Pattye Benson

Community Matters

State House 157

Paoli Resident Calls for Fair Play and Common Sense From Elected Officials

March 7, 2010
17 Comments

The following Letter to the Editor appears in this week’s Main Line Suburban Life newspaper. Written by Paoli resident Eugene Grace, this letter really hits on what some of us have been thinking lately. Mr. Grace doesn’t write his letter with a particular political view or slant; nor is he suggesting that one political party is better or worse than another. Mr. Grace’s message is simple . . . he is asking for fair play and common sense from our elected officials. An interesting letter — comments?

To the Editor:

Fair play and common sense are the two traits that voters want from their political leaders.

Fair play means simply following the established rules of the game as well as their related customs and traditions. Locally, fair play does not include Tredyffrin’s use of “New Matter” to keep a significant township matter off the published agenda. Locally fair play would not allow the Lower Merion School District to plant remote-controlled webcams into school-provided computers without some form of notice.

Nationally fair play does not include the U.S. Senate’s use of a tactical tool known as “Reconciliation” to pass major legislation. Under “normal” Senate rules, 60 votes are required to move legislation through that body. Reconciliation was developed as a speedier way to move smaller budgetary or tax issues through the Senate with only a simple majority of 51 votes. The Senate’s use of Reconciliation for health care would be a departure from Senate rules and tradition.

Common sense informs us that Tredyffrin should have collected monies owed under previous commitments without further study and that the Lower Merion School District should have provided notice to students regarding a potential invasion of privacy. Common sense says that the U.S. Senate should not employ Reconciliation regarding health care, which constitutes 16 percent of the U.S. economy. Common sense tells us that leaders should lead.

The fact that “The People” are leading on all these issues tells us that fair play and common sense have been thrown to the wind. Common sense tells us that the “leaders” responsible for these decisions should have a similar fate.

Eugene P. Grace, Paoli

Attorney Offers Legal Opinion on February 22 Board of Supervisors Vote

March 3, 2010
27 Comments

A follower of Community Matters, a local attorney (most likely a municipal attorney) has offered his legal opinion on various township topics, including St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk issue. Overnight I received his legal opinion on the February 22 vote by the Board of Supervisors to reverse their earlier vote and decision to set up a sidewalk and trails review subcommittee (Board of Supervisors 2/22/10 Meeting . . . St. Davids Golf Club Motion.) As indicated in the post of St. Davids Golf Club Decision Reversed but, . . . Was There Full Disclosure, Transparency, Deal-Making? the supervisors vote of February 22 created much dialogue from the community. Understanding the supervisors decision from a legal perspective is important; I ask you to reflect on the following:

JudgeNJury, March 3, 2010 at 12:36 AM Said:

Other matters kept me from focusing on the February 22 vote before, but now that I have looked at it (and at the risk of beating a dead horse), I wanted to add my two cents. In short, it seems to me that the BOS once again failed to follow appropriate procedures when it passed the second part of the February 22 motion.

Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”) authorizes townships to establish planning commissions. Tredyffrin Township did so, and Section 43-6 of the Township Code specifically states that the Planning Commission “shall have all other powers and duties provided by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.” (http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=TR1485).

Section 303(a) of the MPC states that:

“Whenever the governing body, pursuant to the procedures provided in section 302, has adopted a comprehensive plan or any part thereof, any subsequent proposed action of the governing body, its departments, agencies and appointed authorities shall be submitted to the planning agency for its recommendations when the proposed action relates to . . . the location, opening, vacation, extension, widening, narrowing or enlargement of any street, public ground, pierhead or watercourse.” (http://mpc.landuselawinpa.com/MPCode.pdf).

Section 107(a) of the MPC contains the following definitions:

1) “Governing body” includes “the board of supervisors in townships of the second class.” Tredyffrin Township is a township of the second class, and it has adopted a comprehensive plan (http://www.tredyffrin.org/departments/community/comprehensive.aspx).

2) “Planning agency” includes planning commissions.

3) “Public ground” includes “parks, playgrounds, trails, paths and other recreational areas and other public areas.” Under this definition, it seems clear that sidewalks qualify as a “public ground.”

The second half of the February 22 motion did two things: it (1) “form[ed] a Subcommittee . . . to begin a process to reexamine where the community wants and needs sidewalks;” and (2) relieved St. David’s from its obligation “to build the path, until the new policies are adopted or the Township has put in place designs and funding for sidewalks or paths that would connect to the proposed St. David’s pathway.” It seems to me, then, that the motion was a “proposed action of the governing body [the BOS]” that “relates to . . . the location [and] opening . . . of any . . . public ground.”

Therefore, the BOS was required to submit the motion “to the Planning Commission for its recommendations” before it could vote on the motion. The Planning Commission then would have had 45 days to make a recommendation. See MPC Section 303(b). As far as I know, the BOS did not submit its proposal to the Planning Commission before it voted on it.

As a practical matter, compliance with these procedures probably would not have made much difference. The BOS could have submitted the proposal to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then, regardless of what the Planning Commission recommended, voted to approve the motion. That reality does not, however, change the fact that the BOS appears to have ignored procedures once again.

A Couple of Political Points of Interest . . .

February 27, 2010
18 Comments

I found a couple of interesting political notes in the last couple of days . . .

On the Republican side: Phoenixville Councilman Ken Buckwalter (R) who is running in the Pennsylvania State House 157 primary race, has received an endorsement from longtime friend Ed Shanaughy. You may not know Ed personally but I bet that you know his restaurant – Our Deli in Paoli (with the large steer out front). Ed served as president of Paoli Fire Company for 35 years, recently stepping down (John Beatty is now president) to become the fire company’s Chairman of the Board. As a Director of Paoli Business and Professional Association, Ed serves with me on the Board as Director Emeritus.

Both Ken and Ed are local small business owners and have known each other for 30 years; in fact Ken attributes some of his early success with Buckwalter Framing to Ed’s support. Ken Buckwalter stated in his press release,

“To have his [Ed Shanaughy] endorsement is gratifying. I had stated at the candidate interviews in early February that I live in one major end of the district and have done business for many years in the other. I am well-known throughout, and my public service is largely without controversy.”

On the Democrat side: I found this next political tidbit an interesting sidebar on the local Pennsylvania Senate primary race, Senator Arlen Specter (D) vs. Congressman Joe Sestak (D). Yesterday in a press release, Specter claimed that Sestak does not pay all his campaign staffers a living wage, or even the minimum wage, unless they are a member of his family. Specter’s report shows Sestak employees receiving what appears to be far less than the minimum wage. The response from Sestak’s camp is that those are all part-time employees who split their time; people who work 10 percent of their time for the campaign.

In a second press release today, Specter called for Sestak to clarify the reports, or turn himself into the authorities for violating minimum wage law requirements. Sestak’s email response to Specter’s latest pronouncement,

“It’s a shame with the enormous challenges facing our country that Senator Specter is spending his time working on this, rather than focusing on getting our economy in shape or reforming our healthcare system. This kind of petty diversion and focus on personal attacks is why so many people hate Washington-style politics.”

Main Line Suburban Life Weighs in on Board of Supervisors Meeting and St. Davids Golf Club Motion

February 24, 2010
Comments

Today’s Main Line Suburban Life newspaper offered the following article by Blair Meadowcroft concerning the recent Board of Supervisors Meeting and the St. Davids Golf Club Motion. I decided to post this article because it quotes John Petersen as saying that he intends to move forward with the lawsuit against the township. As of today, John has changed his mind and will not file the lawsuit. Rather than people reading this article and misunderstanding, I thought it best to clarify the situation. John has left on a business trip otherwise I would let him explain . . . perhaps he will offer an explanation for his decision once he gets to Austin.

Tredyffrin board votes to look at St. Davids Golf Club controversy

By Blair Meadowcroft

The St. Davids Golf Club issue, which has been a heated debate for weeks in Tredyffrin Township, has taken yet another turn.

First the Board of Supervisors voted 4-3 to approve a motion to release $25,000 from an escrow account to the golf club on Jan. 25. Then on Feb. 8 three of the four supervisors who approved the motion publicly apologized, saying their actions were not perfect. Two weeks later, after getting requests from numerous residents to reverse the vote, Chairman Bob Lamina offered a new motion that he hoped would serve as a “solution.”

Specifically the motion stated that the vote made on Jan. 25 “be reversed and rescinded.” While this on its own made residents happy, more conditions were added to the motion that quickly changed their opinion. According to the motion, the BOS, Planning Commission and Sidewalks, Trails and Paths Committee (STAP) will form a subcommittee to “begin a process to re-examine where the community wants and needs sidewalks.” Under this motion the committee will look at the “conditions upon which the Planning Commission may from time to time grant relief from our land-development ordinance” among other specific assessments including prioritization and funding sources.

According to Lamina the subcommittee will be initiated in March and the process of re-evaluating should be done by the end of the year.

“I hope this motion can get us back to where we should have been all along,” said Lamina. “We need to get back into a dialogue process for paths and sidewalks in the township. My hope is that we can move forward together and not look backward.”

According to Township Manager Mimi Gleason, the idea of discussing and defining the greenworks network, which is a part of the Comprehensive Plan, had been considered, and such an assessment, if done, would hopefully gain resident input on what is wanted or needed in the township.

However, in response to Lamina’s motion, residents questioned why there wasn’t a simple reversal without added conditions. Many suggested the board divide the motion into two separate parts, and requested to see it in writing and be given time to consider it before taking a vote. The underlying feeling from those who spoke at the meeting was that the residents no longer trust the board and therefore question its actions.

“I wrote the motion with the idea that this was a comprehensive response to the discussions and comments that have been made, and that it would put us to where we were before,” said Lamina. “There is no deal, no reasoning behind the second part of the motion. This is just trying to move forward.”

According to Lamina, St. Davids officials confirmed their continued obligation to put in sidewalks, and that everyone he had spoken to regarding the proposed motion was on board.

As one of the supervisors who originally voted against the motion Jan. 25, John DiBuonaventuro stated that he supported the new motion on the table because “if anything less than a genuine evaluation comes out of this, I will speak up against it and so will you, and for now we have to get past this.”

After hearing varied comments from residents, most of whom were against the motion, as well as comments from board members in favor of it, Lamina held a vote. The board unanimously passed the motion.

As a result of the conditions placed on the motion, Tredyffrin resident and one-time supervisor John Petersen has decided to sue the township. Before the meeting Monday night, Petersen had written up a complaint against the township and specifically the four supervisors who originally voted in favor of the motion. His intention was to wait to see how the meeting played out and then decide whether or not to serve the township the papers.

“They did not do what I requested, which was to formally reverse, in pure form, what happened on Jan. 25,” said Petersen. “I asked for declaratory judgment stating that what happened was wrong, but Monday night there was no admission or recognition that what happened was against the Home Rule Charter, Paul Olson never apologized and the board didn’t simply reverse the vote; they added new conditions.”

According to Petersen, his plan is to review the lawsuit and make a few changes, and will go forward with this within the week.

“I am going to remove the individual names from the lawsuit because the focus of this now is about the township and the board as a collective whole and wanting them to do the right thing,” said Petersen. “With the unanimous action from the board, there is no reason to distinguish the members.”

He went on to say that no such lawsuit should have to be filed, and that his filing will be subject to the board “doing the right thing.”

“All I am asking is that the court declares what happened as illegal, and that the vote made last night was null and void,” said Petersen. “I want everything to go back to exactly the way it was before Jan. 25.”

Board of Supervisors 2/22/10 Meeting . . . St. Davids Golf Club Motion

February 24, 2010
37 Comments

BOS Meeting 2–22-10 Part I: St. Davids Golf Club Motion. Here is the YouTube video clip of Monday’s St. Davids motion made by Lamina, seconded by Olson.

Below is the motion made at Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors’ meeting, February 22, 2010 in regards to the St. Davids Golf Club escrow and the development of the subcommittee. The exact wording of the St. Davids motion was taken from the Tredyffrin Township website, www.tredyffrin.org; the motion is as follows:

I hereby move that the Board’s motion of January 25 regarding St. David’s be reversed and rescinded; and do hereby further resolve that the Board of Supervisor’s form a joint Subcommittee with the Planning Commission and the STAP to begin a process to reexamine where the community wants and needs sidewalks, with a goal that this Board may adopt more formal policies and procedures to provide additional guidelines relative to design, development and construction of the sidewalks and paths in the Township atlarge. At a minimum, this re-assessment should address both the timing, prioritization, funding sources, the conditions upon which the planning commission may from time-totime grant relief from our land development ordinance, and recommend any other changes the prospective new policy might require. While the subcommittee process take place, neither the Board or the Township will be formally moving to compel St. David’s to build the path, until the new policies are adopted or the Township has put in place designs and funding for sidewalks or paths that would connect to the proposed St. David’s pathway. The Subcommittee in carrying out its re-assessment will seek input and participation from the Public and the Committee’s involved which necessarily will include the Planning Commission and the STAP.

Motion made by Lamina; Second by Olson

__________________________________________________________

St. Davids Golf Club Decision Reversed but, . . . Was There Full Disclosure, Transparency, Deal-Making?

February 23, 2010
66 Comments

I went to last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting convinced that the residents of this community had been heard by our elected officials. I was certain that the supervisors were listening to us when we spoke out at previous Board meetings, wrote passionate letters to the editor, emails to the supervisors and left thoughtful comments on this blog. Last night I entered Keene Hall confident that the energy from so many would pay off, that justice would prevail, and good government would be restored in Tredyffrin Township.

I had heard scuttlebutt about some ‘deal-making’ before the supervisors meeting began but I was not prepared for what was to come. Chairman Lamina read his very lengthy prepared St. Davids Golf Club motion. The motion started out well, stating that its passage would reverse the supervisors’ decision of January 25 and restore the St. Davids Golf Club escrow. That should have been the end of the motion. Was that not the intended purpose of the motion . . . was that not what the public had asked . . . to restore the escrow? But no, Lamina took a breath and launched in to the other part of the motion; this motion would additionally include the formation of a subcommittee to look at sidewalks and trails township-wide; this ‘sidewalk’ subcommittee would include members from the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and STAP (Sidewalks, Trails and Paths); and there would be focus groups formed to discuss the location of sidewalks in the township, starting with the St. Davids area.

After Lamina completed his long-winded ‘motion’ and it was offered for discussion to audience members, I think we all struggled to ‘take in’ what we had heard. What kind of motion was this? . . . Was this just another way to protect St. Davids Golf Club from honoring their land development contract? . . . What about the rights of the Planning Commission who had consistently voted to enforce St. Davids land development commitment? . . . What would this motion do for the precedent for developer/contractors not to comply with their contractual commitments? . . . Would this ‘sidewalk’ committee be part of the existing approved Comprehensive Plan? Many, many questions, no answers offered.

Audience members spoke up, thanking the supervisors for reversing the escrow vote but many asked for Lamina’s motion to be split in to two motions. They suggested the first motion should be for the return of the St. Davids Golf Club escrow, followed by a second motion to create the ‘sidewalks’ subcommittee. The supervisors were not listening; their decision preordained. When several people asked Lamina ‘why’ not separate the motion in to two motions? His response was consistently no; that he wrote it that way. Period. Interesting to note that Kampf offered his commentary on government and making compromise. Perhaps what Kampf should have explained was that the compromise was a behind the closed-door agreement with the other supervisors, there certainly was no compromise with the citizenry. In advance of the vote, both supervisors Kichline and DiBuonaventuro offered that they would be supporting this motion. I guess that was supposed to make the residents ‘feel better’ since these two supervisors, along with Supervisor Donohue cast the 3 votes against the original motion on January 25.

A constant thread among the supervisors comments last night on St. Davids Golf Club was their desire to ‘move on’. The supervisors wanted this motion delivered, a vote taken and the ability to put St. Davids Golf Club behind them. And a vote the supervisors took; it was unanimous, 7-0 to support Lamina’s motion.

Why did I leave the meeting with the feeling that we (the public) had been manipulated and that our government had let us down? I should have felt that justice was served and our government policy and procedure restored . . . after all, the motion did include the reversal of the St. Davids decision. But no, I went home, drank 3 glasses of Pinot Grigio and reviewed what had just happened. The St. Davids discussion and motion was completely orchestrated . . . an obvious deal made in advance. Where was the transparency of the supervisor’s actions? For me transparency in government means that the citizens must be able to “see through” its workings, and to fully understand what goes on when public officials transact public business.

Transparency is the new buzz word in American politics. You hear politicians say it all the time when referring to ways of providing constituents with access to more information and mobilizing people to get more involved in government processes. Transparency is a way of protecting fairness and ensuring common good. When we know what our government is up to, we have a better chance of ensuring that decisions treat everyone equally and protect the common conditions that are important to everyone’s welfare. It was obvious that the supervisors had already debated and settled the issue of a subcommittee, prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting, outside the view of constituents. Am I the only one who is concerned over possible violations of the state’s Sunshine Act? The open meeting law bars four or more of the Board’s seven supervisors from deliberating township business or taking official action behind closed doors, with few exceptions. Why do we have to fight to keep the door open? Is it that the supervisors want the appearance of unanimity, to aim for as little contention as possible in public? When you go behind a closed-door and make decisions, the perception can be as bad as the fact.

As far as they are concerned, the Board of Supervisors may feel that with their vote last night, that St. Davids Golf Club is now past history. But for me, the issue is far from over; no they just created a whole host of new problems with their latest decision.

I can hardly wait to see this new ‘sidewalks’ subcommittee . . . knowing what the desired outcome for St. Davids Golf Club must be, the supervisors will want to make sure that Paul Olson is their representative on the committee. From the STAP committee the supervisors need to make sure that Bruce Parkinson is included on the sidewalks subcommittee; as a member of St. Davids Golf Club he would be an invaluable choice. From the Planning Commission, I am not sure who would be the politically correct choice; are any of planning commissioners also members of St. Davids? If so, make sure and let the supervisors know as that is an important selection criteria. When the Board of Supervisors is forming the public focus group for St. Davids area, they need to make sure that no one from the Mt. Pleasant community is included. As we know, Christine Johnson and her non-country club Mt. Pleasant neighbors live where that proposed St. Davids sidewalk to nowhere would have ended.

Was last night about full disclosure, transparency, deal-making? . . . you be the judge.

Chester County Democrat Committee Nominating Convention Endorses Paul Drucker in his Reelection Bid for the 157th Legislative District

February 21, 2010
2 Comments

I spoke with Paul Drucker last evening and extended my congratulations on his 157th Legislative District endorsement at the Chester County Democrat Committee Nominating Convention held yesterday in West Chester.

From what I understand from those in attendance, Paul delivered a rousing speech to the audience; a speech filled with passion and enthusiasm for the work that he is currently doing in Harrisburg and a desire to continue to represent our community. A longtime Paoli resident and a former member of Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors, as our current State Representative, Paul understands first hand the challenges and concerns of our community. The best of luck to Paul in his reelection campaign.

Just In . . . No Endorsement from the Chester County Republican Committee for the State House 157 Race . . . There Will be a Primary!

February 20, 2010
31 Comments

This just in . . . Chester County Republican Committee has completed their voting for the Pennsylvania State House 157. The committee voted not to endorse either Warren Kampf or Ken Buckwalter. To receive an endorsement requires 60% of the votes; the voting went as follows:

  • Round 1: Kampf 32 votes; Buckwalter 26 votes
  • Round 2: Kampf 31 votes; Buckwalter 27 votes
  • Round 3: Kampf 29 votes; Buckwalter 27 votes *

* It is my understanding that 2 Tredyffrin committee people left before Round 3 vote.

As a result of the voting, the Republican Committee has made the decision to recommend both candidates (neither candidate receives an endorsement). So there will be a Primary race between Kampf and Buckwalter; both candidates will appear on the ballot. Paul Drucker’s Republican opponent for the State House race will be decided by the people on Primary Day, May 18, 2010.

Interesting that we will have a Republican Primary between a Paoli candidate and a Phoenixville candidate . . . wonder when the last time that happened? Has there ever been a non-Tredyffrin Township State House Representative? Exciting local political news!

Chester County Democrat and Republican Nominating Conventions Being Held Today . . . Who Will Face Paul Drucker in the State House Race?

February 20, 2010
6 Comments

The Chester County Democrat Committee Nominating Convention is being held today in West Chester, 10 AM – 1 PM. Petitions will be signed for senate, congressional, gubernatorial and legislative candidates.

Also today is the endorsement process for the Chester County Republican Committee. The outcome of today’s vote will determine if there is a primary for the Republicans in the State House 157 race. The was a straw poll held a couple of weeks ago between Warren Kampf, Judy DiFilippo and Ken Buckwalter. As a result of the straw poll, Judy made the decision to leave the race, leaving committee people today to make a choice between Kampf and Buckwalter. Although the outcome of the straw poll has historically given good indication of who will get the GOP endorsement, the results are unofficial and nonbinding. It will be curious to see if Kampf, the frontrunner after the straw poll receives the GOP endorsement or if Phoenixville resident Buckwalter receives it. If a 60-40 margin is not reached among committee people, there will be no endorsement. The next question will be whether the committee people decide to recommend one (or both) of the candidates. If one of the candidates doesn’t receive an endorsement or recommendation, it would appear unlikely that the candidate would remain in the race.

Paul Drucker (D), the incumbent State House 157 Representative kicked off his reelection campaign this week with the opening of his Paoli Campaign office. “It has been an honor and a privilege to serve the people of this community over the past year, and I am proud of my work on issues important to residents here, from our successful efforts to increase education funding to progress on job creation and transportation, as well as the urgent need for reform in Harrisburg,” Drucker said. “While we have done some very good things together, there is much more to be done to make Harrisburg reflect the priorities of the people, and that is why I will ask the voters to give me the opportunity to continue to serve them.”

The Chester County Democrat and Republican committee process is important today for Tredyffrin residents. By the end of the day we will know the opponent(s) for Paul Drucker in the State House 157 legislative race. Just so everyone understands, the 157th legislative district encompasses Tredyffrin. Schuylkill, Phoenixville, and in Montgomery County – 4 precincts in Lower Providence and 1 precinct in West Norriton

Will the May Primary have both Warren Kampf and Ken Buckwalter on the ballot? Will one of them be endorsed by the Republican Committee? Look for an announcement later today; as soon as I know something, I will post.

Tredyffrin Township Then and Now . . . What a Difference 8 Years Makes for Chairman Lamina and Supervisor Olson (or Does It?)

February 18, 2010
4 Comments

What a difference 8 years can make or does it?

Many of us continue to be disturbed by the fact that St. Davids Golf Club was not on the January 25 Board of Supervisors Agenda yet that did not stop Supervisor Olson from making a motion, Chairman Lamina seconding the motion and with the additional votes of Supervisors Kampf and Richter, approving the motion 4-3 to return the escrow to St. Davids.

‘Roger’, a Community Matters reader has also been troubled by the backdoor approach that Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter took to get the St. Davids Golf Club matter just pushed through without public notification. Roger did some background research yesterday, reading Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes all the way back to 2002. His discovery led him to June 16, 2002 BOS Minutes: take a look at what he found:

Under Miscellaneous, Page 3, Paragraph 1: Mr. Olson said he had planned to make a motion tonight to keep the Strafford Library open, but he was informed that it must be placed on a public agenda for everyone to see. He said he will introduce a motion to keep Strafford Library open at the Board’s next meeting.

Interesting to note that in 2002, Board of Supervisors Chairman was John Bravaco and Vice Chairman was Bob Lamina. Supervisors Lamina and Olson understood (and followed) the rules of Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter in 2002 but 8 years later in 2010 the requirement to follow the rules is no longer necessary. How is that Olson knew he could not make a motion without public notification in 2002 but neither he nor Chairman Lamina viewed that as a stumbling block in 2010? I guess we are to assume that the policy and procedures which existed in 2002 are no longer valid. (Or maybe the difference is that Lamina is Chairman in 2010 whereas he was Vice Chair in 2002).

Here is the link for the June 16, 2002 BOS Meeting Minutes

The Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes are now available from the January 25, 2010 meeting. Please take the time to read these recent meeting minutes. You will see that Supervisors DiBuonaventuro and Kichline understand the need for public notification of motions (and just think, these 2 supervisors were not even serving in 2002!). Note in the minutes that several audience members attempted to point out that the rules of the Home Rule Charter were not being followed. Rules, policy, procedures . . . not required by Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter in 2010.

Isn’t it interesting what the Board of Supervisors could do in 2010 they could not do in 2002!

__________________________________________________

The execution of the laws is more important than the making of them.
– Thomas Jefferson

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme