Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Month – February 2011

Public Revolt in Wisconsin . . . Can Pennsylvania be far behind?

February 17, 2011
36 Comments

Governor Tom Corbett is faced with some tough decisions when he presents his first budget on March 8. For the fiscal year starting July 1, Pennsylvania budget deficit is estimated at $4 – $5 billion! How will he reduce the budget shortfalls? Will public employees be safe from the chopping block?

Are their lessons for Harrisburg from Wisconsin? Cash-strapped states across the country watched the fireworks today in Madison, Wisconsin over Republican Governor Scott Walker’s proposed legislation to cut back on public employee costs and curb union power. The bill passed Wisconsin’s Joint Finance Committee and was set for a vote today. However, 16 state senators (which included 14 Democrat senators) didn’t show up for the vote. The vote on the legislation remains in limbo. At least 15 school districts closed school for a second day in a row as thousands gathered in the state capital to protest the proposed limiting of union bargaining rights. Claiming that the governor is balancing the budget on the taxpayers back, the workers are refusing to return to work if the bill passes.

Specifically, Wisconsin’s proposed legislation would:

  1. Eliminate collective bargaining rights for most public workers. The unions could still represent the workers but they would not be able to see pay increases above the Consumer Price Index, unless approved by a public referendum.
  2. Unions also could not force employees to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized.
  3. The bill would permit local police, firefighters and state troopers to retain their union rights.
  4. Public workers would have to pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage. That represents an average of 8 percent increase in state employees’ share of pension and health care costs. In exchange, public employees were promised no furloughs or layoffs.

Walker has threatened to lay off up to 10,000 state workers if the measure does not pass. The proposed legislation is expected to provide a savings of $30M by July 1 and $300M over the next 2 years.

Wisconsin’s budgetary pain is playing out across the country. Health care, pension contributions, collective bargaining rights . . . are all under the microscope in the Corbett’s cost-cutting budget that is coming in a couple of weeks. Will we see the events in Madison played out in Harrisburg? The Commonwealth is looking at a $4 – $5 billion deficit. Yes, billions!

With less than 60 days on the job, do you think that Corbett is prepared to take on Pennsylvania’s public workers?

School Voucher Discussion Continues in Harrisburg, Sen. Dinniman Offers Possible Solutions to SB1 Issues

February 17, 2011
27 Comments

Yesterday in Harrisburg, the Senate Education Committee held a hearing to discuss the Opportunity Scholarship and Education Improvement Tax Credit Act (SB1), the proposed school voucher legislation. We understand that in the first year, SB1 would provide approximately $9,000 in voucher dollars to low-income students enrolled in the 144 worst performing schools in the state. The second year of the proposed legislation would provide school voucher dollars to all low-income students who live within the boundaries of those 144 schools. If I understand correctly, the average cost to educate a student in Pennsylvania is more than $16,000 and a school voucher student would bring in $9,000. The school district would retain the difference, approximately $7,000. In the end, more money per student would remain in the school.

The Senate hearing included some proposed changes to SB1, specifically how the school voucher program would work in the third year. As currently written the proposed legislation would expand the statewide school voucher program to include all students in the third year. Although a school choice supporter, Sen. Andy Dinniman presented a pair of amendments to address some of the concerns of the proposed school voucher legislation. One of his SB1 amendments addresses the cost of the proposed school voucher program (specifically in the third year) and funding issues. Dinniman’s other amendment responds to teacher union and school board concerns in regards to accountability issues of the proposed voucher program.

As a way to handle the costs of expanding the school voucher program to all students in the third year, Dinniman proposes using the state’s existing Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) program. The current EITC program is funded by contributions made by businesses and is directed toward income-eligible students to help them to attend private or parochial schools. For their contributions, businesses receive a 70 percent tax credit (although Dinniman suggests lowering the tax credit to 65 percent).

This suggestion by Dinniman would reduce the high cost of extending the school voucher program statewide as the SB1 legislation currently suggests. There are projections that the implementation of the third year program in its current form, could range from $500M to $1B, depending on the number of students enrolled in the program. Since its implementation in 2001, the EITC program has benefited 244,000 students. Dinniman’s school voucher program would expand the EITC program, doubling the business contributions from $75M to $150M to help with school voucher funding.

Much discussion surrounding the SB1 legislation is concern over accountability in private and parochial schools. Dinniman’s suggestion to handle these concerns would be to mandate that students who leave the public school program must participate in the state’s standardized testing system. In theory I understand that the Senator is trying to address the educational standard concern that some may have over private schools but I am not sure how this proposed ‘standardized testing’ would work.

Use this as an example – Suppose a student decides to use the school voucher program, leaves the public school system and is enrolled in a private school. The private school has its own teaching methods and programming which may (or may not) align itself yearly to the curriculum of the state’s public school system. Perhaps, the private school teaches algebra in 7th grade and geometry in 8th grade whereas the public school reverses the order and teaches geometry in 7th grade and algebra in 8th grade. The seventh grade school voucher student is given the standardized math test, which includes geometry. However, this student is attending a private school that does not include geometry in the curriculum until 8th grade. As a result, the private school student (using the school voucher program) does poorly on the test. Obviously, this is a simplistic example of what could be a possible problem with mandating standardized testing in the private school arena.

Another possible problem but probably more easily addressed — the actual scheduling of the standardized testing. The school voucher student in the private school would have to ‘sit’ for the standardized testing and the scheduling of the testing may not be amenable to the private school schedule. It is my understanding that Sen. Dinniman’s two amendments are in the drafting stage, so I am confident that the accountability issues will be thoroughly vetted and a solution reached.

We know that the state’s teachers unions are generally opposed to the SB1 legislation as currently written. Michael Cross, VP of Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) reports that the union is open to further discussion if the legislation is amended. They would look at each of the amendments and see if it adequately meets the needs of the students. Although unwilling to comment specifically on Dinniman’s proposed amendment changes, Cross did remark that he would not support an amendment that takes funding from any of the state’s current education subsidies. Remember, Dinniman’s proposal to address SB1 funding concerns, doubles the EITC contribution.

Chester County GOP Convention . . . District Attorney Race – Steve Kelly Withdraws, Tom Hogan Endorsed but . . . is Pat Carmody remaining a candidate?

February 16, 2011
17 Comments

Attending the Chester County GOP endorsement convention last night was a four-hour marathon event. The evening started at 7 PM and was filled with political tradition, excitement, predictions, disappointment and for some of us . . . a night of waiting.

With 391 committee members voting (or holding proxy votes), the convention endorsement process required a candidate to receive 60 percent of the total votes or 235 votes. If after one round of voting, a candidate did not receive a minimum of 60 percent of the votes, there was a second round of voting. On the occasion that the second round did not net a candidate at least 235 votes, a third round of voting was required. If a candidate did not emerge with the required 60 percent on the third round of voting, both candidates received ‘recommended’ status versus ‘endorsed’ and the Republican candidate would be determined by the voters in the May primary.

For those of us in the spectator seats (only the voting committee members of the county GOP were permitted beyond a certain point) there was an opportunity to speak with the candidates. Fortunately for me, Congressman Joe Pitts campaign manager was sitting close by and she provided a wealth of information on the candidates and an explanation of the endorsement process. I liken my attending the convention, much as a spectator at a sporting event, when you have never played the sport and do not know the rules and regulations. It was great to have an expert explaining the ‘plays’ throughout the night!

My interest in attending the GOP convention last night, extended beyond idle fascination. I felt like I had a ‘horse in the race’ so to speak and for me the evening centered on the district attorney race. I have written about the DA candidates, Pat Carmody, Tom Hogan and Steve Kelly. Although I know Hogan and consider him a friend, I have had email and telephone contact with Carmody and Kelly. Having had several phone conversations with Pat Carmody, I was delighted to put a ‘face to the voice’. Friendly and engaging, it is easy to see how Carmody has successfully served in the district attorney office for 27 years! As expected, Kelly withdrew his name from the nomination process and his support (and the suggestion that his supporters do likewise) went to DA candidate Hogan.

The district attorney race was the last race of the night. Remembering that after the straw polls, only two votes separated Carmody and Hogan (Carmody led by the 2 votes) the committee members cast their votes for DA. First round, the vote count was Carmody 165; Hogan 224. Neither candidate had received the necessary 60 percent vote; a second round of voting was required. At this point, it was late in the evening – after 10:30 PM. Two of the committee members had left the building (and apparently did not leave their proxy) so the committee members voting dropped to 389 (versus the original 391). However, the 60 percent number of votes required for endorsement remained the same at 235. After a second round of voting in the DA race, the count shifted — Carmody 127; Hogan 255. Hogan had passed the required 60 percent vote margin and emerged the endorsed Republican District Attorney candidate. Although Hogan is the GOP endorsed DA candidate, there was speculation among the spectators that Carmody may remain in the district attorney race.

In other races, there was no surprise that the two endorsed County Commissioner candidates are Terrence Farrell and Ryan Costello. If you recall, Costello was recently appointed to fill the unexpired term of Carol Aichele. The Common Pleas Judge race was interesting. Candidates Jeff Sommer and Ann Marie Wheatcraft were both recommended after three rounds of very close voting. However, so as not to confuse voters at the primary, Jeff Sommer withdrew his name, and by a special vote, Wheatcraft was named the endorsed candidate; thus avoiding any confusion in May. The other Common Pleas judge candidate endorsed was Mark Tunnell.

Creating a look right out of the Wild West with straw cowboy hats and red t-shirts were supporters of Sheriff Carolyn “Bunny” Welsh. Without party opposition, Welsh was endorsed for re-election as Chester County sheriff.

I want to thank the Chester County GOP for allowing the public the opportunity for an inside look at county politics. Several people asked if I would be attending the county Democratic convention on Saturday. My reply, only if there are any contested races. (I do not think any of the races are contested.)

Although the district attorney’s race was my primary motivation for attending the county GOP endorsement convention last night, the evening provided a glimpse in to political party tradition and a front row seat for the candidate endorsement process. Thank you for the experience Chester County Republican Committee.

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

February 14, 2011
6 Comments

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

February 14, 2011
3 Comments

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!)

How Will T/E School District Close the $5.3 Million 2011-12 Budget Gap?

February 13, 2011
40 Comments

The Finance Committee meeting is Monday, February 14, 7:30 PM at the T/E Administration Office, West Valley Business Center, 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700, Wayne. Click here for the meeting agenda and 2011-12 Budget Development Plan.

At the onset of this 2011-12 budget discussion, I want to give tremendous credit to the school board members who serve on the Finance Committee – Chair Kevin Mahoney, Debbie Bookstaber, Jim Bruce and Kevin Buraks. Their task is overwhelming and the 148-page 2011-12 budget document attests to their hard work, especially given the challenging economic situation of school districts. As a taxpayer, I am grateful and thank them for their diligence on our behalf.

Increased pension costs are the biggest hurdle in the coming years to school districts across the state. The challenge is how to balance the defined benefit plan of the teachers with the rising costs to maintain. How will school districts fund the pension plans, provide the same quality of education and not place the burden on the taxpayer . . . ?

Although I took time to review the budget documents provided for Monday’s meeting, I admit that my eyes glazed over on some of the details. If any of my assumptions are incorrect or if I have misinterpreted the information, here is hoping that someone will provide clarification.

As presented, the 2011-12 budget has projected revenue of $107M, which includes $1.2M revenue from Act 1 tax increase (1.4%) and $2.4M revenue from Act 1 exceptions (2.8%). Projected expenses are $112M, which leaves an imbalance of (-$5.3M). Without the $1.2M revenue from Act 1 tax increase and the $2.4M in revenue from Act 1 exceptions, the imbalance would be (-$8.9M) versus the (-$5.3M).

Although the 2011-12 budget gap is narrowed with the Act 1 tax increase and the Act 1 exception; there remains a deficit in the 2011-12 budget of (-$5.3M). If all strategies of Level 1 are instituted (as outlined on pg. 107 of the budget development plan), the deficit is reduced by $1M and the imbalance drops to (-$4.3). Under this plan, the remaining $4.3M of the budget deficit is to come from the district’s fund balance. The school district has a Moody’s AAA bond rating . . . is that rating jeopardized by using $4.3M in fund balance dollars for the 2011-12 budget? Understanding that the fund balance is taxpayers money; how much reserve is required to maintain the district’s bond rating?

All Level 1 strategies suggested under this budget development plan appear straightforward and practical ways to cut expenses. I did note two secretarial positions to be eliminated at a combined cost savings of $135K are included on the Level 1 list.

The more interesting and/or surprising strategy suggestions are included in Level 2 and Level 3. Level 3 requires attrition for implementation. It is interesting to note that the Level 2 strategies, should they all be implemented, would provide a cost savings to the district of $6.7M +. I would expect the dollar amount savings from Level 2 strategies would be substantially greater than $6.7M, probably closer to $10M, maybe more. Why? Because Level 2 includes the selling of TESD property including (1) the 16 acres on Jefferson Lane in Chesterbrook (earlier discussion on Community Matters questioned the feasibility of selling that property); (2) 738 First Ave, Berwyn; this is a 10 acre parcel where the ECS building sits. (As an aside, it was my understanding that the ESC building was contracted for demolition but it is still standing) and (3) 945 Conestoga Road, 0.33 acre of residential property next to Teamer Field.

In further review of Level 2 strategies, a few suggestions caught my attention; such as outsourcing of custodial services . . . could result in a savings of $950K. I believe that the custodians (along with the bus drivers, lunchroom staff and possibly some secretarial employees) are unionized which could make the change to outsourcing more difficult. However, with nearly a million dollar savings involved in custodial outsourcing, it could be worth further exploration.

On the Level 2 list, is a suggested $2M savings to the school district with the elimination of all non-mandated student transportation. The remaining transportation would be what is required by the state. Combining the outsourcing of custodial services and the elimination of the non-mandated bus transport, would provide almost $3M in savings.

Another Level 2 strategy that has an associated savings tag of $1.5M, (but a suggestion that probably is not practical and should be removed from consideration) is to require athletic and extra-curricular activities to become completely self-supporting. Families would be required to underwrite the cost of student participation or if unable financially, seek help from FLITE.

Contained in the Level 3 list are several staff reductions, many of which would affect the elementary grades. Here are those specific strategies and associated savings:

  • Eliminate Literacy Intervention Program $111,000
  • Eliminate Elementary Math Support Positions $350,000
  • Eliminate Four Elementary Reading Specialist Positions $300,000
  • Eliminate Elementary Strings Specialist Position $75,000
  • Eliminate Middle School Reading Specialists $300,000
  • Eliminate Middle School Math Support Positions $125,000
  • Reduce each High School Department by One Teacher $375,000
  • Eliminate Elementary Applied Tech Program $300,000

If my math is correct, the above listed eight cost-savings equate to approximately $2M. However, I have to believe that some of these staff reductions could directly influence the quality of TESD education. Remember, these are Level 3 strategies not Level 1. However, just the fact that they appear on any list, makes them a possibility.

The last Level 3 strategy listed is interesting and apparently was discussed at Friday’s Facilities Committee meeting – the redistricting of the elementary schools. According to district enrollment patterns predicted for the next 5 years, there is a need to consider redistricting. Devon Elementary is at 100% capacity and has become the largest elementary school. The savings is ‘to be determined’ because it is possible that redistricting could keep eliminate the need for additional space at Devon Elementary. However, this would impact those families living on the redistricted streets.

Ray Clarke attended the Facilities Committee meeting on Friday and offered the following notes from the meeting. It would seem that storage and maintenance facilities continues to be discussed but with no clear solution. I know that the ECS building was slated for demolition but would it be possible (at a far lesser cost) that the ECS building could be retrofitted as a storage facility – not for use by staff or students which could be affected by the building’s environmental issues – but for use as storage. It is obviously too simplistic a solution so there must be a reason that it is not possible.

Ray Clarke’s Notes from Facilities Committee meeting, 2/11/11

Some interesting and worthwhile discussions at the TESD Facilities Committee meeting on Friday, with many financial implications that are likely to be further explored on Monday’s Finance Committee. It’s good to report that the tone is very cost conscious – almost as if all the money that the Committee is spending is its own!

The first hour or more was consumed with a couple of items relating to use of the district sports facilities. (Perhaps these could/should have actually been on the published Agenda?). An adult soccer league would like to use Teamer Field; that would require a change in district policy and reversal of an understanding given to neighbors when the field was built. The revenue being discussed is material, and I believe that this warrants thorough consideration on Monday in the context of revenue strategies. A travel softball team has offered to redo the barely used and poor condition baseball field at the ESC site (one of four fields there) at their own expense. They have already done this for a field at Devon Elementary, and there seems to be no downside. The Committee was just about able to make a decision on this one! (Subject to a final check with the school athletics people). Larger issues that arose: a) the amounts the district charges seem to be low (another revenue strategy) and b) maybe as use gets more widespread the district will need to improve the scheduling system to ensure fairness and utilization.

The Committee revisited the issue of facilities for storage and maintenance, starting with the question: what do we actually need? The discussion was a little disjointed and difficult to follow, but it seems to boil down to: we need warm storage for snow clearing equipment (so it works on cold mornings!) that doesn’t involve sharing space with the carpentry shop, plus we need at the least to fix maintenance issues with the current building. The architect had come back with new plans for spending $2 million, taking about $0.75 million out of the first draft from a month ago. However, Dr Motel did not let the Committee even get to those plans. The majority of the Committee seems very conscious of the need to rigorously question all spending, although Betsy Fadem spoke for this project being part of the original plan for the non-educational facilities (but not the budget??). There is a good opportunity here to consider the full cost of in-house functions: for example, loading the carpentry shop with an incremental facilities cost changes the out-sourcing equation considerably. The administration is to come back at the next meeting with a full costing out of the options, from Do Nothing (but essential maintenance), through Add Temporary Space, Build New Facilities, to Restructure (some?) Operations. (It would be great if at least one of the Committee could have an on site review of the facilities and issues). Another topic relating to budget strategies at the Finance Committee.

Perhaps a good time to make the point that Bond Money is still Taxpayer Money. Bondholders are just not giving their money to the district because they like to see us have nice facilities! Although there may be no short run impact on the millage rate or the operating budget, and we can perhaps keep on borrowing, that money has to be repaid in the long run. The latest bond has to be spent on capital within a certain period, but there seems to be no problem with that! Again, relevant to Monday’s discussion.

Finally, interesting early data from just one week of kindergarten registration. Four of the five elementary schools are at an average of 75% of projected kindergarten enrollment, but Devon is already at 100% of the projection – and already enrolls over 100 students more than the average of the others (522 vs 420). The district as a whole has plenty of elementary capacity, but Devon is an exception. There is a facilities plan if an extra class is needed there next year, but the longer term may require other solutions.

Despite the Agenda, no discussion of the IT plan – the consultant had a sudden conflict.

Teachers’ Unions Set ‘Blocking School Vouchers’ as Priority

February 11, 2011
27 Comments

Two sides to every coin . . . supporters call school vouchers a right; a matter of choice. Opponents believe that the proposed voucher program is unconstitutional and will further erode the state’s lowest-performing schools.

The teacher union opposition to school vouchers became clearer this week when representatives from the two major unions brought their case to the state’s House Education Committee. Representatives from Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) and American Federation of Teachers of Pennsylvania (AFT-PA) told the Education Committee that the teacher unions were focusing on two major priorities for 2011 – budgetary assistance and blocking the proposed school voucher legislation.

Pennsylvania is loosing federal stimulus money, which will create a shortfall of $1 billion in education funding. According to Gov. Corbett, the state is facing a $4 billion deficit in next year’s budget so education-spending cuts are expected. If you recall, Corbett and Democratic state senator Anthony Williams of Philadelphia (one of school voucher bill SB1 originators) supported school vouchers in their individual campaigns last year. At this point, we do not know how steep the cuts in education spending will be and no one may know for sure until Corbett unveils his preliminary budget, which is expected to be delivered sometime in March.

Although the school voucher bill will have several hearings in the state House during the next couple of months, Corbett’s budget address in March may see the proposed legislation moving forward. As the proposed SB1 now stands, it would direct over $50 million to the neediest families in the lowest-performing schools in the state. The estimated cost of the program is less than 1% of the current education subsidy.

Besides the school voucher program, the other major education issue that must be addressed by the state is the funding of the Public School Employee Retirement System (PSERS). PSERS as currently designed is not sustainable and threatens to break the budget of school districts across the state. Although the State Legislature recognized the significance of the PSERS funding problem last year, a long-term solution is needed.

Anticipating a major battle ahead over the proposed school voucher legislation, the PSEA union, which represents 190,000+ teachers in Pennsylvania, has announced an 11% increase in dues for its members.

No cryptic-coded text messaging this Valentine’s Day . . . Give a keepsake for the heart; a handwritten love letter

February 10, 2011
1 Comment

Do you remember the last handwritten note you received? Even more, do you remember the last handwritten note you sent?

With our technologically enhanced communications – e-mail, text messaging, voicemail, Facebook status updates, Twitter tweets . . . it is just so convenient to e-mail people, or to leave one-way voice messages for them, isn’t it?

The trend in text messaging continues to increase . . . it’s quick and it’s fast. The same thing is true with e-mail. You get one and can instantly send a reply. Your answer is quick, to the point and you feel that you have communicated. It might be a short reply to answer an e-mailer or simply an acknowledgement that you received the text or the email.

Hidden behind text-written sentences are cryptic codes and abbreviations. Just look at the endless choices . . . IM, SMS, cell phones, iPhones, Blackberries, Andoids . . . equipment to deliver our messages that seemingly changes daily. It is no longer only teenagers using the mysterious language of acronyms and this “shorthand and online jargon” in their communication. Haven’t we all received “emotions” expressed within e-mails, you know the smiley face emoticons or what about “shouting” that gets expressed by typing in ALL CAPS, perhaps followed by a frowning face.

The handwritten note has been around for hundreds of years yet it is still the most powerful tool of expression. Deciding to write someone by hand is a decision to connect with a person in a unique way. The handwritten note, among the form letters, magazines, invoices and solicitations, announces to your reader that he or she matters to you. The handwritten note is unique. It is private; addressed and received only to the person intended. The handwritten note can be saved and re-read forever.

Because it is not routinely sent, the handwritten note stands out and touches the reader in a way no other form of communication does. It doesn’t interrupt the reader at an inopportune time. We can decide to read it immediately or put it aside to enjoy when it’s convenient.

For those that are holiday-challenged, the most romantic day of the year, Valentine’s Day is around the corner, coming up on Monday. Think romance with a handwritten note. Online messages, e-mails and Facebook posts really are most unromantic. Can you imagine Robert Browning sending text love messages to Elizabeth Barrett Browning when he became interested in her poems? What if Robert had texted his ‘love you forever and ever’ sentiment in abbreviated cryptic code? I wonder if their relationship would have progressed into one of the most famous courtships in literature history.

A handwritten love letter is a keepsake for the heart, a treat for the senses. When was the last time you penned a sweet love letter? In the age of emoticons and e-mails, the personal touch has all but disappeared.

Put the romance back in Valentine’s Day and avoid the traps of an over-priced and over-hyped experience. Make this romantic holiday different this year, set aside the keyboard and use the pen and paper. Instead of the dozen red roses, a box of Godiva’s or the little blue box from Tiffany’s . . . rediscover the thoughtful, handwritten love letter this Valentine’s Day! Don’t be surprised if it is read over and over and saved for years in the desk drawer.

Tredyffrin’s Interim Supervisor Vacancy No More . . . Mike Heaberg Appointed

February 8, 2011
20 Comments

Attending last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting was much like attending a wedding. Entering Keene Hall, I found members on the bride’s side of the aisle there to support Republican Kristen Mayock as the interim supervisor. Left of the aisle, the groom’s side contained those gathered to support Republican Mike Heaberg. Representatives from both sides promised that their candidate was the right one to lead the township.

The audience heard from supporters of Mayock and Heaberg, as well as for the Democrat candidate Eamon Brazunas. Friends and political allies praised Mayock for her personal, business and civic achievements. Some of the words used to describe her were skilled negotiator, creative as well as committed and very intelligent. A former Republican committee member and fellow attorney at her law firm, Scott Reidenbach spoke eloquently of Mayock . . . describing her as someone who ‘gets it’ and that she, “understands people and understands this township”.

Others rose to the microphone to extol Heaberg’s virtues, describing him as smart, talented, community-minded . . . the “ultimate selfless person who is seeking public office for all the right reasons”. Sandy Gorman, a fellow FLITE board member and friend, said three words described Heaberg . . . integrity, reliability and thoroughness.

There is a part in a traditional wedding ceremony, when the officiant says, ‘if anyone objects . . . let him speak now or forever hold his peace.” Like those words in a wedding ceremony, chair of the Tredyffrin Democrats, Dariel Jamieson took the microphone to make a case for the all-Republican Board of Supervisors to choose a Democrat candidate to fill the vacated Republican seat. Supporting interim supervisor candidate Eamon Brazunas, Jamieson described the volunteer firefighter as committed to service and to the community; as someone we trust with our lives. In her support of Brazunas, Jamieson explained that Brazunas had run twice before for the Board of Supervisors and represented broad appeal to both parties, having only lost the last election by 71 votes.

Jamieson offered that 45% of the residents of Tredyffrin are registered Republicans and that the other 55% of the township population is not, so perhaps a Democrat should be appointed to add balance to the board. Unfortunately, Chairman Lamina’s partisan response to Jamieson was far from satisfactory; telling her that he could never vote for someone unless they were a Republican.

Elected to serve all the people . . . Republicans, Democrats, Independents . . . I found Lamina’s remark, particularly as chair of the Board of Supervisors, to be both inappropriate and offensive. This kind of remark has the potential to continue to push the political wedge between members of this community. And for what purpose . . . for what political gain? Tonight Lamina formally announced that he would not be seeking re-election; so why not try, in the last remaining 10 months of your term, to bring people together rather than continuing to separate and divide.

The five members of the Board of Supervisors (Paul Olson was on vacation) took a vote on the interim supervisor appointment. As some expected, DiBuonaventuro supported Mayock and the other four voted in favor of Heaberg. Mike Heaberg was elected 4-1 to fill the interim supervisor position and will be sworn in at the next Board of Supervisors meeting.

The supervisor appointment is over; but are the hard feelings between the Republican Committee people still there? Will the two opposing factions come together to support and work with the newly appointed Mike Heaberg? Can the badly split Republican Committee manage reconciliation for the sake of the ‘party’? On the other hand, if the fences cannot be mended, does this now create a permanent party divide?

Looking ahead, will Brazunas challenge Heaberg in the Special Election? Will the Republican Committee endorse both Heaberg and Mayock as the two at-large candidates for the May Primary? Will Brazunas enter his third bid for election to the Board of Supervisors?

Summing of the Board of Supervisors meeting . . . as someone who believes in ‘people’ and ‘issues’ and not partisan politics, I found the meeting disturbing. As possibly the lone ‘Independent’ in a room filled with political stakeholders, the talk of Republicans and Democrats was both uncomfortable and unsettling. And I cringe that our elected officials are discussing party politics from the dais. Appoint the right ‘person’ and leave the party politics at the door. And once elected, we want them to set aside their ‘R’ or their ‘D’ and simply govern and serve us all.

Should T/E School District Join Others in Increasing Public Meeting Security?

February 7, 2011
13 Comments

In December, I think we all watched with disbelief the footage of Clay Duke, the disgruntled husband of a former school employee who opened fire on school board members in Panama City, Florida. Duke’s wife had been fired from her special ed teaching job in the Florida school district. The school board video showed Duke complaining about taxes and his wife’s firing before shooting at close range as the superintendent begged, “Please don’t.” There were several rounds exchanged with a school security officer, who wounded him, before he took his own life. Amazingly, no one else was injured during the shooting.

The Florida shooting was a wake-up call for many school districts around the country; many of which are considering increasing security at public meetings. Various security options considered include security guards, police presence, or requiring all meeting attendees to pass through some type metal detector or the use of a handheld detector. Protection at school board meetings is not just for the elected officials. As the discussion on our school district’s budget deficits increases, with discussion of property tax increases, programming cuts and possible staff reductions, there are more parents, teachers, staff, citizens, press, and sometimes students attending the meetings. As schools nationwide face this financial education crunch, heated moments and frustrated community members cannot be far behind.

Unlike Tredyffrin’s township meetings, which are held in the same building as the township police department, the T/E School Board meetings are held at the high school or the school district office. The Downingtown School District has made the decision to increase security at their school board meetings. Their decision to have security at regularly scheduled school board meetings was based on the Florida school board shooting as well as the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford. Starting this week, Downingtown School District has contracted with their police department for security at their meetings.

Although I am certain that T/E School District has an emergency management plan, I wonder if there is anything specific to public board meetings. You cannot predict or prepare for random acts of violence. However, circumstances that have happened nationwide in recent memory and given the time of which we live, unfortunately require this type of discussion.

Should school boards assess and appropriately upgrade awareness, along with security and preparedness measures, for their board meetings? Certainly. School districts need to be proactive (rather than reactive) in examining prevention, security and preparedness practices. We understand that no school district has a blank check for security or any other support service. School districts everywhere are under unprecedented financial crunches. But it is during a time when society is under intense economic pressure that violence and related security risks will likely increase.

I am curious, has T/E School District reviewed its public meeting security policies?

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme