Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tredyffrin Township

United in their Resolve, Tredyffrin Residents Speak Out Against Actions of Supervisors Lamina, Olson, Kampf & Richter

February 9, 2010
19 Comments

Last night’s Board of Supervisor meeting represented a victory for the people.

‘New Matters from Board members’ of the meeting kicked off with Supervisors Lamina, Kampf and Richter making apologies to the community in regards to the St. Davids Golf Club motion and vote to return escrow which occurred at the last Board of Supervisors meeting. They took responsibility for their actions, admitted that procedure had not been followed and stated that they would try to ‘do better’ in the future. Mention was made that everyone makes mistakes and that they had learned from theirs.

As I listened to the apologies, I thought to myself . . . OK, they made a mistake, admitted their mistake and now they will just ‘fix it’. But no, there was no offer of correction, no suggestion to ‘reverse the decision’, nothing. Were they thinking that the community would just accept their apology, move on and act like the ‘mistake’ never happened? I don’t think that they were prepared for what was to come next . . . it was the residents turn to speak.

I cannot remember the last time I was so proud of this community. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democratic life. And one after another, residents took to the floor. People came from all over the township . . . Chesterbrook, Malvern, Berwyn, Strafford, Mt. Pleasant, Wayne. It did not matter if the speakers were Democrats, Republicans or Independents, there was no political party agenda. They were firefighters, lawyers, retired citizens, members of township boards, one after another, each passionately saying the same thing over and over. Separately, the residents spoke, but united their message. Each person in his or her own way sought justice from the Board of Supervisors, appealing for the ‘wrong’ to be made ‘right’.

The ‘sidewalk’ became a symbol for something much larger . . . it represented how four individuals (Lamina, Olson, Kampf, Richter) thought they could be allowed to just make the rules and break the rules, without consequence or intervention for their actions. What I heard loud and clear was the powerful voice in this community of intolerance to their actions; residents are standing together. Were the supervisors listening?

In the words of Martin Luther King, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.” Speaking out, many in the audience eloquently spoke of their distrust in our elected officials. We elect these people because we believe that they will serve our best interests. We entrust them to govern according to the rules . . . to follow the policies and procedures as set forth by the Home Rule Charter. We rely on them to make the best decisions in our interests.

In the end, there was no resolution to ‘righting the wrong’ of the vote to return the escrow to St. Davids. Not last night, but I believe that this matter is far from over. I believe that between now and the next Board of Supervisors meeting, a way must be found to resolve this matter.

Trust in our elected officials must be restored.

TESD Finance Committee Meeting . . . reporting by Malvern Resident Ray Clarke

February 9, 2010
29 Comments

As we know, it is impossible to be 2 places at once . . . and last night was one of those nights. I attended the Board of Supervisors meeting but I knew that I had coverage at the Finance Committee meeting with my friend Ray Clarke. The Clarke family was busy last night, Ray at the Finance meeting and his wife Carol attended the Board of Supervisors meeting! I thank Ray for providing his notes from the meeting and would encourage other readers to add their comments.

The TESD Finance Committee played to a packed house in the CHS auditorium last night. We got through about 15 of the potential deficit-closing strategies, with the next session slated for March 8th, where the plan is to complete a pass through all of them. My take-aways:

– There was great passion from parents and students who had benefited from, or who would be impacted by, the programs slated for change. Hopefully, understanding the concerns will be helpful in finalizing the new program designs. Although the majority spoke against change, particularly in the Middle School programs, there were some with experience (for example, of the proposed Advisory period) that spoke to the benefits experienced in neighboring districts.

– The Board expressed confidence in the Administration and, based on their performance, that seems to be well placed. In particular I thought that Rich Gusick, Director of Curriculum and much else, was knowledgeable and made reasonable arguments.

– The Administration believes that the programs in the first “reference code” (those for the most part previously discussed, although you would not have thought so!) will result in the reduction of 19.3 FTEs, and that reduction could likely be met through retirements (7 known so far) and resignations rather than lay-offs – but this will depend on certifications needed and available.

– The drama came with a prepared speech from TEEA President Ciamacca. She was very concerned that the possible increase in High School teaching periods from 5 to 6 would leave little time for the many functions performed outside the classroom. (Note that we were progressing systematically through the strategies from #1 on, and had not reached that – #47 – yet). She did, though, state that the TEEA wanted to be part of the solution and outlined an offer to work the last three days of 2010/11 for no pay (claimed impact $600,000) and also an early retirement offer (claimed impact $1,000,000). She handed a letter to Board President Fadem, which I took to contain those offers (and from comments made, I was led to believe that this was the first official communication from the TEEA, and that written offers had been requested before). Finance Chair Mahoney responded for the Board, welcoming the TEEA as a stakeholder, but sternly chastising the “grandstanding and unfair” tactic of presenting an offer for the TV audience rather than “sitting down across the table as in the past”.

The devil is always in the details. Is there in fact a mechanism for forgoing 3 days of pay? For 2010/11, or for 2011/12 also? How much would the district have to pay to save the $1 million from early retirement and thus, what’s the present value of that proposal? Things that do need to be analyzed in a dispassionate way. There’s clearly a communication problem, and from my perspective, since the TEEA is the only beneficiary of the situation here (compare the salary matrix for 2011/12!), they need to step up to the bigger role that I have advocated to them since last year. If the objective is to increase compensation to a certain parity level, perhaps it might just be OK to get there in 5 years rather than 2?

– The 15 or so strategies reviewed so far have very real impacts – fewer middle school specials, fewer aides, fewer low enrollment CHS classes, reduced admin position, reduced contribution to clubs, etc. – but it seemed to me that for the most part the impacted areas are spread around, and plans are in place to mitigate the adverse effects. (But still only the savings, not the costs, of closing the print shop are listed!).

A big issue for me is that many of the big strategies impact only next year: the $1.2 million supply/materials cost deferral, the $0.3 million food service fund transfer (but maybe make food service a profit center?), the $125,000 mothballing of the ESC (why one time?), the $0.3 million from issuing debt for capital items (next month’s meeting will start with an explanation of that (accounting wrinkle?)), and so on. So the expenses will pop right back up, on top of the next round of contracted compensation increases, and we’ll be right back in the CHS auditorium, but with fewer options. One commentator mentioned a likely 2% Act 1 cap next year. (And remember, the country is a whisker away from a foreclosure crisis, and school taxes are over two months’ typical mortgage payments…..). The one time programs account for $2.6 million of the $8.3 million on the table (excluding programs not recommended).

The event seemed to me a good way to get the community engaged and to indicate the amount of thought behind the ideas (although there can always be more!). We heard, too, about the 800 member Facebook group for students engaged in the dialog. There could be a lot to learn from, and demonstrate to, that constituency.

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.

Malvern Resident Carol Aichele Leaves the Lieutenant Governor's Race

February 8, 2010
3 Comments

Chester County Commissioner Carol Aichele said last night that she was ending her bid for Lieutenant Governor, just days before the state Republican Party meets to make a formal endorsement next weekend. Aichele made her announcement in an e-mail to supporters late Sunday night. Her decision came shortly after the completion of regional straw votes. If memory serves me correctly, I think that there have been 5 GOP straw polls held over the last few weeks. Although straw polls are not binding, they are an indicator as to where the party is leaning. I guess we can assume that Carol’s decision was based on her showing in those votes.

The following is from Carol Aichele’s website:

I wanted to thank all of you for your support and encouragement during my campaign for Lieutenant Governor. From the Poconos to Pittsburgh and from Erie to Philadelphia, it has been my honor and privilege to meet with countless Republicans who share my determination to create a new beginning for Pennsylvania.

While I truly enjoyed this time in my life, I wanted to let you know that I will no longer be a candidate for Lieutenant Governor.

Since I entered this race last June, my number one priority has always been to help Tom Corbett become the next Governor of Pennsylvania. Even though I will no longer be a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, I remain committed to this priority. I will do everything I can to help Tom and will work so that he will win Chester County by the largest margin possible.

I believe it is imperative that we unite behind Tom and that our party endorse one candidate for Lieutenant Governor. Unnecessary and expensive primary campaigns will only hurt our chances of defeating the Democrats this fall.

So to all my fellow Republicans, state committee members, party leaders and fellow Lieutenant Governor candidates, I want to thank you again for the time we spent together during this journey. Your support, encouragement and well-wishes will never be forgotten.

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

Question . . . Has our Local Teachers Union Made a 'No Strings Attached' Offer of $600K to the TE School Board?

February 6, 2010
88 Comments

I am getting bits and pieces about a ‘no strings attached’ offer made by our local teacher’s union to the TE School Board. It is rumored that the Union offered the School Board $600K (or an equivalent of $1200/teacher). My understanding is that the proposed good will offer was to show an understanding and appreciation for the TESD budget deficit and an offer to help. Has this offer been substantiated? It is my understanding that the offer was not accepted . . . any truth to that? What about the district suggestion that the Union open their contract for re-negotiations instead of the $600K offer?

I do not expect school district representatives to comment on the offer. Are there teachers and/or residents that have factual information that could be offered. Even if you have commented on an older post, I would ask that you re-post your comments here so that we can get them on the front page of Community Matters. Let’s see if we can get the details quantified.

It would appear on the surface that this is a very generous offer . . . most of these teachers do not live in the TE school district and are offering to help our district’s budget deficit. If this is indeed a ‘no strings attached’ offer can we expect to learn the details of the offer at Monday night’s TESD Finance meeting?

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

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.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme