Pattye Benson

Community Matters

St. Davids Golf Club

Tredyffrin's Republican Candidate for State House 157 Withdraws from Race . . . Leaving me with the Question, Where is the Integrity and Honesty in this Township?

February 5, 2010
12 Comments

I have really struggled for the last 2 days as to how write this post. On Wedneday night the TTRC held a straw poll which included the State House 157 race. There were 3 candidates — Judy DiFilippo, Warren Kampf and Ken Buckwalter. As a result of the straw poll, Judy did not feel that there was support from the Republican committee for her to continue in this race.

Challenging myself to remain fair and balanced on issues, I feel compelled to speak out on this topic. Sure, Judy and I have been the best of friends for nearly 20 years, so I openly admit to bias when I say that many Republican committee people of Tredyffrin Township simply ‘got it wrong’ on Wednesday night. It escapes me why you would not support the person with the highest level of integrity, honesty and commitment of anyone that I know. Judy is the kind of person who governed with honesty and fairness, as she did for 20 years as a member of the Board of Supervisors. Judy doesn’t look at issues based on a political slant, or make decisions based on how many votes that she may ‘win’ or ‘lose’. Judy didn’t just ‘serve’ the township, she was one of us . . . she loves this community and its residents, not because it was her ‘job’ but because she believed in us!

But instead, many of the township Republican committee people cast their vote for Warren Kampf. Have you not been watching the actions of Mr. Kampf for the last 2 months; his decisions in regards to the BAWG report, the $50K cash offer from St. Davids, the political ‘cardboard check’ for the firefighters rather than restoring funding to the township budget, and then his latest decision . . . casting out policies and procedures of our local government in lieu of ‘making up the rules’ and setting precedent for special treatment for a country club.

I know many of the Republican committee people personally so I am left wondering, when did integrity, honesty and commitment to this community and its voters stop mattering? With her withdrawal from the race, Judy is no longer a choice for the Republican committee members. Before you take your vote to Chester County Republican Committee meeting on February 20, I would encourage you to seriously review the actions of Mr. Kampf on the Board of Supervisors (particularly during the last 2 months). After review, I think that you should then look at Republican candidate Ken Buckwalter from Phoenixville. I had the pleasure of meeting Ken and he represents that same type of commitment to the community as Judy. He believes in serving all the residents with equal and measured leadership. I want to see a May primary between current State House Rep Paul Drucker (D) and Ken Buckwalter (R); they both represent experience, honesty and integrity.

Even as Judy makes the disappointing decision to leave the State House race, she does so with her brand of honesty and truthfulness. Below is an email sent to her supporters:

Dear Friends –

As many of you know I have been seeking support as a candidate for the 157th State House District. I am writing to you to let you know that today I have officially withdrawn my name from consideration.

A straw vote taken last evening showed that the majority of the Republican Committee members have decided to support one of two other candidates. I have called both of them and wished them well as they endeavor to win a recommendation or an endorsement.

I want to let you know how much I appreciate the support you gave me through your words of encouragement, by your willingness to allow me to use your name on my letterhead, or by saying, ‘How can I help?’.

I know not what the future holds, but I know I have been blessed with your friendship.

With deepest gratitude,

Judy

According to Dan Kristie of the Daily Local, Supervisors Olson and Lamina Think Only Democrats Care About the St. Davids 'Deal'

February 5, 2010
12 Comments

The following article by Dan Kristie in today’s Daily Local is an absolute must-read for the residents of Tredyffrin Township. Apparently in addition to Supervisor Olson’s stance that St. Davids sideswalks go to nowhere (tell that to the Mt. Pleasant residents), he and Chair Lamina believe that the only people that care about the St. Davids issue are the Democrats! I don’t know about you but I am outraged at the notion that some of our supervisors make decisions based on their political party affiliation and then proudly broadcast that to the media. It is obvious that 3 of our supervisors (DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Donohue) do not feel similarly, however I assume that Supervisors Kampf and Richter share the sentiments of Supervisors Olson and Lamina. Remember, this is not about sidewalks, it is about policy and procedures and our local government. Even their fellow Supervisor DiBuonaventuro claims, “The biggest problem I have is that this was done in the dark.”

I think everyone needs to understand this situation . . . the Kings of the kingdom (Lamina, Kampf, Olson, Richter) have laid down the law. I hate party politics and I believe that it has no business in the running of our local government. Dan’s article says it all, not only do we have 4 rulers in this township (Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter), they will rule with complete disregard to those who are not Republicans. I don’t care if you are an Independent, Democrat, Republican, or ‘party of purple’ – you should be outraged at this behavior. Is this how you want your community ‘governed’ (sorry ‘ruled’)? These 4 people and the unprecedented decision they made over St. Davids is just the beginning . . . ! Read the following article, and you come to your own conclusions.

Reminder that the the next Board of Supervisor Meeting is this Monday, February 8, 7:30 PM at the Township Building. I have checked the agenda and there is not much on it — which, if you recall is where the ‘Kings’ do their best work. Don’t put the issue on the agenda, hope for a low turnout and then take your majority vote and break the rules, change the rules or throw out the rules, all in the name of ‘government’!

Return of funds raising eyebrows in Tredyffrin

Published: Friday, February 5, 2010
By DAN KRISTIE, Staff Writer
TREDYFFRIN — The supervisors on Jan. 25 passed a resolution that, according to some township officials, directly conflicts with township policy. The supervisors voted 4-3 to release to the St. David’s Golf Club from a $25,000 escrow agreement. St. David’s, however, had not formally requested the return of this money. The township has always required developers and landowners to formally request the release of escrow funds, officials said. This, they said, marks the first time the township has released a land owner from an escrow agreement without having received a formal request from the landowner to do so.The $25,000 was supposed to cover the cost of installing a sidewalk along the north side of Upper Gulph Road, in the area between Strafford Avenue and Old Eagle School Road. Several years ago, St. David’s agreed to build the sidewalk in exchange for permission from the township to expand its clubhouse. St. David’s was supposed to have completed the sidewalk in 2008 but never began work on it.

Supervisors Vice Chairman Paul Olson made the motion on Jan. 25 to free St. David’s from the $25,000 obligation. Olson said that the residents along Upper Gulph Road had told him they didn’t want a sidewalk along their street. In light of this, he said, he believed there was no reason to require the golf club to build a sidewalk. “The sidewalk was projected to cost $50,000,” Olson said. “It’s just ridiculous to throw $50,000 along the side of the road for a sidewalk that starts nowhere and ends nowhere.” Some officials have estimated that the sidewalk could cost $80,000.

Mark Rhodes, the president of St. David’s, said that the golf club members have long been opposed to the club building sidewalks along Upper Gulph Road. He added that the golf club had made no formal request to the township to be relieved from the $25,000 obligation. Rhodes also said that he had “no knowledge that Paul Olson made any motion.” “We had no agreement with Paul Olson in any regard,” Rhodes said.

Tredyffrin requires all land holders that undertake new construction to build sidewalks along the roads that line their projects, and it has long been township policy to increase the amount of sidewalks and bike paths in the township. But Olson and several other supervisors are opposed to covering Tredyffrin with sidewalks. Olson said he believes sidewalks belong around schools. But, he said, installing them throughout the township would then require the township to expend additional taxpayer dollars for sidewalk mantainence.

Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro, who voted against Olson’s motion, said that the supervisors who voted in favor have effectively suspended the township’s procedure regarding escrow money. “This was not an issue of sidewalks — this was an issue of good procedure, and we circumvented that,” DiBuonaventuro said. “There was no procedure followed. None.”

Unlike some Chester County municipalities, Tredyffrin traditionally puts all escrow releases on its public meeting agenda. But the St. David’s release was not on the agenda. Rather, it came as the result of a motion that Olson made.

“The biggest problem I have is that this was done in the dark,” DiBuonaventuro said. He said that if St. David’s wanted the money back, it should have formally come before the supervisors and asked for the money. DiBuonaventuro added that he believes there is now nothing to stop developers from ignoring their escrow agreements with the township — or, from expecting the township to release them from land development obligations.

Township Manager Mimi Gleason said at the Jan. 25 meeting that returning the money to St. David’s would be precedent-setting. Olson, in an interview conducted this week, said he does not agree with this interpretation. “Just because you do it for someone doesn’t mean you have to do it for everyone,” he said.

Olson added that he believes only Democrats are concerned with the St. David’s deal. Supervisors Chairman Bob Lamina, who also voted in favor of the deal, concurred. All of the Tredyffrin Supervisors are Republicans. DiBuonaventuro said he believes the St. David’s deal has nothing to do with party affiliation. “Three Republicans on the board made the right decision,” DiBuonaventuro said. “This isn’t about being a Republican. This is about sound judgment.” Voting yes with Lamina and Olson were supervisors Warren Kampf and Evelyn Richter. Voting no with DiBuonaventuro were supervisors Michelle Kichline and Phil Donahue.

Another Angle on St. Davids Escrow Desision . . . STAP (Sidewalks, Trails & Paths) Committee Member Weighs In

February 5, 2010
1 Comment

Molly Duffy, member of the STAP (Sidewalks, Trails & Path) Committee looks at the recent Board of Supervisor decision in a different light. What does this decision say to its residents about the future walkability of our community? The STAP Committee thought that the supervisors shared their vision for a walking, biking landscape, but do they? Below is Molly’s letter to the editor that appears in this weeks edition the Main Line Suburban Life newspaper.

Tredyffrin supervisors missing the big picture

To the Editor:

Five years ago a handful of concerned Tredyffrin residents got together to talk about how we could make the township more walkable and bikable. The township agreed that this was a worthy goal. After all, 78.5 percent of residents who responded to the 2004 Parks Recreation and Open Space survey stated that they would be likely to use an interconnected townshipwide trail system in Tredyffrin designed for pedestrian, runners, skaters and bikers.

Later in 2005 the Board of Supervisors formally created the STAP (Sidewalks Trails and Paths) Committee and charged it with the mission of identifying priority trail and sidewalk areas, determining appropriate trail and sidewalk types, and researching funding options. This very committed and energized group of volunteers did just that. The township’s Green Routes Network can be viewed at www.tredyffrin.org. As a member of STAP I’m proud to say that our highest-priority sidewalk project will be under construction within a few months. New sidewalks will connect T/E Middle School, Conestoga High School, Daylesford Train Station, the YMCA, the Easttown Library and the village of Berwyn. Residents will no longer have to walk on the road and risk their lives to get to any of these locations, and the school district may be able to eliminate the cost of operating a few buses. Because of the dedication of STAP and the township’s very talented and effective staff, the township received a $2.8-million grant that will pay for this project. If STAP and the Board of Supervisors had not had the vision and patience to move ahead with this project, it would not have been shovel-ready and consequently it would not have received ARRA grant funds.

The Board of Supervisors’ Jan. 25, 2010 vote to forgive St. Davids Golf Club’s obligation to build a path along Upper Gulph Road, which is part of the Green Routes Network, makes me wonder if the township still cares about its future.

Transforming Tredyffrin, largely developed in the car-centric 1950s and 1960s, into a walkable, bikable community is no small task. A best-case scenario estimate would put completion of the Green Routes Network at 15 years. Nevertheless it is a task we must complete if we want Tredyffrin to be a place where people want to live and work in the future. Yes, it will cost something. Perhaps it will be grant-funded. Perhaps it will not. Regardless, it is a wise investment in our future.

It is standard practice for new developments in Tredyffrin and elsewhere to include sidewalks in their plans. For many reasons people don’t want to rely on their cars to take them every place they need to go. People of all ages call Tredyffrin home. Many are too young to drive, some are unable to drive, and many more just want another option for getting from here to there. The ability to walk to school, church, work, the library, the dentist’s office or shopping gives us all, young and old, a sense of independence and some decent exercise.

The Green Routes Network will never include every street in the township. Instead it strives to connect residents to popular destinations. In the next few years, the Chester Valley Trail will cross our township on its way from Downingtown to Valley Forge. If we plan proper linkages, many Tredyffrin residents will be able to safely walk or bike to the trail from their front doors.

Recently the national news has focused on studies showing that while real-estate values have dropped, homes with a high walkability score have dropped much less. It is becoming standard for real-estate listings to show a home’s “walk score” because many homebuyers want to be able to walk or bike to a destination. You can find your home’s walk score at www.walkscore.com.

If we don’t begin to implement the Green Routes Network that the board of supervisors recently approved in the updated Comprehensive Plan and reaffirmed in the Green Tredyffrin Resolution, we’re taking a step backwards and depriving our children and grandchildren of a livable, desirable community.

Sincerely,

Molly Duffy, Paoli

Save Ardmore Coalition's Readers are Now Following Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson & Richter!

February 4, 2010
3 Comments

Save Ardmore Coalition is following Tredyffrin’s Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter. Yes, our own YouTube stars are playing to a larger audience — the Board of Supervisors meeting clips are now on Save Ardmore Coalition’s website. www.saveardmorecoalition.org I thank Carla for presenting our local stars with greater play time. And remember, Warren Kampf, one of the infamous ‘4’ is now in the race for State House 157. To go directly to the YouTube post on Save Ardmore Coalition site, click on this link:

http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/4114

As I See It: Control of Tredyffrin Township is Now in the Hands of Four People . . . as published in today's Main Line Suburban Life

February 3, 2010
2 Comments

In today’s Main Line Suburban Life newspaper is my As I See It article, “Control of Tredyffrin Township is now in the hands of four people”. Since Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting on January 25, I have continued to do research on the motion to return escrow to St. Davids Golf Club. I have now determined that Tredyffrin Township has (1) historically not returned escrow without a written request; and (2) has not returned escrow without the completion of the project and review by the township engineer. That is until January 25, 2010.

Based on the actions of 4 supervisors (Bob Lamina, Warren Kampf, Paul Olson and E.J. Richter) precedent has been now set for all unfinished projects (and the outstanding escrow) as well as all future projects in Tredyffrin Township. For those who did not attend or watch the Board of Supervisors meeting, I would encourage you to catch a re-run. I hope to have YouTube sections of the St. Davids Golf Club section of the meeting containing the motion to return escrow, available later today.

Please understand that this issue is not sidewalks; it is about government policy and procedure and what can happen when control is placed in the hands of a few people.

As I See It: Control of Tredyffrin Township is now in the hands of four people

Published: Wednesday, February 3, 2010

By Pattye Benson

I preface the following article by saying that there are very few times in my life that I have been left speechless but Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors meeting of Jan. 25 was one of them. For me, that meeting represented community injustice of the worst kind.

I attended Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, Jan. 25. In the days leading up to this meeting, there had been scuttlebutt that Supervisor Paul Olson would once again bring up St. Davids Golf Club and the sidewalk issue. The word on the street was that Supervisor Olson intended to make a motion to return the $25,000 escrow to St. Davids. As part of St. Davids Golf Club’s 2005 land-development contract with the township, the country club was to build sidewalks. Since July 2008 St. Davids had been in default for failure to build the sidewalks. The St. Davids sidewalk issue had been thoroughly discussed at the Board of Supervisors meeting of Dec. 7. At the December meeting, questions had swirled about a suggested $50,000 cash offer from St. Davids Golf Club contained in the BAWG (Budget Advisory Working Group) report. Although there was no written evidence of the offer (which was to exchange $50K in lieu of building sidewalks), there was public outcry from many in the community about the St. Davids offer and the message its acceptance would send to contractors and builders doing business in Tredyffrin Township.

I did not think with the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk history and community debate that it would be possible for Supervisor Olson to make a motion to return St. Davids’ escrow. There had been no notification to the public and the topic did not appear on the meeting agenda. Yet under “new” supervisor matters, Supervisor Olson did make a motion to return the escrow; Chair Bob Lamina seconded the motion and called for a supervisor vote. Supervisor Michelle Kichline attempted to offer her opinion on the motion but Chair Lamina silenced her and instead went to the audience for comment.

Bob Whalen, chair of the Planning Commission, explained that the sidewalks were part of the 2005 contractual agreement with St. Davids for their land-development project. He offered that representatives from the country club had returned to the Planning Commission asking for forgiveness on the sidewalks but the Planning Commission, considering precedent, voted against the club. Mr. Whalen further explained that there are currently at least six other projects in the township with unreturned escrow due to unfinished projects. To return escrow to St. Davids would now “open the floodgates” for contractors to request the release of escrow without completion of projects. Mr. Whalen adamantly opposed the motion. I then asked the supervisors if St. Davids had presented a written request to return their escrow. Although Supervisor Olson offered that he had “talked to some people at St. Davids,” the other supervisors confirmed that there was nothing in writing; in other words St. Davids Golf Club never asked for the return of their escrow!

Other audience members said passionately that supervisors cannot make a motion on a matter that was not on the agenda … that procedurally you must advertise the matter to the public … that you cannot just gift the country club with $80,000 (the estimated value of the sidewalk project). Several in the audience suggested that Supervisor Olson orchestrated the motion on Jan. 25 to coincide with the important Tredyffrin/Easttown School District meeting held at the same time; therefore expecting fewer residents in attendance at the supervisors meeting. Remembering that St. Davids Golf Club and the return of the escrow were not on the supervisor-meeting agenda; Supervisor Olson (and other supervisors) might have concluded that residents would attend the important school-district budget meeting in lieu of the township meeting, thus allowing for less opposition. But to those of us who did attend the supervisors meeting, it was obvious that Supervisor Olson (and possibly other supervisors) had contacted a few local St. Davids residents who opposed the sidewalks, as they came prepared with written statements of support for the motion. One of my many questions is: why should a select group of residents receive preferential notification of the meeting rather than full and public disclosure to all?

Following resident comments, Supervisor Kichline, a municipal attorney and former member of the township’s Zoning Hearing Board, spoke passionately about procedural law and the inappropriateness of Supervisor Olson’s motion, and moved to table the motion until these serious legal and procedural questions could be answered by the township solicitor. Chair Lamina again dismissed Supervisor Kichline and would not allow her motion “to table the discussion” to come to vote. Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro likewise argued against the return of St. Davids escrow, citing multiple reasons as to why the Board of Supervisors should not pass the motion. Township Manager Mimi Gleason added, when asked, that the passing of this motion would set precedent for all future township projects.

Having heard the comments from the residents and stated objections from Supervisors Kichline and DiBuonaventuro, Chair Lamina called for a vote to return the escrow to St. Davids Golf Club. Supervisor Phil Donohue along with Supervisors DiBuonaventuro and Kichline voted against the motion, and Supervisors Paul Olson, Bob Lamina, Warren Kampf and E.J. Richter voted for the motion. The motion carried 4-3 in favor to return the escrow to the country club.

Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting of Jan. 25 was a rude awakening for me … I learned that in our township it is OK for four individuals (Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter) to make up the rules. At one point, when Supervisor Kichline offered that in Tredyffrin Township, the Planning Commission actually had the “last say” on the land-development process rather than the Board of Supervisor, Chair Lamina declared that he thinks that the Board of Supervisors will take back their control. Supervisors DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Donohue did not watch silently as the “Bloc of 4” (Olson, Lamina, Kampf, and Richter) acted against Tredyffrin’s operating principles. Supervisors DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Donohue understand that personal responsibility means doing the right thing when others do not.

The issue is not sidewalks; it is about following government policy and procedure. Historically Tredyffrin Township has never returned escrow without written request. In addition Tredyffrin Township has never returned escrow without completion of the work and review by the township engineer. That is until now. However, I like others on Jan. 25 discovered that our government policies and procedures do not apply if you are Supervisors Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter.

This is a sad reality … but if you are the “Bloc of 4,” you rule the township. Your other fellow supervisors do not matter, the public does not matter, the Planning Commissioners do not matter, the township solicitor does not matter and the township manager does not matter. These four will get to make the rules (or break the rules) as they see fit. As a government, its elected officials are to guide Tredyffrin Township. While politics play an important role in choosing our leaders and charting our priorities, politics should play no role in the rules of governing. The community entrusts the supervisors to care for its assets and its reputation. Our elected officials must conserve and enhance it, or they fail in their fundamental responsibility as evidenced by the decision of Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter to return the escrow to St. Davids Golf Club.

What does the action of Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter say for the future of Tredyffrin Township? What does it say to the residents or to all the many volunteers who serve on our township boards and committees? To take advantage of loopholes, quick fixes and shortcuts that will compromise the public trust … To base decisions such as the unprecedented return of escrow to St. Davids Golf Club on how much you can get away with … Integrity in the broadest sense should lead the actions of our elected officials. A moment of choice is a moment of trust and it is the testing point of character and competence.

If Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors meeting of Jan. 25 is any indicator, I question the transparency of Tredyffrin’s local government, fair dealing practices, full disclosure of information and public communication. Don’t the residents of Tredyffrin Township deserve better from some of its leaders?

Pattye Benson lives in Tredyffrin Township.

Control of Tredyffrin Township in the Hands of 4 . . . Residents Will Now Play by Their Rules!

January 25, 2010
35 Comments

I preface the following post by saying that there are very few times in my life that I have been left speechless but tonight was one of them. For me, tonight’s Board of Supervisor Meeting represented community injustice of the worse kind. If there was ever a subject for Community Matters, this is it!

Tonight I attended Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisor Meeting. Over the last few days, there had been scuttlebutt that Supervisor Paul Olson would once again bring up St. Davids Golf Club and the sidewalks. Although the agenda for tonight’s meeting did not include St. Davids Golf Club, my understanding was that Supervisor Olson intended to make a motion to return the $25,000 escrow to the country club. As part of St. Davids contractual land development agreement with the township, the country club was to build sidewalks. Since July 2008, the country club has been in default for failure to build the sidewalks.

If you recall, at the December 1 Board of Supervisor Meeting I questioned the supervisors concerning the $50,000 cash offer from St. Davids Golf Club which appeared in the pages of the BAWG report. This ‘offer’ (of which there was no written evidence) became widely discussed on Community Matters and in the Main Line Suburban and Daily Local newspapers. There was an outcry from many in the community about this ‘offer’ from St. Davids and the message its acceptance would say to contractors and builders doing business in Tredyffrin Township.

Tonight under the category of ‘new’ supervisor matters, Supervisor Olson made a motion which Supervisor Lamina seconded to ‘return the $25,000 escrow money’ to St. Davids Golf Club. Supervisor Lamina started to call for a vote as Supervisor Kichline asked to offer her opinion. Supervisor Lamina cut off Supervisor Kichline and went to the audience for comment.

Bob Whalen, chair of the Planning Commission spoke and explained that the sidewalks were part of the contractual agreement with St. Davids GC for their land development project. Representatives from the country club had returned to the Planning Commission asking for forgiveness on the sidewalks but the Planning Commission fearing that precedent would be set, voted against the club. Mr. Whalen explained that there are at least six other projects in the township with escrow money that has not been returned because of unfinished projects. Allowing escrow money to return to St. Davids GC will now allow the other contractors to be off the hook, for completing those projects. He adamantly opposed the motion. Next I asked the supervisors if St. Davids GC had come to the Township and asked for their $25,000 escrow money to be returned. Although Supervisor Olson said that he had ‘talked to some people at St. Davids’, the other supervisors confirmed that there was nothing written from St. Davids, in other words the country club never asked for the return of their escrow money!

Other audience members spoke passionately that you cannot make a motion on a matter that was not on the agenda . . . that procedurally you must advertise the matter to the public . . . that you cannot just give a country club a ‘gift’ of $80,000 (the estimated cost to build the sidewalks). Several audience members suggested that Supervisor Olson orchestrated the motion to coincide with the fact that many members of the public would be at the TESD meeting and unable to attend the Supervisor meeting. Remember St. Davids Golf Club was not on the agenda so it was believed that very few residents would attend (making it that much easier to push the motion through). It was obvious that Supervisor Olson had notified local St. Davids residents so they came prepared with written statements that agreed with his motion. Rather than full disclosure to the public by advertising the St. Davids sidewalks discussion, Supervisor Olson (+ Kampf, Lamina and Richter) preferred to tell only a select few residents.

Following resident comments, Supervisor Kichline, an attorney and an ex-member of the Zoning Board spoke passionately about procedural law and the inappropriateness of the proposed motion, stating further discussion was needed with the township solicitor. Supervisor DiBuonaventuro likewise argued against the motion, suggesting for many reasons why the Board of Supervisors should not pass the motion. Township Manager Gleason added, when asked, that the passing of this motion would set precedent for all future township projects.

Hearing the comments from the residents and objections from Supervisors Kichline and DiBuonaventuro, Supervisor Lamina called for a vote – Supervisors Donohue, DiBuonaventuro, Kichline voted against the motion, and Supervisors Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter voted for the motion. The motion carried 4-3 in favor.

Tonight was a rude awakening for me . . . I learned that in Tredyffrin Township it is OK for 4 individuals (Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter) to make up the rules as they go along. At one point, when Supervisor Kichline offered that in Tredyffrin Township, the Planning Commission actually had the ‘last say’ on the land development process rather than the Board of Supervisors – Supervisor Lamina declared that he thinks that the Board of Supervisors will take back their control. I discovered tonight that the government procedures do not apply if you are Supervisors Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter.

This is a sad reality . . . but if you are the ‘Block of 4’ (Olson, Lamina, Kampf, Richter), you rule the township. Your other fellow supervisors do not matter, the public does not matter, the Planning Commissioners do not matter, the township solicitor does not matter, and the township manager does not matter. These 4 will get to make the rules (or break the rules) as they see fit.

What does tonight’s actions say for the future of our township? What does it say for the residents or all the many volunteers who serve on our township boards and committees? If tonight is any evidence, transparency of our local government, full disclosure of information, public communication . . . all gone.

The Clock is Ticking Down . . . Where Will you be Tonight?

December 21, 2009
Comments

The clock is ticking down to the final Board of Supervisor Meeting of 2009. Tonight’s meeting, 7:30 PM in Keene Hall, Township Building, will contain the approval of the 2010 township budget. Remembering the last 2 meetings, I expect that tonight’s meeting will again be electrifying, dramatic, emotional . . . and any other adjectives you care to add. I suggest that you either plan on attending or watch from home. Remember folks, this is our township and our money that we are talking about!

How will each of the 7 supervisors decide to vote on next-years budget? I recall the draft budget was approved 4-2 (Bob Lamina was absent) Will the fire company’s see their budget contribution reinstated? I just checked and the ePetition to reinstate the firefighters contribution is at 513 signatures. There’s still time to join these residents and show your support for the firefighters, click here to sign the petition.

Do you think that the appeals from the residents and business community will make a difference in how each supervisor will cast his/her vote? What’s that saying about the “will of the people”? Will that be recognized? How about the reinstatement of the staff longevity pay . . . will that be included in the final budget? Do you remember the passionate plea from a township staff member at the last Board of Supervisor meeting; she suggested that some of the employees may be receiving as much as a 14% cut if the proposed budget passes. Can we expect further discussion about St. Davids Golf Club and the $50K offer in the BAWG report? There was a subcommittee created to discuss the sidewalk issue; will the public receive an update?

Tonight’s meeting will honor 3 supervisors who are retiring – John Shimrak, Mark DiFeliciantonio and my best friend, Judy DiFilippo. John stepped in to finish out Bill DeHaven’s term and Mark completes his term, serving 4 years. Tonight is a landmark meeting for Judy; it will mark her 20th (and final) year of serving on the Board of Supervisors – what a remarkable accomplishment of service to this community! I am sure that you join me in thanking all three for their time and commitment.

In case you missed it, here is the agenda for tonight’s meeting.

Board of Supervisor Meeting – Monday, December 21

December 18, 2009
Comments

Here is the agenda for the Board of Supervisor Meeting for Monday, December 21, 7:30 PM. The final budget will be approved at this last meeting of the year. Will the fire companies see their 5% cut reinstated? Will the ePetition make a difference in the decision-making process? (Over 460 people have signed it, is your name on the list?) Will the audience hear any follow-up to the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk issue . . what is the status on the subcommittee which was formed?

Based on the last 2 Board of Supervisor meetings, I am forecasting another episode of action packed, reality must-watch TV for Monday night!

Immediately following the Board of Supervisor Meeting, there will be a Public Hearing to:

  • Amend the Pension Ordinance to change the employee contribution
  • Increase the Sewer Utility Rate for the year 2010 to $250/EDU

Must See TV — Watch a Rebroadcast of December 7 Board of Supervisor Meeting

December 9, 2009
Comments

I have had a number of people ask me about Monday night’s Board of Supervisor Meeting. I am one of those people who rarely re-reads books or is interested in watching reruns of TV shows. However, . . . in the case of the Board Meeting, I think I might change my mind. A couple of days later and people are still talking about it — certainly one to be remembered for a long time. Although I tried to capture the essence of the evening, I have told friends that they really need to watch it. I went online and found the rebroadcast schedule. Assuming that it is correct, below are the days and times for the Supervisor Meeting. And if you were at the meeting, so much was going on at once, it was hard to take it all in so you might want to re-watch it. I encourage everyone to see it before the next Board Meeting on Monday, December 21.

T-SPAN (Supervisors’ Meeting)

Air-Times:

  • Sunday, 1:30 PM
  • Monday, 7:30 PM
  • Tuesday, 7:30 AM
  • Tuesday, 1:30 PM
  • Friday, 7:30 PM
  • Saturday, 7:30 AM

Board of Supervisor Meeting – Reality Must-See TV!

December 7, 2009
Comments

Sitting in the audience tonight and watching the Board of Supervisor Meeting unfold — was more exciting than watching any reality TV show! There were so many dynamics going on, it’s hard to know where to start. Everything was routine and relatively calm until we got to the ‘New Matters’ section of the agenda. Then what happened was nothing short of amazing, remarkable, combative, antagonistic . . . just about any adjective you want to use!

First off, a remarkable moment occurred when Supervisor Judy DiFilippo decided to do what’s right as I had called for in an earlier blog posting. In regards to the alleged $50K offer from St. Davids Golf Club which appeared in the BAWG report, I had asked the Board of Supervisors and the Chairman of the BAWG Committee a series of questions at the November 30 meeting. This offer (in lieu of sidewalk construction) had mysteriously appeared in the newly released BAWG report as a suggested available revenue resource. No one seemed willing to offer any answers to my questions — neither Tom Colman, chair of the BAWG committee or members of the Board of Supervisors. Tonight, Ms. DiFilippo started at the top of my list and proceeded to answer each question as follows:

  • Where did the $50K St. Davids Golf Club offer come from? Ms. DiFilippo indicated that Supervisor Paul Olson suggested the $50K offer to the Board of Supervisors as payment from St. Davids Golf Club in lieu of the construction of the sidewalks.
  • Was this a written offer from St. Davids Golf Club Board of Directors and was it made directly to the BAWG committee? No written offer, only verbally discussed by Supervisor Olson.
  • Was the Township Solicitor, Township Manager and members of the Board of Supervisors advised of the St. Davids Golf Club offer (prior to BAWG’s publication of its report)? Both the Township Manager and Township Solicitor were aware of the inclusion of the St. Davids Golf Club $50K offer prior to the release of the BAWG report. Prior to its release, both asked that Tom Colman remove it from the report.
  • If this is a written offer, what are the conditions and timeline for its acceptance? Who has the authority to accept the offer? No written offer
  • Was this offer and the details discussed with the Planning Commission or Sidewalks, Trail & Paths (STAP) Committee prior to appearing in the BAWG report? This $50K St. Davids Golf Club offer was not discussed with the Planning Commission or STAP Committee, prior to inclusion in the BAWG report.
  • Are any of the members of the BAWG committee also members of St. Davids Golf Club? Rob Betts, is both a member of St. Davids Golf Club and also served as a member of the BAWG committee.
  • Are any of the members of the Board of Supervisor also members of St. Davids Golf Club? Supervisor John Shimrak is a member of St. Davids Golf Club.

Supervisor DiFilippo further explained that the newly formed subcommittee was meeting this week to discuss the St. Davids Golf Club situation as well as other incomplete Planning Commission land development projects. The meeting will include members of the Planning Commission with Ms. DiFilippo and members of staff to work toward satisfactory completion of all outstanding incomplete projects and also develop a strategy going foward with future land development situations.

On a personal note, it is not often when you have the opportunity to witness firsthand the extent of an individual’s honesty and integrity. After 20 years of serving on the Board of Supervisors, it would have been far easier for Ms. DiFilippo to simply keep quiet about what she knew about the situation, leave the questions unanswered and just close the chapter on the St. Davids issue. But instead of following the example of others, Ms. DiFilippo set herself apart in true leadership style, and did indeed, do what’s right! And we thank her!

It’s late and I think that the amazing, combative and antagonistic elements of tonight’s Board of Supervisor meeting (and my comments) will need to be tomorrow’s installment.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme