJ Richter!!!! Being sued nowadays is like getting your clothes dirty, it happens all the time! I never liked the St Davids vote and still don’t …….. But I think you jump too far.

      1. Forgive me Jim, but I have to disagree with your statement ‘the voters got it right in November’. I’m not going to let that remark stand on Community Matters without a personal comment. I know my credentials/qualifications and I know EJ’s — and as we know I lost and she won.

        You may think that getting sued happens all the time but I did some checking over the last couple of days and there has never been a case in Tredyffrin Township where individual supervisors were named in lawsuit. Sure, the township and the board have been named in suits over the years but NEVER has there been a case where specific supervisors are named. As a ‘new supervisor’ I sure wouldn’t want my name listed on a complaint, making this kind of history in the township is something I think should be avoided.

        But if all goes well on Monday night — there will be no need for the lawsuit to be filed.

        1. Pattye, while I agree about the value of credentials in politics, one only has to look at our White House to relaize that credentials alone isn’t enough. Timing, on the other hand, is everything!
          In regard to the lawsuit, it is a shame that it may go that direction and hopefully it won’t. I am not a lawyer but I believe it is commonplace today to list as many parties possible when filing a suit. So….I am not quite sure that history as you say is being made in this particular case….. Again, let’s hope it never goes there and the BOS makes the right call.

          1. Jim – You are entitled to your opinion. I’d stop short of putting EJ and our president together in any discussion.

            However when it comes to the history of township lawsuits, there has never been a case when a subset of the board of supervisors has been named. If this lawsuit is filed, it will be historic.

            1. Pattye, I am not comparing the two! Our president was a great community organizer and E.J. was never involved with Acorn. Bad comaprison, I know. You would have to agree with me, though, that being named in a lawsuit doesn’t make someone guilty, per say. We are still a system ( I think) where you are innocent until proven guilty

        2. I know that people want to jump on the “everyone sues” bandwagon. That’s all well and good if you’re discussing a slip and fall at the grocery store where you could potentially get an attorney to do a case on a contingency, pay nothing up front and receive some damages. This is different. We are looking at a member of the community taking up personal time to file a suit which requests only injunctive relief, no monetary damages.

          Certainly, that does not automatically give merit to a case but it means something. I’d have to agree with Pattye, it would certainly be historic, and not in a good way. Jim, you did a great thing last meeting but you would have to agree that JP’s potential suit has merit.

          In response to EJ’s qualifications, I hope she gets it right next time. Michelle and Phil got it right the first time. I may be missing something, but what exactly are EJ’s qualifications to be on the BOS? I am not saying you need to have a Ph.D. up there but the township is a multi-million dollar business with difficult decisions that must be made and complex issues come before the BOS every week. Until proven otherwise, she does not appear to come close to being qualified.

      2. Jim —
        You have got to be joking! Phil and Michelle are fine choices for supervisor but EJ Richter has absolutely no business serving as a supervisor. Give her a chance?? This shouldn’t be a ‘learn on the job’ position. Why is that Phil and Michelle could understand the issue and get it right. They have been serving the same amount of time as EJ. But we’re supposed to give EJ a chance? A chance to do what? to get over the learning curve? Give me a break!

  2. You are right Pattye. Community Does Matter and the residents are going to keep the pressure on Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter. Regardless of what happens on Monday night — we are not going to continue to accept their form of government. It’s over!

  3. And since I’m up, I’ll add to this. Jim — you have said before that you are friends with EJ — but I think her reasons for the vote are the weakest, regardless of her “candor” and despite John appreciating her honesty. She was completely new in this — and “did her research” and then gave us reasons about the economy and not fair to businesses. She said she talked to people (Planning commission) and did her work on the ground. To me — that is what disqualifies her. She ran with Michele — who is a lawyer and clearly had issues with the process. She did research ahead of time — but didn’t ask why it wasn’t on the agenda? Clearly Olson made it clear he was going to make the motion — that’s why they had the people place in the audience in support of it that night. The voters did get it wrong because in electing EJ, they allowed Paul Olsen to buy a 4th vote — and if EJ were qualified for this job, she would not have deferred to him — she would have deferred to common sense — there was NO reason to take that vote that night, and countless reasons to table it. She ignored them all. And another concern — knowing how these meetings work, I can assure you that the objections to this motion came up at the briefing before the meeting. If we ask DiB, Phil and Michele, I would imagine they objected to it in advance. EJ heard that — and yet Olsen still made the motion and without contributing in any way to the discussion, EJ voted AYE. Give her time — obviously we will — but I think this first and MAJOR misstep — where she was guided by a paying mentor — does not give any comfort to those who might now realize what a BLOC of 4 can mean to this community. All Republican is not the issue — it’s having someone who so very clearly is in over her head. Listen to her “apology” — it only digs the hole deeper. She’ll do better next time — but she had every opportunity to keep LAST TIME from happening.

    1. By the way — I consider her vote the deciding vote — the other 3 have been buddies on this from the beginning — and I think it is insulting that she was so pliable. SHE should have been insulted that they counted on her. There is NO WAY she considered this motion carefully. As a new member, she absolutely should have wanted more time once the objections to it were raised — and she did not. And please help me understand what her apology even meant? I have watched it a dozen times — it’s as unfocused as Paul Olson’s DLN quote. She knew what she was supposed to do — she clearly had no understanding of the broader issues. I didn’t vote for her and I am a Republican — so I feel that the “party” is on the hook for this one.

  4. There is no way this doesn’t get reveresed tonight. LORK has it their limit!!!

    I don’t want to see the community being happy about it or thanking the BOS for doing what they should of done in the first place. They failed and let’s move on.

    The next election for Bob, Paul and Warren is 2012.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme