Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tredyffrin Township

Without a final Vanguard settlement agreement, Tredyffrin supervisors postpone vote … How could School Board vote to approve?

July 16, 2013
1 Comment

Tredyffrin’s largest employer, Vanguard, challenged the tax assessments for its main corporate campus and several of the buildings that surround the main campus for tax year 2012-13.

On July 8, the School Board held a Special Meeting to approve the Vanguard appeal settlement. The School District had challenged Vanguard’s appeal and rather than the potential loss of $800K in revenue annually, the settlement cost the District $150K in annual revenue – saving the District $650K in annual losses.

All of this sounded like good news for the District – improving financials is always good news, isn’t it? The Board detailed the ongoing efforts of the District staff and solicitor in regards to the Vanguard settlement and enthusiastically approved the proposed settlement. Although the other taxing authorities (township and county) had to approve the settlement, the solicitor stated that he expected the additional approvals by the end of the month. In other words, fait accompli for the approval of the Vanguard appeal settlement. Following the meeting, the Board released a statement on their website, which in part said …

School Board Approves Vanguard Appeal Settlement

At a Special Meeting on July 8, 2013, the Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board approved a settlement agreement concerning the Vanguard assessment appeals. While the Board approved the settlement, the agreement is not final until Tredyffrin Township and Chester County, which are also taxing authorities for the Vanguard properties, also approve the agreement. All parties have been involved with the negotiations process which began in the fall of 2011.

I attended Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting last night and discussion of the Vanguard appeal settlement was on the agenda. Based on the school board’s July 8 approval of the settlement agreement, I assumed that the supervisors would rubber-stamp that decision. However, as we learned from the township solicitor, Vince Donohue, the Vanguard agreement was not final and that the attorneys for the District and Vanguard were still going back and forth over the details as late as 5 PM last night. Donohue explained that the legal discussion would not change the assessment values but rather the ‘terms’ of the agreement, concluding that the “devil is in the details”. Based on the uncertainty of the final Vanguard agreement, Donohue advised the supervisors to postpone their vote.

For several of us who attended both the school board meeting and the supervisors meeting, you are left shaking your head and wondering why is there such a disconnect between the school district and the township. Two weeks ago the school board holds a special meeting to tell the public their ‘good news’ – that after much effort, the District has reached a settlement with Vanguard and that there is a net savings of $650K. Plus the added bonus included in the settlement is that Vanguard will not seek assessment appeals for 3 years. We have no idea what ‘terms’ of the agreement are still in debate, maybe Vanguard is no longer interested in a moratorium on assessment appeals.

What we saw with the VFES tennis courts, we now see with the Vanguard agreement … a complete disconnect between the school district and the township on public issues. Why the seemingly disregard of the township supervisors by the school board? Rather than collaborating on shared matters, such as the tennis courts and the assessment appeal, the school board makes their decisions and then leaves it to the supervisors to find out after the fact.

I’m struggling to understand how it is possible that, without a final Vanguard appeal agreement to review, the township supervisors appropriately decides to postpone their vote whereas the school board votes to approve that same agreement and then works on the terms afterwards?

IRS & Dept of Treasury provide further explanation on Affordable Care Act one-year implementation delay — Is this sufficient information to satisfy TE School District?

July 11, 2013
57 Comments

Special thanks Roberta Hotinski for sending the link to the latest announcement from the IRS and the Treasury Department of the ‘Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions’ for 2014 which was released on Tuesday!

Federal government Notice 2013-45 was provided as a follow-up to the July 2 alert from the Treasury Department announcing a one-year delay in the effective dates of certain Affordable Care Act provisions including the annual information reporting requirements and the employer shared responsibiity provisions — these provisionso of the ACA will now be fully effective for 2015 rather than 2014.

The IRS followed up its decision to delay these key provisions by publishing Notice 2013-45 below which outlines the additional time for input from employers in an effort to provide time for employers to adapt to the health coverage and the reporting process. Notice 2013-45 provides the background and guidelines for the one-year transition period, including the the employer shared responsibility provisions.

Is there sufficient information contained in this update to satisty the questions of the TE School Board and District solicitor? Upon review of Notice 2013-45, will the District reinstate the hours of the aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals?

Transition Relief for 2014 Under §§ 6055 (§ 6055 Information Reporting), 6056 (§ 6056 Information Reporting) and 4980H (Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions)
NOT-129718-13

Notice 2013-45

I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW

This notice provides transition relief for 2014 from (1) the information reporting requirements applicable to insurers, self-insuring employers, and certain other providers of minimum essential coverage under § 6055 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) (§ 6055 Information Reporting), (2) the information reporting requirements applicable to applicable large employers under § 6056 (§ 6056 Information Reporting), and (3) the employer shared responsibility provisions under § 4980H (Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions). This transition relief will provide additional time for input from employers and other reporting entities in an effort to simplify information reporting consistent with effective implementation of the law. This transition relief also is intended to provide employers, insurers, and other providers of minimum essential coverage time to adapt their health coverage and reporting systems. Both the information reporting and the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions will be fully effective for 2015. In preparation for that, once the information reporting rules have been issued, employers and other reporting entities are encouraged to voluntarily comply with the information reporting provisions for 2014. This transition relief through 2014 for the information reporting and Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions has no effect on the effective date or application of other Affordable Care Act provisions.

II. BACKGROUND

Sections 6055, 6056, and 4980H were added to the Code by §§ 1502, 1514, and 1513, respectively, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted March 23, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-148.1 Section 6055 requires annual information reporting by health insurance issuers, self-insuring employers, government agencies, and other providers of health coverage. Section 6056 requires annual information reporting by applicable large employers relating to the health insurance that the ————————————— 1 Section 4980H was amended by § 1003 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA) (enacted March 30, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152) and was further amended by § 1858(b)(4) of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (enacted April 15, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-10). Section 6056 was amended by §§ 10106(g) and 10108(j) of the ACA and was further amended by § 1858(b)(5) of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. In this notice, the term Affordable Care Act refers to the ACA and HCERA, collectively. ————————————– employer offers (or does not offer) to its full-time employees. Section 4980H(a) imposes an assessable payment on an applicable large employer that fails to offer minimum essential coverage to its full-time employees (and their dependents) under an eligible employer-sponsored plan if at least one full-time employee enrolls in a qualified health plan for which a premium tax credit is allowed or paid. Section 4980H(b) imposes an assessable payment on an applicable large employer that offers minimum essential coverage to its full-time employees (and their dependents) under an eligible employer-sponsored plan but has one or more full-time employees who enroll in a qualified health plan for which a premium tax credit is allowed or paid (for example, if the coverage offered either does not provide minimum value or is not affordable to that full-time employee).

III. TRANSITION RELIEF

Q-1. When will the rules be published regarding § 6055 Information Reporting and § 6056 Information Reporting? How will these provisions apply for 2014?

A-1. The Affordable Care Act requires information reporting under § 6055 by insurers, self-insuring employers, government agencies, and certain other parties that provide health coverage and requires information reporting under § 6056 by applicable large employers with respect to the health coverage offered to their full-time employees. Proposed rules for the information reporting provisions are expected to be published this summer. The proposed rules will reflect the fact that transition relief will be provided for information reporting under §§ 6055 and 6056 for 2014. This transition relief will provide additional time for dialogue with stakeholders in an effort to simplify the reporting requirements consistent with effective implementation of the law. It will also provide employers, insurers, and other reporting entities additional time to develop their systems for assembling and reporting the needed data. Employers, insurers, and other reporting entities are encouraged to voluntarily comply with these information reporting provisions for 2014 (once the information reporting rules have been issued) in preparation for the full application of the provisions for 2015. However, information reporting under §§ 6055 and 6056 will be optional for 2014; accordingly, no penalties will be applied for failure to comply with these information reporting provisions for 2014.

Q-2. What does the 2014 transition relief for § 6056 Information Reporting mean for application of the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions for 2014?

A-2. Under the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions, an applicable large employer generally must offer affordable, minimum value health coverage to its full-time employees or a shared responsibility payment may apply if one or more of its full-time employees receive a premium tax credit under § 36B. The § 6056 Information Reporting is integral to the administration of the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions. In particular, because an employer typically will not know whether a full-time employee received a premium tax credit, the employer will not have all of the information needed to determine whether it owes a payment under § 4980H. Accordingly, the employer is not required to calculate a payment with respect to § 4980H or file returns submitting such a payment. Instead, after receiving the information returns filed by applicable large employers under § 6056 and the information about employees claiming the premium tax credit for any given calendar year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will determine whether any of the employer’s full-time employees received the premium tax credit and, if so, whether an assessable payment under § 4980H may be due. If the IRS concludes that an employer may owe such an assessable payment, it will contact the employer, and the employer will have an opportunity to respond to the information the IRS provides before a payment is assessed.

For this reason, the transition relief from § 6056 Information Reporting for 2014 is expected to make it impractical to determine which employers owe shared responsibility payments for 2014 under the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions. Accordingly, no employer shared responsibility payments will be assessed for 2014. However, in preparation for the application of the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions beginning in 2015, employers and other affected entities are encouraged to voluntarily comply for 2014 with the information reporting provisions (once the information reporting rules have been issued) and to maintain or expand health coverage in 2014. Real-world testing of reporting systems and plan designs through voluntary compliance for 2014 will contribute to a smoother transition to full implementation for 2015.

Q-3. Does this affect employees’ access to the premium tax credit?

A-3. No. Individuals will continue to be eligible for the premium tax credit by enrolling in a qualified health plan through the Affordable Insurance Exchanges (also called Health Insurance Marketplaces) if their household income is within a specified range and they are not eligible for other minimum essential coverage, including an eligible employer-sponsored plan that is affordable and provides minimum value.

Q-4. What does this mean for other provisions in the Affordable Care Act?

A-4. This transition relief through 2014 for § 6055 Information Reporting, § 6056 Information Reporting, and the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions has no effect on the effective date or application of other Affordable Care Act provisions, such as the premium tax credit under § 36B and the individual shared responsibility provisions under § 5000A.

IV. DRAFTING INFORMATION

The principal author of this notice is Kathryn Johnson of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt & Government Entities). For further information regarding this notice contact Kathryn Johnson at (202) 927-9639 (not a toll-free call).

Unclear what answers TE School Board needs regarding Affordable Care Act implemenation that they do not already have

July 10, 2013
4 Comments

When I added yesterday’s post on Community Matters, the TE School District had not yet posted their update from Monday’s Special School Board meeting. Because of all the back and forth between the Board and the District solicitor, it was unclear as to what Affordable Care Act answers were needed by the August 1 deadline that would allow the restoration of hours to the aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals. The following explanation of that motion is now on the TESD website but it remains confusing as to what further information the solicitor needs regarding ACA before August 1, that the Treasury Department press release from last week did not include.

From reading the 100-word second sentence in the update below, exactly what further information does the Board want provided from Washington? In an email to Caroline O’Halloran, which appears in today’s MLMN Suburban, school board President Kevin Buraks, stated “It is my hope that the Treasury Department will promptly provide the needed guidance so that we can restore our current aides and paraprofessionals to their full hours next school year.” I guess it doesn’t matter that I’m not clear what that ‘needed guidance’ is, as long as Buraks and the other school board members, the administration and the solicitor know what further information they need. Here’s hoping whatever Affordable Care Act guidance the Board seeks, arrives by the August 1 deadline!

School Board Reacts to Delay in Affordable Care Act Implementation

At a Special Meeting on July 8, 2013 to specifically address the Vanguard assessment appeal, the T/E School Board took action following the announcement of the delay of the Affordable Care Act as communicated by the Treasury Department last week. The Board action states that, upon confirmation from the District Solicitor that the Treasury Department has delayed the implementation of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act relevant to the Board’s June 17 resolution, the Board voted 8-1 to authorize the administration to suspend implementation of the Board’s June 17 resolution directing the administration to schedule all District part-time employees, such as aides and para-educators, for no more than 27.5 hours per week for the 2013-2014 school year to ensure that they meet the definition of part-time employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act for the 2014-2015 school year. If no such confirmation is made by the District Solicitor by August 1, 2013, the administration will not suspend the implementation of the Board’s June 17 resolution. Whether or not implementation of the Board’s June 17 resolution is suspended, all new part-time hires, as defined under the Affordable Care Act, will be scheduled to work no greater than 27.5 hours per week.

TE School Board Will Not Reinstate Aides/Paras Hours Unless Affordable Care Act Answers Received by August 1!

July 9, 2013
6 Comments

I attended the Special School Board meeting last night and when the Board was 20 min. late coming from their executive session, that should have been a clue as to what was to come. The agenda did not include the regular opportunity for questions or comments from community members at the start of the meeting but instead the Board went directly to the discussion of the Vanguard assessment appeal resolution. As background, Vanguard filed appeals challenging the assessments for its main corporate campus on Cedar Hollow Road and several of the buildings that surround the main campus for the tax year 2012-13. Vanguard and the District also both appealed the decision by the Board of Assessment for a building leased by Vanguard.

The Vanguard discussion was confusing because the agenda published on the District website differed from the agenda available at the meeting. Ray Clarke attended the meeting, questioned the inconsistencies between the two agendas and provided the following personal observations:

The TESD voted to approve a proposed settlement of the “Vanguard appeal” that appears to be a significant improvement over the worst case scenarios for which we have been prepared. Good news all around, although the $1.3 million “windfall” did not appear to affect the Board majority’s willingness to accept any remaining minimal risk on the aide/para issue.

Once again, the audience had to listen carefully to the financials, which as reported by the Solicitor were significantly different from the numbers published with the original meeting Agenda. It appears that the bottom line is:

1. A repayment to Vanguard of $150,000 in respect of 2012/13 tax year. We had been bracing for a repayment of $830,000. By my calculation this will contribute to expected 2012/13 revenues of $111 million and an expected surplus of $3.6 million. (The actual accounting may perhaps depend on the fiscal years in which the settlement can be recognized?).

2. A repayment to Vanguard of $153,000 (or a new tax bill revised by that amount) in respect of 2013/14 tax year. It appears that we had budgeted for revenue $800,000 less than the original tax bill, since Art McDonnell reported that revenue will now be $650,000 higher than the budget. It looks to me as though this should bring the budget into balance (before the one-time $1.16 million TEEA bonus – and before the $300,000 of expense savings for the current year that may well recur).

3. There was no impact on 2011/12 tax year, contrary to the first version of the agenda materials.[According to the Solicitor there was an error and the assessment did not include the 2011/12 tax year as previously stated.]

Perhaps some credit should go – in addition to TESD’s negotiating team – to whichever Court of Common Pleas Judge urged the settlement discussions.

My only comments to add to Ray’s remarks are that the settlement of the Vanguard appeal requires the approval from the other taxing authorities (township and county) and the Board of Assessment. From a timeline standpoint, the Solicitor expected the additional approvals by the end of the month. Further, the settlement comes with the agreement that Vanguard will not file any assessment appeals for 3 years.

Immediately following the Vanguard discussion, under Recommended Other Action on the agenda, Board president Kevin Buraks launched into a very long motion that in essence was to reverse the June 17 Board decision and return the hours of all aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals to their 2012-13 school year level. Buraks referenced the Treasury Department’s announcement of the one-year delay in the Affordable Care Act compliance requirement as the basis for his motion.

What is the saying about ‘no do-overs in life’ – apparently, what the many aides/paras and other audience members viewed as a simple task to re-instate the employee hours proved anything but simple for the TE School Board! Betsy Fadem immediately launched into commentary on all the unknowns of the ACA information and the what-if scenarios, convincing Buraks that his motion could not be open-ended — the District does not have enough information on the ACA delay and therefore too risky at this point. Buraks called upon the District personnel director Sue Tiede for a status report on the aides/pars and expectation of their return in September. According to Tiede, 135 aides/paras have said that they intend to return, two said they would not and there has been no response from 29. Buraks asked Tiede how much time was needed to fill any vacancies before the start of school. Her response was one month, or August 1.

Much to the chagrin of two Board members (Anne Crowley and Liz Mercogliano), the intial motion was quickly re-written to include August 1 deadline. According to Buraks revised motion, the Board must have further verification on the Affordable Care Act to make certain that the District will not be liable should they re-instate the hours of the aides and paras. It will then be up to the District solicitor to determine if the necessary ACA information (guarantee?) is received by August 1. If the solicitor does not receive any further ACA information by August 1, the affected employees remain reduced at 27.5 hours or below. Also included in the motion is that any new Ditrict aides, paraeducators or paraprofessionals hired will not exceed 27.5 hr. workweek.

To their credit, Anne Crowley and Liz Mercogliano fought passionately to have the August 1 deadline removed from the motion. At one point, Crowley offered an official change to the initial motion to exclude the August 1 date, but it failed 7-2. When Mercogliano lamented that the District should offer all employees healthcare benefits, Betsy Fadem, who told her the Board was not going to revisit the discussion of June 17, quickly cut her off. Only Crowley and Mercogliano defended the current employees and the need to preserve their hours, particularly in view of last week’s Treasury Department announcement.

Unfortunately, Crowley and Mercogliano held a minority viewpoint in the discussion. After 30 minutes of the Board going around and around with each other and back and forth with the solicitor, it was increasingly obvious that the majority of this Board was not going to give the hours back to the affected employees or … at least not easily. Why should doing what’s right (and practical) be so difficult! In the end, the motion to return the hours to the aides/paras (with the inclusion of the August 1 date caveat) was approved 8-1. Fadem voted no to the motion, she clearly wants no do-over to the June 17 vote.

I have no idea what magic answers Buraks and the other Board members (except Crowley and Mercogliano) expect to have from Washington in the next 3 weeks. It is as if he and the others expect some kind of personal guarantee from the Federal government that the terms of the ACA will pose no liability issue for the TE School District. I read the press release from the Treasury Department and it seemed clear to me that businesses with 50 or more employees were given a one-year reprieve for compliance (without any penalty). The Affordable Care Act is complex and the additional year was intended to give employers (school districts) an opportunity to more fully understand the implementation requirements. In addition, we know that the requirements and compliance issues are in a state of flux and who knows what will happen over the next year. However, here in the TE School District, the Board has decided they need more answers from Washington – and those answers need to be in by August 1.

Bottom line about last night’s school board meeting – I entered the meeting very hopeful that the Board would do the right thing and reinstate the hours of the aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals to their 2012-13 school year level. However, my hoping, wishing, wanting was not to be last night. I suppose there’s a small sliver of possibility that if more ACA information becomes available by August 1 and if the District solicitor determines the information is sufficient, then maybe the aides and the paras will see the return of their hours. Is it likely to happen … that is anyone’s guess!

—————————————————————————–

For the record, the regular District solictor Ken Roos did not attend the meeting – there was another attorney from the Wisler Pearstine law firm in his absence. Also, Rich Brake and Karen Cruickshank attended the meeting remotely, by phone.

Reminder: Special TE School Board Meeting Tonight

July 8, 2013
2 Comments

This is a reminder that the TE School Board will hold a special meeting tonight, Monday, July 8, 2013 at 7:00 pm in the Tredyffrin/Easttown School District Administration Offices at 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700 in Wayne, to discuss the Vanguard Assessment Appeal Resolution . Click here for agenda.

Beyond the resolution of the Vanguard appeal, “Other Recommended Action” is listed on the agenda. As we all now know, the Obama administration has just announced that it will delay Obamacare requirement for businesses (school districts) with more than 50 workers provide health insurance by one year. The Treasury Department has announced that the administration will start enforcing the mandate in 2015, rather than January 1, 2014 in order “to give business more time to prepare.”

Based on the recent news from Washington, I am hopeful that our school board will join other school districts across the country and reconsider their earlier decision. There is no longer any reason to decrease the hours of District employees from full-time to part-time for the 2013-14 year. The Board members regularly state the importance of all employees to the District — tonight’s meeting will offer an opportunity for them to show us. Here’s to reversing course and re-instituting the hours of the aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals.

The Return of Bob Byrne as TE Patch Editor!

July 5, 2013
3 Comments

For those that follow AOL’s local-news network Patch, specifically TE Patch, there have been changes in the last several months, both personnel and formatting wise. On the formatting side of Patch, there’s a recent new look on the 900-plus Patch sites. Although the idea behind the changes was to make the site easier to use, I’m not sure if AOL was successful. For me, the jury is still out on the latest redesign.

On the personnel side of TE Patch, we saw the departure of Bob Byrne as the local editor. Bob was the founding editor of TE Patch and for those that knew and considered him a friend, it was difficult to see him leave.

As often happens in corporate structures, once an area is successful, they move whoever is responsible for that success to a struggling area of the company, in hopes that he/she can improve the situation. My guess is that is exactly what happened in the case of Bob Byrne. Known for taking the time to “find the story behind the story”, Bob quickly became a fixture in our community … he seemed to be everywhere. Whether it was Election Day, the opening (or closing) of a resturant or local business, the Board of Supervisors or School Board meetings or a local house fire, you could always find Bob, the ‘Patch guy’, in the crowd.

In early 2013, Bob was moved from TE Patch to manage and serve as editor of Havertown and Springfield Patches. No doubt he took over the two community Patches with the same enthusiasm and spirit as he had while covering the stories of TE. Bob’s replacement at TE Patch was Pete Kennedy, the Malvern Patch editor, who saw his territory extended with the addition of TE Patch. For the last few months, Pete juggled the duties of Malvern and TE Patches, with the issue of not able to be two places at once often interfering. Pete sent me a note last Friday — it was his last day with AOL, he was moving on to a new position with another company. (Pete also shared the exciting news that he and his wife are soon to become first-time parents!)

As Pete Kennedy exits our community as Patch editor, we are lucky to see the return of Bob Byrne this week to TE! Because I had followed Bob’s byline when he went to Springfield and Havertown Patches, I knew that corporate decision makers subsequently moved him to Phoenixville Patch and also West Chester Patch. Wherever his assignment, Bob’s work reflected the same level of enthusiasm in getting to know the people of that particular Patch community. In TE, we have missed his personal touch and willingness to go the extra mile with stories. Here’s hoping that in the case of our local Patch, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” applies and we can look forward to seeing Bob Byrne’s byline for a long time to come.

Happy 4th of July 2013!

July 4, 2013
Comments

Tom Hogan, Chester County District Attorney, former Tredyffrin Township supervisor and my friend, wrote the following on his Facebook page today for the 4th of July …

I whistle “The Star Spangled Banner” late at night when I leave work. I have a hand-painted picture of the flag done by my kids hanging in the office. I visit Valley Forge in the winter once a year, take off my jacket, and shiver as I think about Washington’s troops. I am now, and always will be, proud to be an American. Happy Fourth of July.

Thank you Tom for your words and for your service and dedication to keep the citizens of Chester County safe!

As you enjoy this special day of celebration, please take time to reflect on the journey our founding fathers began 237 years ago. I posted the following narrative, “What Happened to the 57 Men who Signed the Declaration of Independence” a couple of years ago and thought it special to repeat today. (The source of the information – www.snopes.com).

As you enjoy your own 4th of July holiday, silently thank these patriots. It’s not much to ask for the price they paid; remember, freedom is never free.

What happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

Obamacare healthcare compliance delayed a year — No need to cut the hours of TE employees!

July 2, 2013
42 Comments

Important Update:

Special School Board Meeting, Monday, July 9, 7 PM Tredyffrin/Easttown School District Administration Offices at 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700, Wayne.

With Obamacare requirement for businesses with 50 or more employees delayed a year, Monday’s School Board meeting presents an opportunity for the Board to reverse its earlier decision and restore the hours of all aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals. The Board has repeatedly said that these employees matter … now it’s up them to show us by reinstating their hours.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

The Obama administration has just announced that it will delay Obamacare requirement that businesses (school districts) with more than 50 workers provide health insurance by one year. The Treasury Department has announced that the administration will start enforcing the mandate in 2015, rather than January 1, 2014 in order “to give business more time to prepare.”

Here’s hoping that the Tredyffrin Easttown School District will turn the ship around and make things right for the aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals. Mark Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy at the Treasury Department said in a statement, “During this 2014 transition period, we strongly encourage employers to maintain or expand health coverage.” What does this mean to the TE School District? Answer: There’s no longer any reason to decrease the hours of District employees from full-time to part-time for the 2013/14 school year!

The TE School Board is not scheduled to meet again until August, which is after the letters from the administration to the affected employees, are sent. There needs to be an immediate brake put on this process of cutting hours of aides and paras in TE School District – the 2013-14 school year will not be affected by Obamacare healthcare requirement. The School Board and the administration needs to do what is right for the employees and the children of this District. They need to reverse course and reinstate the hours of all aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals. Plus, they do not have to offer health insurance to these employees, at this point. Everything can remain status quo, just make the affected employees whole by giving their hours back over 27.5 hours.

This situation presents a wonderful opportunity for the District to appoint a citizens group to review Obamacare and the compliance requirements during the 2013/14 school year. As we have learned, the topic is confusing and needs further study. As Mazur stated, lets all use 2014 as a transition period and learn more on the topic. As more information becomes available from Washington, I am certain that the School Board will be better positioned to work towards compliance for the following year.

If the employees are as important to the District as the School Board members say, there should be an easy solution to this situation. Let’s put the cut of hours of District employees ‘on hold’ until we have more answers. Please School Board, join the community in doing the right thing!

TESD Summer Camp — Where’s the Security?

July 2, 2013
34 Comments

Following the Sandy Hook, Connecticut tragedy in December, school districts across America (including TESD) moved quickly to review, enhance and upgrade safety procedures. In January of this year, the TE School Board and administration sought to assure the local community that every effort and precaution was underway to make certain our schools (and our children) were safe. The Board and the administration held a town hall meeting that included the announcement of former police chief Andy Chambers as District safety consultant, the formation of a safety committee and the infusion of $250K into the budget for immediate safety upgrades to the schools.

It has been six months since the School Board and administration announced their plans to increase the budget for safety, and to review and upgrade the safety policies of our schools. Other than Police Superintendent Tony Giaimo’s reports at the township’s Board of Supervisors meetings, I have heard virtually no discussion from the School Board or administration on the status of the safety committee meetings, the completion of safety upgrades to the schools or any type of final report from the safety expert Andy Chambers. I appreciate that some of the information may be protected and could pose a security risk if released to the public. However, it is important that parents know that baseline safety procedures are thoroughly reviewed and that their children are safe which brings me to the purpose of this post.

Last night I received a very troubling email from a friend and TE School District resident, Karen Pecora, concerning a District safety issue involving her son, Christopher who is attending a summer reading camp at Hillside Elementary School. Yesterday was Christopher’s first day of summer camp, and unfortunately for the family, a day not long to be forgotten. Here is Karen’s story about what happened on the first day of camp … this should be a cautionary tale for all parents.

Lack of Safety at Hillside Elementary School

Christopher age 6 is enrolled in the summer reading camp that is offered to children in the TE School District who benefit from 5 weeks of small class reading instruction. On July 1, he attended Hillside Elementary (his regular school is Valley Forge Elementary). I dropped him off with a note that I would pick him up – I also called the camp director, Wendy Toll, and left a message to NOT put him on the bus. Christopher has never been on a bus, as I drove him to and from school for kindergarten.

Upon arrival at Hillside for pick-up, I took my place in the car line only to be pushed aside because they could not find my son. The director, Wendy, came out and said that she had received my call but since they could not find Christopher, she assumed he was sent on the bus. She could not be certain but her suggestion was for me to go home and try and beat the bus. Camp lets out at 11:30 AM. I left Hillside at 11:48 AM when the bus was scheduled to arrive at 11:47 AM!

At 11:57 AM with no bus in sight, I called 911 and the Tredyffrin police were onsite at Hillside in minutes but again the director, Mary could not confirm whether Christopher was actually on the bus. The officers conducted an interview and did a wonderful job! I was told that Wendy was unable to say that my child was 100% on that bus! She admitted that she “thought” Christopher was on the bus but she shed based that on the fact that he wasn’t still at Hillside!

One hour and 6 minutes after camp let out, Christopher arrived safe and sound.

My conflict is this … Christopher was at an unfamiliar school with new, unfamiliar teachers. My observation is that Hillside has not issued any type of sign for pick up and have provided no required a list of approved persons to pick up nor do they ask for identification from the driver in the car line! These are basic measures taken during the school year.

I’m today’s world I cannot wrap my mind around why a district wide program does not have the same safety procedures in place! A change must take place to keep out children safe!

Although Christopher is a good kid I do fear that if another child asked him to come over he would get off the bus at the wrong stop and if a teacher told him to get in a strangers car he would do it (just like he listened to the teacher who put him on the bus). For this reason, I have chosen to drive him to and from school. I cannot believe that no safety measures have been put in motion! He is not safe in the current car line and I am not comfortable with him taking the bus, so today on the second day of camp, I have decided to keep him home!

I would like to ask the school board to put safety measures in place for this District-sponsored camp! Quickly! Below is my contact information to be available to support other parents or answer any questions that the school board may have. Thank you for bringing this horrible situation to the attention of the community!

Karen Nudy Pecora
Karen@philadelphiaeventplanners.com
610-955-3685

In January, our School Board and administration assured the public that the safety procedures of the District were to be thoroughly reviewed and upgraded as needed to keep our children safe. The School Board approved the hiring of Andy Chambers as the safety expert and added $250K to the budget. So what happened yesterday on the first day of summer camp to little Christopher Pecora? Where’s the security? Where’s the safety procedures? How is it possible, that no ID is required by camp staff at the pick-up or any list of approved individuals for pick-up? How is it possible that a child can be ‘assumed’ to be on the bus because the staff cannot find him in the school? A parent expressly (both verbally and in writing) states that her child is to be picked-up and yet he is placed on the bus. Where’s the accountability?

Although the Pecora family is extremely grateful to the Tredyffrin police for reacting quickly, this situation should never have occurred in the first place. What was supposed to be a fantastic first day of camp for a 6-year old turned into a nightmare for the family. This time it all worked out and Christopher was safe but this should serve as a wake-up call — The School Board and administration needs to think about could have happened and make sure that it never happens again. Parents need assurance that the necessary safety measures are put into place immediately for all the summer camp programs.

TE School District has Multi-Million Dollar Budget Surplus … Again!

June 28, 2013
16 Comments

There was more to the June 17th TE School Board meeting than the Board’s approval to cut the hours of aides and paraprofessionals. With a 7-2 vote, the Board passed the District’s 2013-14 school year budget – Anne Crowley and Rich Brake dissented.

For another year, the District ended the year with a budget surplus – a year ago, it was a $3.9 million surplus and this year the surplus is higher, possibly as much as $5 million. School board member Betsy Fadem defended the surplus, explaining that much of the surplus was due to one-time money situations. Fadem’s logic may have been more convincing if it were not for the nearly $4 million surplus from the year before.

I understand that budgetary changes occur during the school year but the $8-9 million surplus of the last couple of years doesn’t balance well for me given recent Board decisions like the cutting hours of employees to avoid paying health insurance or the proposal to charge Valley Forge Elementary School neighbors a fee to use the tennis courts. How is that property-owning nonprofit organizations in our community are targets for District revenue or that taxpayers see an increase in their tax bill yet the school district has a yearly budget surplus of multi-millions? This isn’t a few hundred thousand dollars in surplus, it’s millions!

My guess is that the teachers are paying very close attention to the District’s $8-9 million budget surplus that has occurred since the signing of their last contract. The TEEA contract is up June 2014, which means that contract negotiations are just around the corner.

Neal Colligan addressed the recently passed TESD budget in the latest issue of the Main Line Suburban. Here’s his letter to the editor:

To the Editor:

Lost in last Monday night’s report on an emotional Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board Meeting was the economic news of the evening. This related to a summary of this year’s projected results and the adoption of budget for the 2013-14 school year.

As was announced the prior week at the board’s Finance Committee meeting, the district should see operating results this fiscal year that will show a surplus of $4 million to $5 million. Fiscal year 2011-12 (last year) ended with the district in a surplus position of $3.9 million. This is total surplus for the district of $8 million to $9 million in two years. It’s important to remember that the district imposed the maximum tax increases allowed in the Commonwealth (without voter referendum) in each of the last two years. These two tax increases totaled about $6.5 million in new revenue for the district. We were told that this was what was needed to educate our children in the next school year. The budgets adopted for those two fiscal years were each estimated to produce multi-million dollar deficits; even with the tax increases imposed. The reality is that there was enough revenue in each of these years to effectively operate our public schools without any tax increase. Looked at another way, our tax increases only ended up funding surpluses. This is a disturbing, and now repeating, pattern.

This year’s budget also included a tax increase. The presentation of the budget detailed, again, multi-million dollar deficits even with the now-adopted tax increase. This budget, as in the last two years, passed the board but not without dissenting votes. As it turns out, these dissenters in prior years were right voting against tax increases as they were not “needed” to educate our students. The old adage comes to mind: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me three times…? Let’s all hope this is not the case.

You may be asking the next logical question, what happens to these surpluses? They are accumulated in the district’s Fund Balance. This accumulation account is designated for many things; past untaken vacation days; stabilization of self-funded health insurance costs and a PSERS stabilization balance. Up until last year, the PSERS balance was the largest designated balance in Fund Balance. But it has never been used to protect the taxpayer from the increased expense of PSERS (the biggest demon the School Board uses to justify tax increases). Rather, the largest withdrawal from Fund Balance was taken last year and used to fund the Facilities operation. $10.4 million was moved from the PSERS stabilization designation and moved to a new Capital Fund. Unusual? You decide.

As with any operating entity in the public sector funded by our tax dollars, citizen diligence and attention is warranted. So let’s see what happens to this year’s projections of multi-million dollar deficits. We all hope it doesn’t play out that way but as a careful watcher of recent financial results; I’m not too concerned. The District has been widely wrong in its doom-and-gloom budgets in the recent past. Plus, they now have another funding increase in the form of your increased tax dollars. Will it be needed to educate our children or to create another surplus for the District? We’ll be watching…like a Hawk!

Neal Colligan
Wayne, PA

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme