Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Supervisors Lamina, Kampf & Olson Provide Reality TV for Tredyffrin Residents

Below you will find the entire transcript of my statement at last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting. I know it is long but I decided that the only way to fully explain, was to insert an unedited version. I do not believe in surprises and it was not my intent to catch the supervisors off guard last night, so I sent 2 emails last week, detailing my questions and concerns about the firefighter funding process and reminding them of the Pitcarin decision of March 2008. The $50,000 in-kind offer to the Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust was not permitted due to what could be perceived as a ‘pay to play’ arrangement between the township and Pitcarin. I received no responses to either of my emails.

I had advised the supervisors of my concerns; so my expectation for last night was that they would simply listen and at best, thank me for my remarks. Unfortunately for me, the Keene Hall audience and those watching at home that is not what happened. If one was only interested in the merits of reality TV, than last night was worth watching. As I stated last night, it was my intention to wait until after the first quarter had ended before exploring the process of the fundraising effort. (March 31, 2010 was the announced end date for collection of the fire company donations).

I waited until the fund drive was successfully completed and the money safely delivered to the fire company before opening the discussion on the process. In between the personal insults which were hurled at me, I realized something. It is OK to agree with the supervisor decisions but there’s a personal price paid if you wish to have a differing opinion. At one point, Bob Lamina called Community Matters a democrat blog and told us he refers to it as ‘Benson’s Blog’. Where that came from, I have no idea, but that will certainly be a YouTube moment. (Yes, my husband taped the meeting).

Lamina and Kampf’s admonishment of me using personal attacks and negative innuendos was disgraceful. Following their attack on me, Carol Clarke, a Great Valley resident felt compelled to speak up in my defense and to offer her opinion on the supervisors solicitation of local companies, and the perception by the community (as she saw it). Although a gallant effort (and much appreciated by me) Carol also was viewed as the enemy and similarly dismissed by supervisors Kampf and Lamina. Next Dariel Jamieson took the microphone, determined to seek an apology from Lamina to the democrats in the township and to Pattye Benson. Chairman Lamina retorted that he was allowed to have whatever opinion he wanted, apparently even as chair of the supervisors. Wow, in an instance I was taken back to earlier township meetings over the St. Davids sidewalk issue . . . remembering that Kampf, Lamina and Olson rule the township. They make the rules and once again they are free to break the rules. If you notice, I included Section IX, 902A of Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter in my remarks last night. (You will see it referenced below.)

At one point, Kampf referred to the supervisors meeting as a ‘New England Town Hall meeting’ — I have never attended a town hall meeting in New England, . . . are they laced with the same level of disrespect for the speakers? Lamina repeatedly questioned the ‘political timing’ of the fire funding discussion to myself and to Carol Clark. The timing of my remarks had to do with the ending of the first quarter, March 31st, which [by their own admission] was the official end of the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighter Fund Drive. I respectfully waited to discuss the process until the drive had ended . . . political timing, I don’t think so.

Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, and Olson consistently held the line that they had solicited as residents rather than supervisors for the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive. But remembering that the cardboard check was presented during a Board of Supervisors Meeting and the members of the solicitation committee were named (Lamina, Kampf and Olson), I am not sure how it would be possible that the businesses did not know that they were supervisors. For those that are interested, here is the solicitation form which was used.

I would encourage you all to watch last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting and draw your own conclusions. I have received a couple of emails from Blair Meadowcroft, writer with the Main Line Suburban who attended last night’s meeting. She is writing an article about the meeting and I will be curious to read her take on it.


Unedited transcript of my statement presented at April 19, 2010 Board of Supervisors Meeting

I would like to address the process of the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive. When the Fund Drive was announced on December 21 Board of Supervisors Meeting with the presentation of the cardboard check, I was as surprised as many in the community. I understood that the significance of the $23,200 cardboard check as presented by Warren Kampf was to make up for the cut to the fire companies that had occurred as a result of the township’s 2010 budget. I was surprised that 3 of the supervisors, Warren Kampf, Paul Olson and Bob Lamina had come up with this idea and with no discussion from the community were already out fundraising. It seemed unclear whether the other supervisors were aware or not of this venture. It was also unclear whether the fire companies had been counseled about the Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive. I set aside my concerns and problems with the process until after the first quarter – which as I understood it would be the cut-off for the Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive.

We are now safely past the first quarter, the money has been collected and turned over to the Berwyn Fire Company and I would like to address issues and concerns with the process. I should say at this point, that my questions are only addressed to supervisors Bob, Warren, Paul and JD – Phil, EJ and Michelle were not on the Board of Supervisors in December 2009 when the fund drive began.

To receive an official update from the Berwyn Fire Company, I contacted their president Rip Tilden, asking 4 questions. Last week I sent the following questions to Rip Tilden, president of Berwyn Fire Company, and copied the Board on the email.

(1) What was the total amount received by Berwyn Fire Company as a result of the solicitation efforts of supervisors Olson, Lamina and Kampf?
(2) Has Berwyn Fire Company distributed the money to Radnor and Paoli fire companies?
(3) Can you provide a complete list of the donors, individuals and corporate?
(4) Are there any contributions that the fire company can not accept and therefore must return?

Rip kindly supplied me with his detailed response which I have added to my Community Matters blog and also sent to you. The total they received from the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive was $24,400. In response to my question for the list of donors, it was Mr. Tilden’s suggestion that the information come from the solicitors, not the fire company, which would be the Tredyffrin Township supervisors.

When I sent you a copy of Mr. Tilden’s response to my questions, I asked you to add this topic to the agenda, answer the questions and suggested that the public should have a complete accounting of the supervisors fund drive. I received not response to my email to the board of supervisors, nor did I receive a response to my 2nd email to the board of supervisors.

In my email to you, I voiced my concern about the solicitation by supervisors to companies that could be doing business with the township and I cited a specific example from May 2008 and the Pitcairn Company. The same four supervisors, Warren Kampf, Bob Lamina, Paul Olson, and John DiBuonaventuro were supervisors in 2008 and were involved with that decision, as was Mimi Gleason and Tom Hogan. For the benefit of the other supervisors and the public, I will briefly explain. I was and still am the president of Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust, a nonprofit 501c3 organization. Judy DiFilippo (who was a supervisor at the time and also a Trust board member) and myself attended a press party for the Trust. At the party I was approached by Tony Noce, a VP for Pitcairn Properties. We had information available at the party on the Jones Log Barn and Mr. Noce was extremely interested in the historic rebuilding project and asked detailed questions about the barn. I explained the background and history of the project and that the barn was to be rebuilt in Wilson Farm Park. Mr. Noce suggested that to me that his company could help with their use of heavy equipment for grading, etc. He explained that his company would be building an office building in Chesterbrook and if we could work out the schedule, he’d have his guys bring the equipment over to do the grading and would have some of his people add a few extra work days to help the Trust.

I was delighted with this generous offer and truly excited about the possibility of some real help with the Jones Log Barn project, in the form of an in-kind donation. Remember, I did not solicit Pitcarin’s help – it was offered to me and the Trust. I viewed the kind offer as just that, a kind offer of help and a gift valued at as much as $50,000. We used the offer in grant applications, pushed up the date for the architectural drawings, etc. so as to be able to accept this offer.

About 6 weeks after the offer, Judy receives word at an Executive Session of the Board of Supervisors that the Trust would not be allowed to accept Pitcairn’s in-kind offer.The Board of Directors of the Trust received the following email from Judy from May 6, 2008: (excerpted)

“ . . . Trust Board Members –

1) Last evening in Executive Session there was discussion about Pitcairn’s offer to the Trust. Some of you may know that the Township is trying to negotiate an agreement with them relating to a new office building they want to construct in Chesterbrook. The Board was concerned that there was a perceived ‘conflict of interest’ with their offer to grade and/or excavate the ground in Wilson Farm Park for the construction of the barn, “What did they want in return?” for their offer. . . “

The idea was that there could be a ‘pay to play’ perception because of the final review of the land development project between the township & Pitcairn. Needless to say, I was very upset – I was not on the planning commission, the zoning commission, nor an elected official, and I was not allowed to accept this offer. Warren Kampf was chair at the time and called me while on a business trip in California to discuss the board’s decision. He was absolute that I could not accept this offer because this company was doing business with the township. I knew nothing about Pitcairn’s planning commission review yet I could not accept the offer.

Fast forward 18 months to December, 2009 and the very same people who told me that I could not accept an offer with a company that was doing business in the township (even though I didn’t know it) goes and solicits local companies. Mr. Kampf read off a list of donors at the December 21 meeting of the cardboard check presentation that included:

Cafe Winberie’s
Margaret Kuo’s
Devon BMW
Devon Horse Show
Lamb, McErlane
Villanova University
Saul Ewing
Aqua PA
Liberty Property Trust

The way I see it is the only difference between the Pitcairn/Trust situation and the fire company solicitation is that one was an in-kind offer and the other was a monetary contribution; both could be perceived as benefiting the township. If a business that was solicited by the supervisors during the Holiday Fund Drive were to have zoning, planning development projects, contract negotiations, etc. with the township, the perception of pay-to-play would exist. (This was the argument provided when I debated that the Trust should be allowed to accept Pitcairn’s offer.) Conceptually, there is no difference between the situations.

Comcast is currently negotiating a 15-yr. franchise agreement with the township which expires in 2010, Lamb McErlane is the township solicitor and has an agreement with the township and they were solicited and donated, Aqua PA has a contract with the township, and Liberty Property Trust has had ongoing land development issues for the last decade over Church Road in the Great Valley.

Referencing the Home Rule Charter, Article IX, Prohibited Activities and Conflict of Interest


A. No elected or appointed official of the township shall:

1. Engage in any activity or take any action by virtue of his official position from which activity or action the official, or any other person or entity in whose welfare the official is interested, shall benefit or realize a gain or advantage. Such benefit, gain or advantage shall not, however, be construed to be prohibited if the action in question is in behalf of a group of citizens of the township and such benefit and relationship is generally known and acknowledged.

2. Solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, favor, service, commission or other consideration that might reasonably tend to influence that official in the discharge of the duties of office.

3. Seek to influence, directly or indirectly, the awarding of any contract where such official is interested or would benefit directly, financially or otherwise, from said contract. Such action is not intended to apply to actions of a Supervisor on behalf of a group or class of citizens of the township who would benefit from the contract and such benefit and relationship is generally known and acknowledged.

I would like to understand why 4 supervisors in 2008 said that Pitcairn’s offer could be perceived as a pay to play but the same supervisors OK their own solicitation of local companies. This is not about the money that was raised. It is about the process that they used to raise the money – the source of the donations and the encouragement donors may have received/felt in responding to the solicitation.

Why was the Trust not permitted to accept an in-kind offer but supervisors can openly and publically solicit? Why are there different sets of rules applied? Same supervisors – different rules.

Share or Like:


Add a Comment
  1. First off, let me say that I have lived in Wayne for 63 years and have been a lifelong Republican. I taped the supervisors meeting and just watched it. Totally disgusting. How dare our elected officials treat residents the way that Lamina and Kampf did. Their behavior was disgusting. I can’t believe that I voted for both of you – where do you get off treating people the way you did. Does your behavior make you feel like ‘big men’? Everyone needs to see the meeting – this is true bullies in action.

  2. But I thought this was a hippie tree huggin’ Democratic liberal blog?

    Shame on you Lamina/Kampf/Olson. You are a disgrace to the position of Supervisor. I can say I voted for a real Supervisor…Ms. Kichline. You have crossed the line once again. I am not a fan of lawsuits, but I hope you all get removed.

    You represent everyone in Tredyffrin!!!

  3. All Pattye wanted to know was WHY

    ….why she as president of Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust (an independent non-profit) was forced to decline a $50,000 in-kind contribution offered by a contractor doing business with Tredyffrin Township because of the appearance of pay-to-play politics….

    … when three of the same supervisors who had voted NO to accepting grading work for the Jones log barn actually went out soliciting contributions from area businesses – some of which hope for favorable outcomes in business dealings with the Township.

    Supervisors soliciting. Prohibited by the Home Rule Charter – as i read it.

    But not wanting to interfere in any way with the fire companies’ receipt of needed contributions, Pattye waited to ask WHY the appearance of pay to play had constrained a charitable contribution in one case but not the other.

    The responses offered by Mssrs Lamina, Kampf and Olson were very telling. None even attempted to address Pattye’s question.

    Mr. Olson was polite but tone deaf in his insistence that “we live in a generous community.. ” We did nothing wrong.

    Mr. Kampf kept his cool for a change but chose to expound on the beauty of the process and his right to solicit as a private citizen – all while campaigning for his contested upcoming primary

    Of the three, Mr. Lamina’s conduct was way beyond the bounds of conduct expected of the head of a local government. He attacked Pattye personally, sneering that her question was politically motivated, and accused her of being part of a Democratic Party machine.. He feigned deep disappointment that she was even asking the question.

    Appalling though it was, after watching the meeting I was even more discouraged about the prospects for fair and open government than ever.

    If anyone thinks this board of supervisors gives a hoot about anything beside their own party- driven agenda, you’re kidding yourself.

  4. Well JP — you are an attack dog, but in this case, I completely concur that these guys are red meat — go get em. Always wished I had a law degree so that no one could mess with me either….I don’t think we need to worry about WK moving past May unless this community truly are the lemmings that OLK clearly think they are. Pattye: they can do all the diminishing of the discussion by saying you have an ax to grind, but it’s pretty clear that these 3 have no training in public conflict. Perhaps the Republican committee people that read here will see that many of us — lifelong Republicans — will not just vote for whoever they give us. I have always found L&O to be arrogant and offensive — and now see WK as just another one of those backroom boys. Perhaps EJ will wake up and smell the coffee and stop promising them her 4th vote….let’s see how the “big 3” function when they are marginalized.

  5. Mr. Petersen: I really have no great interest in the local wranglings in Tredyffrin Township, but I try to have some concern for Pennsylvania law.

    I suggest that you read Art. 6, Sec. 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution on the “removal of civil officers,” where you will discover the correct procedure for removing elected civil officers.

    You might also read South Newton Township Electors v. South Newton Township Supervisor Bouch, 575 Pa. 670, 838 A.2d 643 (2003) — removal section of 2nd class township code conflicted with constitution; In re Petition to Recall Reese, 542 Pa. 114, 665 A.2d 1162 (1995) — recall provision of home rule charter conflicted with constitution; Citizens Committee to Recall Rizzo, 470 Pa. 1, 367 A.2d 232 (1976) — Philadelphia home rule charter removal provisions inconsistent with constitution.

    These are just some cases decided under Art. 6, Sec. 7.

    1. At a quick read:

      Section 902 is not, by its terms, self enforcing.

      Section 903, which speaks to removal of violators, seems to me to be contrary to the constitutional section to which I referred you.

      Read the constitutional section and the cited cases.

    2. 0 for 2 on lawsuits?
      im curious, are you going to wait until after the primary to drum up another phony suit, or are you going to try and squeeze another threat in beforehand?
      im eager to see what the next ‘scandal’ will be…. surely the witch hunt will continue.

  6. I too watched the taped 4/19 BoS meeting the other day and heard the very specific reason why the offer of in-kind work from the Pitcairn Co. to the Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust was denied by the BoS in May 2008. Mr. Kampf gave the reason and Tom Hogan, the Twp. Solicitor who gave the legal opinion on the decision back then, concurred with what Mr. Kampf said. The reason was that a conflict of interest existed because Judy DiFillipo was a sitting Supervisor and Trust Board member at the time the offer from Pitcairn was made. That was the legal opinion at the time and that is why the BoS did not allow the Trust to accept the offer. It was not about you, Pattye, it was about Mrs. DiFillipo’s position on both entities. I don’t know why you left this very pertinent fact out of of your above comments. The decision was based on what Mrs. DiFillipo knew about Pitcairn’s planning commision review as a Supervisor and the conflict of interest she had as a member of the Trust Board. I think your decision to leave out the major fact in this case speaks volumes to your credibility and motivations, Pattye.

    1. To clarify:

      I knew nothing about Pitcairn’s planning commission situation. As I said I was not on the planning commission, township employee or elected official, I had no knowledge of any land development project in Chesterbrook by Pitcairn. The first I heard about it was when Tony Noce, VP of Pitcairn spoke to me about the Jones Log Barn project. To clarify, the township and the board of supervisors were told immediately (within 24 hours) of the offer that I received from Pitcairn. If they had said something about there being a problem within a day or two that the Trust could not accept the offer for whatever reason, perhaps the effect would not have been has great. But they did not initially make that decision against the Trust accepting the offer (their decision was 6 weeks later).

      As president of the Trust I wrote a grant application using the Pitcairn’s in-kind donation on the grant application, sped up the architectural and the land development drawings to meet the schedule of Pitcairn, etc. all with the understanding that the Trust would receive the donation from Pitcairn. If the problem with the planning commission existed — why wait 6 weeks and give the Trust the impression that there was not a problem? Again, the township was notified the morning after the offer was presented to the Trust. If Mr. Hogan, Ms. Gleason or the BOS had said something in the first couple of days of the Pitcairn offer before efforts and expense was expended from the Trust side, I would have felt differently. Sure, I may have still been disappointed but ‘easy come, easy go’ — again, I wrote a major international grant application that went to three rounds, based on Pitcairn’s $50,000 offer. I suppose it was fortunate that in the end the Trust lost the grant on the 3rd round, otherwise based on the township’s decision on Pitcairn decision and full disclosure to the granting agency, we would probably have had to return the grant money.

      As a small historic nonprofit organization, an offer of any kind is greatly appreciated but a $50,000 in-kind donation was a staggering offer. Those of us in the historic preservation world were so exicted by this generous ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ offer, it was a major disappointment to be told 6 weeks later that we could not accept it.

    2. John
      I think you meant to address this to Tredy Voter, not township reader. He hasn’t chimed in on this yet.

  7. Mssrs. Lamina, Olson, Kampf and C.T. Alexander (this posting is addressed to you now that I know, by means of Mr. Lamina’s snarky reference during Monday’s meeting, that you read and/or are informed of Community Matters):

    Little men with something to hide respond to polite, fact-based comments and questions with anger, defensiveness, and personal attacks. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

  8. I hate to think that JP’s possible litigation would influence OLK in any way. In the same way that they reversed themselves on the SDGC after reconsidering their poor judgment, I think they should consider resigning from the BOS based on what they know to be a moral abrogation of their duties as supervisors. I agree that the reasons for the Pitcairn denial are clearly linked to Judy D being on both boards, and the same can be said of the Comcast (and many others — law firms doing business with the township first and foremost) solicitation. This toothpaste is out of the tube — and while I don’t personally believe any of the 3 went about this from a power base or extortion perspective….the results are the same. JP’s hypothetical about Comcast is much more relevant than the Pitcairn request.
    If Tom Hogan represents the Township of Tredyffrin, and not just the members of the BOS, then he should step up and issue an opinion. Arthur Andersen went out of business because they went to bed with Enron to retain their relationship as their auditors — too big to fail. Well — our Supervisors are clearly in the same relationship to the solicitor — he keeps their good will by not publicly ruling against them. But it’s time. Regardless of politics and political futures (WK), this is a complete public affront that these political animals would consider this and anything else they do “above the law.” Having a law suit would be like Nixon going through impeachment hearings — why put us through it. We all know this was wrong – whether it was technically “illegal.” Spare the township the angst and resign. Show some moral character.

  9. As a life long Republican and a right wing conservative I am ashamed of the actions and comments by the BOS to Pattye’s statement, but not at all surprised by their tactics.
    I wonder why they chose to attack when all they needed to do was to provide the reasons as described by “Tredyffrin Voter” above in a polite and civil manner. .
    I am becoming convinced that we have lost our “representation” at all levels of government and regardless of the R or D. Politicians from DC to Tredyffrin now feel they know better than those of us that elected them and have this elitist attitude and condescending voice levels when they are on shaky ground or are unprepared for the questions.
    I had no idea that this was a left wing liberal blog…. but as a right wing conservative I will stay tuned and continue to post. I also advocate NE type town halls – we should have more people speaking rather than just accepting.
    I will do everything I can to insure that Kampf goes no farther. We need loacl shop owners in government along with term limits.

    1. To Mr. papadick58: “wonder why they chose to attack when all they needed to do”. I watched the tape of the 4/19 BoS mtg on TV yesterday and heard Mr. Kampf give the reasons for the Pitcairn decision. Everyone in the room and everyone who watched on TV heard Mr. Kampf give these facts in a very civil manner, including Ms. Benson who was at the meeting. That was the first time I heard about the matter and I actually listened to Mr. Kampf’s response to Ms. Benson. I don’t know why she did not include the important facts in her initial comments on this blog. She was at the meeting and heard everything that Mr. Kampf said, as we all did.

      1. Thank you — I will need to watch the tape and come to my own conclusions.. my comments were based on the original post..

      2. One of the issues here that is particularly galling is this notion that certain supervisors were acting as private citizens when they solicited these contributions. I wonder who cooked up this explanation. Is this like one of Jack Abramoff’s congressmen acting as a “private citizen” when accepting free trips and golf outings?

        I also like how Warren Kampf has the audacity to justify the clearly political and self-serving cardboard check moment as (and I’m paraphrasing) the sort of feel-good moment that might take place during a New England town meeting. He must think we’re really stupid.

    2. <>

      Papadick, that’s because it isn’t. Are you going to let a childish, vindictive man like Bob Lamina characterize the content and commenters on this blog? Be your own judge. To me it seems that most of those commenting on Community Matters are reasonable, middle of the road people politically.

      I have consistently felt in the minority here. I am a life-long Democrat, but one who supports many moderate views and longs for a return to bi-partisanship and government focused on the public good.

      Politics has descended to such a low level that I cannot imagine things getting much worse. Part of the problem seems driven by a tribal mentality – us against them – and part is the result of politicians’ almost ceaseless need to campaign and raise money given the way the game is played.

      Of course, in my mind, the Democratic Party has moved closer to the center over the years while the Republican Party has moved far right, marginalizing more moderate politicians who want to work with Democrats to get something done.

      But I’m guessing there are some who disagree with that.

      Nevertheless, pay-to-play politics at the local level stilll surprises and disappoints. It is unfortunate but understandable that Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust was not able to accept the substantial offer 18 months ago. It left a bad taste because of the way it was handled, but it was probably the proper decision.

      That is precisely why Pattye was troubled by supervisors Lamina, Kampf and Olson’s solicitation of funds from companies that understood the possible consequences of saying no. Without considering the possibility of of ethics violations, it was hypocritical of them to staunchly defend their actions in this case after being so concerned with the appearance of pay-to-play in the recent past.

      The truth is that this issue is not political – although it offers up some campaign fodder for current and future Democratic candidates. But those who take pleasure in that are part of the problem. The real focus should be on good government.

      When Bob Lamina feels so comfortable deriding and dismissing citizens in his official capacity as BOS chair – just because they happen to be “Democrats” – and then defends himself as free to express those opinions “as a private citizen” while the rest of the Board sits mute, the entire process is broken.

      Sadly, anyone who watches Monday’s meeting will realize that KLO conduct themselves as if they’ve done nothing wrong ,and it’s all a politically motivated conspiracy to disrupt local government. They are locked into their interpretation of the facts and will not be persuaded they have made mistakes.

      No one wants to see lawsuits. And forcing public officials to resign is a last resort. But KLO have given the community good reasons to go forward with both.

      1. I have viewed the last 3 tapes that Pattye posted above and I continue to be ashamed of the actions of Lamina, Kampf & Olsen – particularly the snaly and and contentious Lamina who feels he is a God and can say what ever he cares to from his “bully pulpit”.
        I applaud Carol & Dariel for their comments as well.
        As to this blog — I never got the feeling that it was anything but a fair place to express ones views and get interaction form others in the community. Strange, I have never gotten the feeling that Pattye had a left wing slant to her postings so as a conservative republican I too will jump on the bandwagon and ask Lamina to apologize and get off his high horse.

  10. Some good points, John. Not the least of which is Warren Kampf’s non-existent bi-partisan support. Should he defeat Ken Buckwalter in the May 18th primary, the GOP’s chances of taking back the 157th this year plummet to zero.

    1. I hope this community does not remedy the “glitch” by promoting him, by sending him to Harrisburg where he can do even more damage, affecting more people, and on a greater scale.

  11. That’s all say Pattye is 100% wrong in her comparisons. However, the solicitation form speaks for itself…forget the comparison. I want to hear someone defend that. Lamina are you reading this?

  12. Papadick hit this right on – Bob is using his position as a bully pulpit. His behavior hurts the image of those Republicans, me being one, who engage in civilized discourse with all parties. I always fail to understand how these individuals think they can treat people like this. Quite frankly it’s disgusting.

    This is the same individual who came out and essentially accused a volunteer fire company of criminal activity where no such evidence ever existed all while his own finance manager was stealing from under his nose.

  13. TVoter
    In the same way that you are accusing Pattye of leaving out “facts” in her summation, you are leaving out the words that are now being characterized here and elsewhere as attacks. We are all adults and having viewed the video are free to conclude what we will — but I think it is a bit disingenous to continue to reference Mr. Kampf as civil when we all know how it turned out…how it always turns out. I personally like WK, but he’s a very different person when he’s behind that microphone.

  14. I am sorry, Pattye, that you are the scapegoat for some of our supervisors. I thank you, though, for standing up for what is right. As hard as it must be for you, I applaud you, and I certainly appreciate all that you are doing.

  15. who got screwed? Looks like the FD got some money. Let’s see if favors are repaid. Isn’t that your concern?

  16. TBO — hopefully Shire stepped up….if they were asked by the township or anyone elected, it was wrong too. If there was an open call for help, it works I think.

    1. What is an open call – someone from Shire happened to be watching the meeting and said, oh we’ll pay for that?

      More likely, someone from the township called them and asked them to sponsor it? If it was a supervisor other than LOK, should they be asked to step down? If is was a staffer, should they be fired?

      I am not condoning what happened with the big check, just exploring where this all ends up.

    2. John
      People typically go to the polls to vote for someone…I have had exactly one tiny postcard from Buckwalter’s campaign. There are many registered Republicans in my home….doesn’t he need to ASK for our vote? Kampf has done the door to door here.

      1. I agree. People that don’t like Kampf are less likely to go vote for his opponent than people that do like Kampf are to go vote. It’s not about giving the vote to Kampf — it’s about motivation to go and vote for his opponent. People need a reason to vote — and not liking a candidate while not knowing much about his opponent is not much motivation. Voters are pretty lazy. Rain — bad turnout. Cold — bad turnout. Lunch plans? Whoops. The hard-core voters in this area are the ones who vote every year — and often pull a lever. So to get them to vote in a Republican primary for anyone but the favorite son will take some light and some heat — but will also take a higher profile for KB. I’m not critizing him at all — I’m hoping he has more to come == even if it means he has to shine light on some of the ethics issues. Hopefully he has some surrogates that will do that….though Donahure did beat Brazunas doing it on his own (Ercole).

  17. An open call is general awareness of the need — but if someone called them and asked for the money, HOW is that different from denying the Trust from accepting the Pitcairn offer. The problem here is that the BOS was very clear in the Pitcairn decision — 6-1 against letting them help move the project along….on ethics grounds. SO — if Shire is looking for something from the township — now or in the future — do we really think their role of rescuer won’t influence the decision? I want stocks built outside the building —
    “Stocks are devices used in the medieval times for torture, public humiliation, and corporal punishment. The stocks partially immobilized its victims and they were often exposed in a public place such as the site of a market to the scorn of those who passed by. Since the purpose was to punish offenders against the standards of conduct of the time anybody could assault, revile or aim filth at the victim.” Perhaps even a scarlet letter…what letter would you suggest?
    Seriously — I don’t know how far it should go — but I want the BOS to admit that they didn’t think it through and were wrong. I want them to admit that those of us who question them are not the devil in the room. Oh — and I’m a Republican….so I think what I say should matter (since if I was a Dem it clearly would not in their world)

  18. Here’s the next story: Enron has auditors called Arthur Andersen. WHen Enron’s efforts begin to waiver toward the less than ethical, AA does not shut it down. Why? Because Enron was too big to fail as an AA client. So, since Enron pays AA, and AA needs them as a source of employment, they sort of go along to get along. Now comes Lamb McErlane….who are the solicitors for the township. They step up and rule on Pitcairn (for whatever reason — though I think it was at the behest of the BOS to reach the conclusion they did). So — when BOS ask Hogan for a donation to the Fire Fund to eliminate a political liability….does anyone think they could have said no — unless of course they recognized that it was the darker side of the same ethics violation they had concluded in Pitcairn. But no — they donate — and the next meeting after the donation is made public, they are renewed as solicitors for the next fiscal year. I guess we are lucky (?) that BOS didn’t ask the firm for the whole $25K….too obvious maybe? If you are going to extort money — why not extort more? Oh — because it wasn’t extortion. Not even close…because they didn’t see it that way. And keeping the donations spread out kept it all under the radar — otherwise why not involve the whole BOS in the solicitation — expand the base of support???

    The outcome (money to the firefighters) works — so public humilitation is all that the remedy requires…and defeating Warren (you cannot defeat him if you don’t have someone actively running against him locally) isn’t enough for me — I want Lamina pilloried.

Leave a Reply

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

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme