Pattye Benson

Community Matters

State House 157

Radnor and Tredyffrin Townships . . . Home Rule Charter Issues and Troubling Behavior of Elected Officials

February 11, 2010
11 Comments

In 1975 the voters of Tredyffrin Township approved the adoption of a Home Rule Charter which tailored the structure of our local government to meet the Township’s current and future needs. The Charter became effective in January, 1976, coincidentally and most appropriately the Bicentennial of American Independence.

In the past, I have referenced problems with the Radnor Township’s elected officials. Since becoming president of Radnor’s Board of Commissioners a couple of months ago, John Nagle has continuously made headlines with his behavior, most recently his attempt to control free speech of the citizens. If you follow Radnor Township’s issues, a similiarity begins to surface when compared to the behavior of some of Tredyffrin’s elected officials (most specifically, Supervisors Lamina and Kampf at the last Board of Supervisors meeting.) I thought that this week’s As I See It article (written by a former Radnor Township Commissioner) in the Main Line Surburban offers interesting commentary . . . just substitute Radnor Township with Tredyffrin Township as you read it. Ms. Williams is concerned about Radnor Township’s reputation and the integrity of its elected officials. She speaks to issues concerning government transparency, public notification procedures, citizen free speech rights . . . any of this sound familiar?

As I See It: Public-comment plan is against spirit of Radnor’s home-rule charter

By Jeane B. Williams

On Nov. 2, 1976, the majority of the electors of Radnor Township, voting on that date, approved the adoption of the proposed Home Rule Charter, as it was submitted by the 11 members of the government study commission of the township, in its report dated May 4, 1976. The yes vote indicated that the charter would become effective (official) Jan. 1, 1977, under the conditions specified in the charter.

Listed among the advantages of the provisions of this document is #2: openness and responsiveness of township government.

The charter guarantees:

A. Open public meetings of the Board of Commissioners with opportunity for citizen discussion.

Because it does not state that a form of gag rule (time or term limit on speakers) is permitted to be imposed as a rule, especially on those opposed to the party-line agenda, does not make it acceptable. I would not support any change to the current open dialogue that follows the provisions and spirit of the Home Rule Charter.

B. Availability of advance meeting and agenda notices to interested citizens.

The purpose of this clause was to encourage public dialogue with the electorate.

C. Public notice, public availability and public discussion of proposed ordinances and proposed budgets prior to adoption.

First public notice of the above, when it appears on the agenda sheets the Friday before the Monday meeting, is not adequate study time.

D. Availability of all township records to interested citizens upon request.

The recent redaction of employee names from the salary list is a violation of the spirit and intent of the charter. The employee names are part of the township records and are paid through taxpayer dollars and are therefore public. The electorate should not be required to resort to requesting the names through a Pennsylvania Right to Know document request.

I will be the first to admit that I did not foresee Radnor Township citizens electing persons to office who do not recognize that Radnor Township has maintained its reputation as a desirable family living area. One of the contributing factors is that its public officials (until 2008) have presented and kept a respectable public reputation. If political vigilance has waned, please reread and remember you still have the HRC at your back! There are more do’s than don’ts in it because elected and appointed officials are expected to have integrity to themselves, their families, their neighbors and Radnor Township.

As one of the 11 home-rule charter study commissioners, I have grateful memories of the hours we spent together crafting a document that could be read and understood by men or women on the street, as well as school students, and also reflect the kind of governmental structure would continue to keep Radnor Township a present-day model of William Penn’s Green Country Town.

Jeane B. Williams is a former Radnor Township resident.

Main Line Suburban Reporter Blair Meadowcroft writes . . . "Tredyffrin Residents Blast Supervisors Over St. Davids Vote"

February 10, 2010
2 Comments

Main Line Suburban reporter Blair Meadowcroft’s account of Monday night’s Board of Supervisor Meeting is published today (article below). Sometimes when you are in the midst of a situation, you can loose your objectivity . . . but after reading Blair’s account of the meeting, I am convinced that the residents were right in their united message.

I do need to recognize the ‘Citizen Supervisor’ of the night . . . John DiBuonaventuro. Supervisor DiBuonaventuro heard the residents, agreed with them and stated, “I’d like to reverse the decision, start over and follow by the rules.” The problem of course is that he could count on Supervisors Kichline and Donohue votes to reverse the decision, but we know that Supervisors Lamina, Kampf and Richter still don’t get it! For the record, Paul Olson was not at the meeting but it is clear how he would not have supported a vote to reverse the decision (considering, he is the one who made the original motion).

I still remain convinced that with help (and encouragement) from the public, township manager and township solicitor, we will see our elected officials back on track at the February 22 meeting. I’m looking forward to seeing St. Davids Golf Club on the meeting agenda, and the re-institution of policy and procedure for Tredyffrin Township’s government.

Tredyffrin residents blast supervisors over St. Davids vote

By Blair Meadowcroft

At the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors meeting Monday night, three of the board members took to the microphone in an effort to apologize for their previous actions.

Since last meeting’s whirlwind vote was approved in favor of releasing $25,000 from an escrow account to the St. Davids Golf Club, residents have been expressing their confusion and dislike. In response, and after discussion with various members of the community over the last two weeks, three of the four board members who voted in favor of the motion in question publicly apologized. The fourth board member who voted to pass the motion for St. Davids was Vice Chair Paul Olson, who was not at the Feb. 8 meeting.

“All here tonight acknowledge that the process utilized was less than perfect,” said Chairman Bob Lamina. “I could have done a better job; I could have insisted on more public comment, or agreed with Supervisor Michelle Kichline to table the issue. The board plans to learn from this and we plan to figure out a better way in the future of dealing with this sort of issue.”

Supervisors Evelyn Richter and Warren Kampf agreed, echoing Lamina’s sentiments and adding a few of their own.

“I should have agreed to a delay; there was no rush on this,” said Richter. “And this should have been put on the agenda. I’ll work towards not allowing this to happen again.”

“A lot of thought has gone into this and in hindsight the motion to table the issue should have been considered, and announcing this in advance should have been done,” said Kampf.

While their apologies were appreciated by those in attendance, the three board members quickly learned that an apology would not be enough. Member after member of the community came to the microphone during a public-comment session to express their disgust at what had been allowed to happen at the previous meeting, questioned what sort of example the board members were setting, and demanded an answer as to what would be done to fix the problem.

“I want to understand how the meeting and the vote made does not set precedent for the future,” said Pattye Benson. “Township Manager Mimi Gleason said that it does. What will stop another developer tomorrow from saying no to doing something they once agreed to do? What you did was absolutely outrageous. You made an apology but that does not right the wrong.”

Agreeing, Matthew Valocchi, vice president of the Berwyn Fire Company, said that while the apologies were nice, there is still a “big problem” that needs to be taken care of. “This has been a heated political issue and it is a problem when a vote like this gets rushed by,” said Valocchi. “The letter of credit was a guarantee that something was going to be done. There was no request from St. Davids for this exemption and the board did not refer the matter to the township engineer before taking the vote.”

As the night went on, regardless of the decision made previously by the board members, the residents in attendance continued to fight for the sidewalks in question. They explained how they were necessary, how they would not affect trees or add to storm- water issues and that if put in place they would not be “a sidewalk to nowhere.”

“When the Sidewalks, Trails and Paths Committee put together their plan it was to allow residents to walk carefully through the township,” said one resident. “That part of the path was put there specifically to help that purpose. The question is what do you want Tredyffrin to be like in the future? If you want it to be walkable, we need the sidewalks to be put in.”

Although various points were made in their defense Chairman Lamina explained that in his opinion the sidewalks weren’t necessary and that was why he voted the way he did. “Who are we to insist a sidewalk go somewhere that a community doesn’t want?” asked Lamina.

As the meeting unfolded, residents asked repeatedly in a variety of ways for the township supervisors to reverse their vote, put it on hold, discuss it more in depth, anything to undo what was done. One supervisor voiced his opinion and agreed with the residents. “Maybe there is a way to start over and do this the right way,” said Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro. “I’d like to reverse the decision, start over and follow by the rules.” While the residents’ comments were heard, along with DiBuonaventuro’s request for a reversal, by the end of the meeting no change had been made to the previous vote.

While those in attendance were disappointed, the conversations remained calm throughout the meeting until John Petersen, Tredyffrin resident and one-time supervisor, approached the microphone. After asking the board members a few questions, including one to Kampf, the response he got started a heated argument.

“The audience in this room needs to know who this man is at the microphone,” said Kampf. “He sent an e-mail to each member of the board today saying, ‘You’ve asked for war, and war is what you will have. I’m going to get you. I am coming after you.’ I think his attacks are personal.”

The discussion that followed involved Petersen criticizing Kampf on his leadership skills and on the board’s actions in general. “Instead of defending your actions you are attacking me,” said Petersen. “You have no defense; you broke the faith and all you can do is hide. You are held to a higher standard and it is about time you started acting like it.” In response to his comments, Lamina ended the discussion by telling Petersen “You will no longer be recognized here.”

In other news at the BOS meeting, the supervisors thanked the public-works team for their efforts put forth to handle the weekend’s snowfall as well as to prepare for the upcoming storm. “This was the second largest snowstorm in Tredyffrin Township’s history; we got 20 inches,” said public-works director Steve Norcini. “The public-works crew did a fantastic job. They worked nonstop from 5 p.m. Friday until 3 a.m. Sunday. And as soon as that ended, they started preparing for the next storm, which we are ready for.”

Additionally, DiBuonaventuro commended the local fire companies for their courageous work done to fight a three-alarm fire that took place at Strafford Station Apartments Saturday, Jan. 30 at 9:25 a.m. The fire caused $1.2 million in damage and was determined to have been started by a fire in the utility closet at the complex. Along with thanking the firefighters, DiBuonaventuro thanked the local churches, the Red Cross and T&E Care for their efforts in helping and temporarily adopting the affected families.

Local Attorney Weighs in on the Recent Actions of Tredyffrin Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter . . . and Will Bring it to the Supervisors Meeting Tonight!

February 8, 2010
8 Comments

Paoli Attorney John Petersen sent the following email this morning to Supervisors Lamina, Olson, Kampf, Richter, Donohue, Kichline and DiBuonaventuro, Township Solicitor Tom Hogan and Township Manager Mimi Gleason. Although I was copied on the email, I assumed that this was priveleged information and not intended for public consumption. However, I have received a call from John Petersen stating that he intended the email as public record and asked that I post it on Community Matters. The following is an unedited email that details some of John’s thoughts on the recent actions of some of our elected officials; he plans to deliver his message at tonight’s meeting.

I am hopeful that at the meeting tonight we will see recent Board decisions examined (and corrected) and that we can look forward to our elected officials steering the township under the rules of the Home Rule Charter and the Administrative Code of Pennsylvania. Tonight’s meeting is important to all residents, please come to the meeting at 7:30 PM at the Township Building or watch it from home.

John Petersen’s email from 2-08-10:

http://www.celdf.org/HomeRule/PennsylvaniaandHomeRule/tabid/116/Default.aspx

Pretty simple… Authority in the HRC (Home Rule Charter) derives from the voters.

“The basic concept of home rule is relatively simple. The authority to act in municipal affairs is transferred from state law, as set forth by the General Assembly, to a local charter, adopted and amended by the voters.”

This is why changes to the home rule charter have to be a placed on the ballot.

Home rule is pretty broad:

“Municipalities shall have the right and power to frame and adopt home rule charters… A municipality which has a home rule charter may exercise any power to perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly at any time.”

We pretty much knew this. The key of course, is if it is stated in the home rule, they MUST follow it.

OK then..How do we get from the Home Rule Charter to the Administrative Code:

The HRC is like our constitution – and is ratified by the voters. In Section 212 B and C, the HRC state:

B. Adopt an Administrative Code defining the organization and assignment of duties and responsibilities of
Township officers and employees.

Before going further, the oath that each supervisor took pledged to uphold the terms and conditions of the US Constitution, the PA Constitution and the laws of the township – which includes both the HRC and the Administrative Code.

Now… if you go to the Administrative Code, the first section, Section C – references the HRC. In very real terms, the HRC specifies the what. The Administrative Code specifies the How. In any case, the Code specifies the parameters upon which something in the HRC can be carried out. So with that, let’s go to relevant section in the Code re: escrows (Section 181-34 G)

As the work of installing the required improvements proceeds, the party posting the financial security may request the Board of Supervisors to release or authorize to be released, from time to time, such portions of the financial security necessary for payment to the contractor or contractors performing the work. Any such requests shall be in writing addressed to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board shall have 45 days from receipt of such request within which to allow the Township Engineer to certify, in writing, that such portion of the work upon the improvements has been completed in accordance with the approved plans. Upon such certification, the Board shall authorize release by the bonding company or lending institution of an amount as estimated by the Township Engineer fairly representing the value of the improvements completed. The Township Engineer, in certifying the completion of work for a partial release, shall not be bound to the amount requested by the applicant, but shall certify to the Board his independent evaluation of the proper amount of partial releases. The Board may, prior to final release at the time of completion and certification by the Township Engineer, require retention of 10% of the estimated cost of the aforesaid improvements as per § 181-34D of this chapter.

———————–

Just looking at the first sentence, sure enough, the word [may] appears. However, it is followed by an [or]. In this case, we know the club did not request. The club didn’t authorize the release either. Therefore, you never get to the second sentence. But, even if we did get to the second sentence, it states:

Any SUCH requests shall be in writing….The problem here is a bit of in-artful drafting of the Home Rule Charter. Most definitely, the word [may] has the connotation that something may not be required. The word [may] should probably be replace with [shall either]. However, in this context, the focus on the word [may] alone is to ignore the context of the first and second sentences. Even if we were to concede the requirements set forth in the first sentence which go to initiating the process, once the process has been initiated, there must be a writing. And as we now know, there was no writing.

Using the language within the four corners of the Home Rule Charter and the Code, there is no question that a violation has occurred. And therefore, the vote was void ab initio.By analogy, consider when Bill DeHaven resigned and the work that had to be expended to try to stay within the framework of the HRC. Technically, that didn’t happen. BUT – a compromise that facilitated due process and notice was achieved. Nothing of the kind occurred here.

Then there is the agenda – Section C-16 – which is the HRC section in the Admin Code:

The Board shall cause to be prepared for each regular meeting an agenda of matters to be considered by the Board at such meeting, including pertinent background information, which agenda, along with a copy of financial and other activity reports, shall be distributed to the public at the start of the meeting. The agenda shall be available at least eight hours prior to the start of the meeting.

We now know that the Supervisor Lamina was deliberately indifferent to placing the matter on the agenda. Then of course, there are the cases that are posted on Pattye’s blog.

—————————-

You see, I don’t even need to get to Bob’s email or any of the comments that target Democrats as a political group under color of local law. I can reference that email, comments and newspaper qjuotes. That however, ratchets things up into the federal arena. Seems like we may very well have Section 1983 violations here – in addition to some First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause issues.

——————————

Bottom line, at the very least, Bob and Paul need to step down from their leadership positions. Ideally, they would simply resign altogether from the board. Warren and EJ should follow suit. But – at the end of the day, the leadership is responsible. That however, does not remove the culpability that Warren and EJ have.

Otherwise, I can almost guarantee the Kampf, Lamina, Olson and Richter – along with the township – will be sued under the aforementioned grounds.

I would rather not see tonight turn into a circus.

Regards,

John V. Petersen, Esq.

Tredyffrin Twp Board of Supervisors Meeting Tonight . . . St. Davids Sidewalk Issue, a Photo Essay

February 8, 2010
3 Comments

Tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting is shaping up to be one for the history books. It would appear that some of our elected officials have become entangled in quite the spider’s web. The actions taken at the January 25 Board of Supervisors meeting, the resulting vote to return St. Davids escrow, the newspaper articles, Letters to the Editor, discussion on Community Matters, etc. have left many residents pondering the state of our local government.

I have remained consistent in saying that the sidewalks are not the issue; however, I believe that many people probably do not understand the bigger picture and the ramifications of the Board’s actions to our township and its residents. Having said that, I think it would be helpful for people to look at this photo essay. Thank you to the local TTDEMs for helping the community better understand through photos and description this section of the township, which Supervisor Olson consistently refers to as ‘sidewalks to nowhere’. A special thank you to Sean Moir for his mapping skills, which clearly show the section of the St. Davids sidewalk.

Here is the Board of Supervisors agenda for tonight’s meeting.

Home Rule Charter Violations . . . Legal Cases from Philadelphia and Erie County

February 7, 2010
8 Comments

I received fascinating information (see below) from JudgeNJury citing 2 examples of cases of violations to Pennsylvania’s Home Rule Charter. It is reassuring to know that others have fought the battle (and won) using the basis of procedures contained in the Home Rule Charter. This supports the notion that a declaratory judgment action rendering the St. Davids Golf Club escrow vote null and void would be successful. My question is would an individual have to file (and win) a declaratory judgment to force the supervisors to follow the Home Rule Charter. If the Home Rule Charter states that supervisors must publicize all agenda items at least 8 hours in advance, shouldn’t that be followed? Why do we have to spend time and money to force Home Rule Charter procedure to be followed?

We know that Chair Lamina believes, and states to the Main Line Suburban Life newspaper, that “Under our current rules, any supervisor is free to offer any motion he chooses at any time, . . . It is not unusual at all for board members to offer unpublished motions during discussions at our meetings and I believe it’s reasonable and appropriate for our board to have this flexibility where needed in its proceedings . . .”

I would hope that with review of the Home Rule Charter, counsel from the township solicitor and the citing of Pennsylvania cases, that Chair Lamina and Supervisors Kampf, Olson and Richter would acknowledge their ‘miss-step’. I think that it would bode far better for them and the residents of this township, that our elected officials could just ‘fix’ their mistake without requiring a declaratory judgment action. Perhaps township solicitor Tom Hogan could review the procedures contained within the Home Rule Charter and offer guidance to our Board of Supervisors. Based on the actions taken on January 25, and the prevailing attitude of Chair Lamina, no motion is off-limits, including those not publicized.

Please take the time to review these cases below provided by JudgeNJury:

JudgeNJury, on February 6th, 2010 Said:

Here are two cases worth reading. Neither is directly on point, but they both provide some flavor:

City of Philadelphia v. Weiner (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15768620678301027768&q=550+A.2d+274&hl=en&as_sdt=800000000002): Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter contains a provision requiring the City to give public notice when it intends introduce a bill. The Philadelphia City Council introduced a bill to amend the City’s real estate transfer tax. However, City Council did not give public notice of the new proposed tax rate contained in the bill and the new rate never was discussed at a public hearing before the bill was adopted. Several parties, including a consumer group and an association of realtors, sued to enjoin the City from enforcing the bill because City Council did not follow the procedures set forth in the City’s Home Rule Charter. The trial court granted the injunction, and, in the opinion cited above, the appeals court affirmed the injunction.

Here, like the City of Philadelphia in the Weiner case, the Board of Supervisors did not follow the procedures in its Home Rule Charter. Specifically, the Township did not include the escrow motion on the agenda for the January 25 Board meeting. So the Weiner case would seem to support an argument that the Township can be enjoined from acting on the motion (assuming it has not already).

County Council v. County Executive (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3165189562536297706&q=600+A.2d+257&hl=en&as_sdt=800000000002): The Erie County Home Rule Charter (apparently – the case is less than crystal clear) contained a provision requiring the County to conduct a performance review of any County employee before it could increase that employee’s salary. The Erie County Executive increased the salary of a County employee without conducting a performance review. The Erie County Council brought a declaratory judgment action seeking to declare the Executive’s action null and void because it violated the Home Rule Charter. A month after Council filed its suit, the employee whose salary was increased retired. Arguing that the retirement made the case moot, the Executive asked the trial court to dismiss the case, which it did. The appeals court, in the cited opinion, upheld the dismissal.

The ultimate result of the Erie County case, obviously, is not helpful from the perspective of those who would like to challenge the Board’s actions here (though the mootness issues in the Erie County case seem much different than any that might arise here, so the result itself may not be that significant). What is significant, however, is that the case suggests that bringing a declaratory judgment action to declare null and void an action taken in contravention of a Home Rule Charter is the proper procedure in this situation

Tredyffrin's Lamina, Olson, Kampf & Richter . . . Another 'Legal Loophole'? . . . Maybe not!

February 6, 2010
6 Comments

I had an interesting comment that arrived overnight in regards to the St. Davids escrow vote from the Board of Supervisors meeting. I’m thinking that the person who sent in this comment (posted below) is probably an attorney (and quite possibly a municipal attorney). Give this a read and see what you think. It appears that based on the Home Rule Charter, the St. Davids escrow vote was indeed null and void because it was not listed on the agenda.

When the supervisors take their oath of office, they pledge to uphold the Home Rule Charter and the Administrative Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is obvious that this information is not known (or if known, not followed) by Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter. In this week’s Main Line Surburban Life, Chair Lamina defends the St. Davids Golf Club motion not appearing on the agenda. “Under our current rules, any supervisor is free to offer any motion he chooses at any time,” said Lamina. “It is not unusual at all for board members to offer unpublished motions during discussions at our meetings and I believe it’s reasonable and appropriate for our board to have this flexibility where needed in its proceedings. . . ”

So the residents are left wondering, when the supervisors take their oath of office to uphold Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter, doesn’t that oath matter? Don’t they ever read what it is they have agreed to uphold? If they don’t have a personal copy of the Home Rule Charter, it is on the www.tredyffrin.org website. Apparently based on his comments in the newspaper, Lamina has been working under this misconception for some time. How long has he served as supervisor? Do I want to believe that Olson who has served as supervisor for 30 years still doesn’t know what the Home Rule Charter says? And let’s not forget Supervisor Kampf (remembering he is also an attorney) didn’t he feel compelled to read the Home Rule Charter that he took an oath to uphold? And Ms. Richter, newly elected supervisor . . . does she take an oath of office to uphold the Home Rule Charter without a peek at its contents?

I do not attest to being a legal authority, but my guess is that the residents of Tredyffrin Township have real grounds to ask that this latest motion be thrown out on procedural error. But I am betting that when the ‘spin doctors’ read this post, they will try to wrangle a legal loophole! (Here’s hoping that it may not be possible).

I know that we had a ‘substitute’ township solicitor from Lamb McErlane serving at the last meeting, and I also understand that the solicitor serves at the pleasure of the board but wouldn’t it be the responsibility of the solicitor to point out the procedural error of Olson’s motion (and the 4-3 vote to approve)? Perhaps Township Solicitor Tom Hogan could have a look at the Home Rule Charter before Monday night’s meeting and offer his opinion to the supervisors.

The way I read it is the motion to return escrow to St. Davids Golf Club (and vote to approve the motion) don’t count . . . and the supervisors cannot make a new motion on Monday night because it would have to be placed on the agenda. The St. Davids vote should simply be thrown out. If after further discussion with the township solicitor, a supervisor decides at some future meeting to make a similar motion, it needs to be placed on the agenda at least 8 hours in advance. Comments?

JudgeNJury, on February 5th, 2010 wrote,

Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter requires the Board of Supervisors to list all matters to be considered at a Board meeting on the agenda for the meeting: “The Board shall cause to be prepared for each regular meeting an agenda of matters to be considered by the Board at such meeting, including pertinent background, which agenda, along with a copy of financial and other activity reports, shall be distributed to the public at the start of the meeting. The agenda shall be available at least eight hours prior to the start of the meeting.”

Township of Tredyffrin Home Rule Charter § 211(C) (http://www.tredyffrin.org/pdf/ordinances/home-rule-charter.pdf).

It seems to me that there is a good argument to be made that introducing and voting on the escrow issue without including it in the agenda violated the Home Rule Charter and, therefore, the vote is null and void.

All we’d need is a plaintiff with standing (a Township resident who would benefit from construction of the sidewalk might be the best bet) to file a lawsuit against the Board. The plaintiff could request (i) a declaration from the court (“declaratory judgment”) that the vote is null and void and (ii) an injunction prohibiting the Board from raising or voting on non-emergency matters that are not specifically included in the agenda for a meeting. Who’s game?

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

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

Supervisor Lamina's Outrageous Defense of His St. Davids Golf Club Decision

February 4, 2010
14 Comments

As if the decision of Supervisors Lamina, Olson, Kampf and Richter at Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisor meeting to return the escrow to St. Davids Golf Club was not outrageous on its own terms, we are now subjected to Chair Lamina’s defense of his actions in the Main Line Suburban Life newspaper. This Bloc of 4 is determined to rule (that’s right rule, not govern) at any cost to the community. As the outcry gets louder and louder from the community, please read how Chair Lamina plays the ‘spin doctor’ on this situation.

As a caveat to this story, it did not escape me that next to Lamina’s explanation of his St. Davids actions, was Warren Kampf’s announcement of his State House 157 run. Let’s all remember that the Bloc of 4 is not just Lamina, Olson and Richter, but attorney Warren Kampf was that 4th supervisor vote that allowed the motion to pass. Guess the ‘deal-making’ and the ‘law-stretching’ techniques learned locally may help in the campaign!

Lamina Defends Board Decision on St. Davids Club

By Blair Meadowcroft

A motion passed at the Jan. 25 Board of Supervisors meeting had many Tredyffrin Township residents both upset and confused. Although not on the agenda, the topic of the St. Davids Golf Club, an issue that has been thoroughly discussed for years, was brought up under the “New Matters from Board Members” section of the meeting.

After hearing discussion from board members and residents on both sides of the issue, the board voted 4-3 in favor of releasing $25,000 from an escrow account to the St. Davids Golf Club. The St. Davids Golf Club became a topic of importance many years ago when, as part of a development- approval process, the club agreed to construct and pay for a public sidewalk along its perimeter. Since then, however, the club continues to be without the promised sidewalks. Additionally, according to Tredyffrin Township’s Budget Advisory Working Group’s final report, the golf club offered a cash donation of $50,000, in lieu of the requirement to install the sidewalks, but the offer was declined.

The motion, which was introduced by Vice Chairman Paul Olson and passed by the board, left residents feeling unsettled and feeling that the golf club had been absolved of its obligations. Additionally residents expressed fear that passing this motion sets a precedent that will allow other developers the same sort of relief, and that this motion undermines past discussions against giving the golf club a way out.

In response, however, Chairman Bob Lamina explained that the golf club did not receive a “financial gift” from the township, and that “the only action taken related to relieving St. Davids was from an escrow in the form of a letter of credit they had previously established with a local bank to complete the sidewalk.” According to Lamina, the action taken by the board is not costing the township or the taxpayers anything, and that no money is changing hands in any way.

In addition, Lamina explained that his reasoning for why the motion was passed was due to the unnecessary nature of the project in the first place. “The Board of Supervisors agreed with the majority of the citizens of our community that sidewalks are not desired by its residents in that area of the township,” said Lamina. “This is a matter of policy and whether we should hold taxpayers, be they resident or business, on the line for a sidewalk that made no common sense, in an area where they were never intended and would require clear-cutting of trees and add new impervious surface. The only way we could affect this unnecessary sidewalk was to take the action we did. This is not about St. Davids; this motion would have been offered if it were a barbershop, a hoagie shop or ‘John Q. Citizen.’”

He went on to explain that the sidewalks in question did not relate to public safety, and that “given these challenging economic times, we should only be expending resources from our taxpayers for sidewalks” that will keep the public safe.

While the motion may have been made and passed at any board meeting, residents were left questioning whether or not the timing was purposeful. Attendance at the Board of Supervisors meeting was expectedly low given that there was a planned Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board meeting at the same time. “Under our current rules, any supervisor is free to offer any motion he chooses at any time,” said Lamina. “It is not unusual at all for board members to offer unpublished motions during discussions at our meetings and I believe it’s reasonable and appropriate for our board to have this flexibility where needed in its proceedings. In my nearly 12 years of experience on the board, I can’t recall an instance where the township ever consulted with another municipality or the school district on when we schedule our meetings.”

Additionally, while the topic was not on the agenda, Lamina added that he did not feel this was a surprise to anyone involved in the St. Davids issue. “This issue has been before the Planning Commission in many public meetings over the last three years,” said Lamina. “Members of our own board tried to broker a compromise for months after the applicant failed in several attempts to convince the Planning Commission that this made no sense and was very costly. Since the board has delegated authority for land development to the Planning Commission, our vote on the escrow was the only vehicle available for the board to effect a change to plans in that area of our community and that the majority of the residents in that area clearly did not want.”

The following are comments from the readers from mainlinemedianews.com which follow this article online. The people that commented are all thinking similarly to myself; I have yet to find anyone (of course, other than the ‘4’ supervisors and the few hand-chosen people which Olson called to attend the Supervisor meeting). Please read the comments and I would encourage you to add your own.

Comments

Panhandler wrote on Feb 3, 2010 12:59 PM:

” Elitism and racism is alive and well in Tredyffrin. They kiss the behind of the golf club, while they allow Mt. Pleasant to deteriorate and be taken over by students and shady developers.Lamina should be laminated and put at the back of a deep dark shelf to gather dust. He’s a jerk ”

Moderate Girl wrote on Feb 3, 2010 1:14 PM:

” Blair, Good for you Panhandler!

The issue is about an escrow deposit (not a letter of credit)on record with the township, and the precedent it will set if monies are returned prior to completion of a plan. It is not about sidewalks. What Lamina is saying is a bunch of hogwash!

It will also cost the taxpayers money in the end. When sidewalks/paths are installed in that area, the cost will far above what it was a couple of years ago or even today. Thus the taxpayers will be faced with a tax increase. I guess the Band of 4 are too stupid to see it. ”

Christine E. Johnson wrote on Feb 3, 2010 1:26 PM:

” I just had the opportunity to view the BOS Meeting on youtube and I’m appalled. I was one of those TRUSTING citizens who had to rely on the posted agenda because they don’t have cable. Obviously, due to the bad precedent this motion establishes, it’s not just about money or a sidewalk, BUT… I would like to point out that none of the residents of Mt. Pleasant who reside along Upper Gulph Road were asked to participate in Mr. Olson’s sidewalk “survey”.

Also, he kept repeating that Upper Gulph Road is dangerous. Um, Yeah. That’s why every time I see a kid from my neighborhood who is walking to or from the Tredyffrin Library, I pull over to give them a ride. Kids should not be walking on this road. It is not safe.

And, as Panhandler indicates, we have more and more students from Villanova and Cabrini College residing in Mt. Pleasant. And they are walking along Upper Gulph. Just ask the group who got cited for underage drinking along Upper Gulph a couple of months back.

Anyway, so now does this mean that any developer who has an agreement with the Planning Commission does not have to abide by the agreement? Plans be damned, we’ll do whatever we want and get our money back? Is development going to be allowed to run rampant and without proper supervision in Tredyffrin? ”

TT Republican wrote on Feb 3, 2010 2:14 PM:

” Mr. Lamina would be wise to read his own Township’s code prior to making statements on public record. Specifically, Mr. Lamina, please refer to Section 181-34(G) which plainly lays out the requirements for releasing an applicant from a performance guarantee. Where is the request in writing from St. David’s? Where is the evidence this was referred to the township engineer? Where is the written report from the engineer back to the board? Where is the recommended amount to be released made by the township?

The argument that the Board can do whatever it wants simply by making a motion flies in the face of any notion of a democratic government and transparency. ”

Malvern Independent wrote on Feb 3, 2010 11:04 PM:

” TT Republican:

Your points are right on! This whole affair has been a blot on the integrity of Tredyffrin since Olson and gang got involved. It’s a total disgrace and I hope that these people trying to abscond with our government get the legal retribution they deserve. ”

Sadder but wiser wrote on Feb 3, 2010 11:41 PM:

” I encourage readers to watch the videos on this matter to really understand these comments and their purpose by Mr. Lamina. The words bluster and swagger come to mind. WHO CARES if it was money or a letter of credit? His claim that no money changed hands is even more evidence of how insufficient his explanation is. IF there was no cash to return, WHAT WAS THE HURRY? Mr. Lamina is more than aware of the continuing discussions about taking this community into the 21st century — and accepting that municipalities can and do expect land development planning to take place for times far into the future. The 3 supervisors who voted against the motion that night very clearly stated that their objections were procedural — that the sidewalks were secondary to the issue. Mr. Olson made a motion because “he believes what people tell him” and Mr. Lamina explained that the motion was fine, Mr. Kampf rubber stamped his buddy’s deal to help a golf club with sidewalks, and Mrs. Richter didn’t do anything but apparently what she was told. SInce Mr. Olson was her largest contributor during her recent campaign for supervisor, I guess she owed him. She certainly didn’t feel like she owed the community any time to deal with this motion…Mrs. Kichline moved to table and Mr. Lamina did not even acknowledge the motion. Proving that Robert’s Rules of Order in Tredyffrin are Bob Lamina’s personal preferences for control. ”

Roger, wrote on Community Matters on February 3rd, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Pattye,

I find two quotes from Mr. Lamina very interesting. First, he opined that:

“Under our current rules, any supervisor is free to offer any motion he chooses at any time,” said Lamina. “It is not unusual at all for board members to offer unpublished motions during discussions at our meetings and I believe it’s reasonable and appropriate for our board to have this flexibility where needed in its proceedings. In my nearly 12 years of experience on the board, I can’t recall an instance where the township ever consulted with another municipality or the school district on when we schedule our meetings.”

Is he really trying to argue that there is no limitation on the power of a supervisor? That’s what it seems like to me. Specifically, he is arguing that the power to make a motion trumps any legislative or judicial limit on that authority. Under this logic, a supervisor could make any motion under the moon, get three other votes, and have four people take a township hostage. Wait, that sounds familiar….

Second, he makes the statement that

“Since the board has delegated authority for land development to the Planning Commission, our vote on the escrow was the only vehicle available for the board to effect a change to plans in that area of our community and that the majority of the residents in that area clearly did not want.”

So in one breathe, Mr. Lamina states that the board has delegated this authority to the Planning Commission and then states that the Board had to take action to return the escrow money. Which is it, Mr. Lamina, does the Board have this authority or the Planning Commission?

This is a real problem – really this is a micro problem which Tredyffrin residents must understand exemplifies a huge problem facing our township today. The problem being unchecked power in the hands of four.

The way I see it, Mr. Lamina just gave Mr. Peterson a gift to use on Monday

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme