Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Election Day is November 4 – Who will be the next Pennsylvania Governor, 6th District Congressman and State House 157 Representative?

October 14, 2014
1 Comment

The countdown is on. Like everyone else in this country, the residents of Tredyffrin are looking for solutions. In three short weeks, on Tuesday, November 4, is midterm Election Day.

There are obvious signs throughout the township that its campaign season … political lawn signs seemingly reproduce nightly, candidate mailers arrive daily at our doors and in our mailboxes, along with invitations to political fundraisers. For those of us in the ‘Independent’ registration category, our mailbox runneth over, as does the land of campaign ‘robocalls’. The Republican and Democratic candidates both lay claim to the independents; with each side believing that their views on issues more representative of these voters.

On the Governor’s race, most polls have Democratic challenger Tom Wolf poised to unseat Republican incumbent Tom Corbett. A virtual unknown at the beginning of the year, businessman Tom Wolf early on used a boy next-door charm in his commercials while underwriting most of his political campaign with his own personal wealth. Some of Wolf’s gaining in the polls may be explained by voters’ dissatisfaction with Governor Corbett. Wolf campaign ads state that Corbett cut state education funding by $1 billion whereas Corbett counters the argument stating he has increased funding for our public schools by $1 billion since taking office. Although Corbett and his supporters argue that he has restored school funding lost to the end of the federal stimulus money, widespread public perception is that he has cut educational spending. Corbett’s opposition to a severance tax on shale gas drillers has also hampered his reelection bid.

From a local election standpoint, I am of the opinion that the November 4 election is going to see people splitting votes at the polls. Sure, there will always be the straight party voters, whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats. However, for those voters that go the polls, educated on the issues and the candidates, this election may see a greater number crossing party lines to vote for the candidate that best represent their own personal views.

For Tredyffrin residents, in addition to choosing a governor, Election Day 2014 also offers us the opportunity to select a new Congressional 6th District member. The unexpected retirement of Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) after 12 years has given way to a battleground between Democratic House candidate Manan Trivedi and Republican Ryan Costello for the 6th Congressional District seat. An Iraq War veteran and Berks County physician, the upcoming election marks Trivedi’s third Congressional attempt. Attorney and chair of the Chester County Board of Commissioners, Costello at age 37, would be the youngest member of Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation should he win.

Will Corbett’s gubernatorial race be problematic for Costello, as Wolf gains in the polls? As a County Commissioner, Costello has built his own fan base – will those loyal supporters be enough to counter any anti-Corbett voting or conversely, will the get-out-to-vote efforts of Wolf’s campaign help Trivedi pull off a win? The 6th District covers a large part of Chester County, and portions of Berks, Montgomery and Lebanon counties.

The other election that local voters will decide on November 4 is the PA State House 157 race. Newcomer to the political campaign world, first time political candidate, Great Valley resident and businesswoman, Democrat Marian Moskowitz is challenging incumbent Warren Kampf (R) in his re-election bid for a third term in Harrisburg. With the exception of Paul Drucker (D) who served as 157th State House District Representative in 2009 and 2010, a Republican has held the seat for forty some years. As the war of words wages daily in campaign literature and press releases between the Moskowitz and Kampf camps, an unfortunate and recently discovered issue has complicated the race for these two candidates.

The 157th District includes all of Tredyffrin Township, all of Schuylkill Township, part of Upper Providence and most of Phoenixville. As part of last year’s statewide redistricting, a section of the 157th District, West 1, in the Phoenixville Borough was moved to the 155th District. However, using an old map, Chester County Voter Services incorrectly left this section in the 157th District for the May primary. People in this section of Phoenixville Borough cast votes for Kampf and Moskowitz in the primary election when they should have been voting for candidates in the 155th District. Troubling that the West 1 mapping error was only discovered last week and the candidates then notified. Obviously, this last minute correction on the election ballot is causing voter confusion – a group of people who voted for Kampf and Moskowitz as their State Representative in the 157th District in the primary election will not have that same option on November 4.

Warren Kampf has focused much of his first two terms on public pension reform. Kampf believes that the current state pension system is not sustainable, and that escalating pension obligations will mean rising taxes or significant cuts to service. Other initiatives he supports include privatization of the state liquor store system and property tax relief, specifically switching property tax system to a gross receipts tax.

The Democratic challenger for District 157, Marian Moskowitz has made her business background a hallmark of her campaign, pointing to Franklin Commons, a successful redevelopment project with her husband in Phoenixville, as an example. An advocate for women and small businesses, Moskowitz is interested in using her entrepreneurial and business background in Harrisburg. Moskowitz supports transportation and infrastructure improvements – according to her campaign website, one of her “primary reasons for running was her opponent’s no vote on Act 89, which brings funding to our aging infrastructure.” Kampf received his share of criticism for his vote not to support the state’s transportation bill. However, he maintains his support for infrastructure improvements, including the Paoli Transportation Center, and that his vote was against the high impact of the gas tax increase included in the transportation bill.

Will there be a trickle-down effect from the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race on the PA State District 157 race? Unlike the open seat in the 6th Congressional District, the State House 157 race has Democratic challenger Marian Moskowitz up against two-term State Representative Warren Kampf (R).

As the political campaigns of Wolf vs Corbett, Costello vs Trivedi and Moskowitz vs Kampf wind down over the next three weeks, take the time to understand the important issues and know the candidates. On November 4th, your vote will matter – make it count.

Share or Like:
        
 

Community Matters Getting Off the Backburner

October 9, 2014
2 Comments

10th Annual Historic House Tour - Poster.pdf_page_1I have had a number of emails, phone calls and conversations with people – all asking me about Community Matters and expressing concerning that something may be wrong since there have been no recent blog posts. I appreciate the concern but I am OK, it’s just been a very busy couple of months — the House Tour Preview Party on Sunday, September 21 at Duportail House, the 10th Annual Historic House Tour on Saturday, September 27 and then the sixth annual Paoli Blues Fest last weekend. With all of the meetings and planning required for these community events, I had to relegate Community Matters to the backburner.

The 2014 House Tour was a wonderful success and broke last year’s attendance record with over 500 tickets sold. The tour featured five historic estate homes in Easttown and Tredyffrin Townships, the Great Valley Mill and St. Peter’s Church in the Great Valley. The tour celebrated the work of renowned Chester County architect Brognard Okie. For the tenth straight year, Mother Nature cooperated and provided a perfect, sunny 80 degree day, make the house tour even more special!

Since the first Trust house tour a decade ago, the tour has featured three centuries of structures, including 64 historic private homes of which seven served as Revolutionary War headquarters; eight barns, four churches, three schools, including two ‘one-room’ schoolhouses; a springhouse, a museum, a mill and a special historic playhouse.

Between ticket purchases and tour sponsorships, the house tour raised $30,000 for the Jones Log Barn rebuilding project. When the final phase of the project is completed, the barn will join two National Historic Register properties – Duportail House and the Federa2014 posterl Barn – and serve as the ‘Living History Center at Duportail’ in Chesterbrook.

There are many people to thank for this annual historic house tour, including the wonderful homeowners who opened their homes, the enthusiastic volunteers, the individual and corporate sponsors, the local police departments, other nonprofits groups (Chester County Open Land Conservancy and Duportail House) and most of all, we thank the many residents who supported the tour. (For a full list of sponsors, click here).

The Paoli Blues Fest celebrated its sixth annual music festival and street fair last Saturday, October 4. The day started out overcast with an occasional spritz of rain but as if on cue at noon, as the musicians warmed up, the clouds parted, the sun began to shine, the temperature soared and memories were created. Touted as the largest annual blues festival in the tri-state region, the party in Paoli didn’t disappoint. From the brass sounds of Big Bang Theory to Blue Jay Slim & the Tone Blasters, Russ Lambert, Blues Bizness, Deb Callahan and then the finale band, Blue Plate Special, it was a day of great music, food, drink and a lot of fun. A real community event, thanks goes to the musicians, vendors, sponsors, volunteers and all the hundreds of people who attended!

With the Annual House Tour and the Paoli Blues Fest completed, I look forward to getting Community Matters off the backburner.

Share or Like:
        
 

PA State Rep Warren Kampf’s Town Hall Meeting — Budget, Pension and Property Tax Reform, Liquor Privatization & the Legalizing of Marijuana

July 31, 2014
23 Comments

I attended State Rep Warren Kampf’s Town Hall meeting last night in Phoenixville. Kampf opened the meeting with a 15-20 min. update on the budget, pension reform and status of legislation, liquor privatization, and property tax reform. Following his presentation, the evening continued with Q & A from the audience members, with about 30 questions on a variety of topics.

In his discussion of the recently passed 2014-15 PA Budget, Kampf offered the following highlights:

  • The budget passed on time for the fourth straight year, with no tax increases to the residents.
  • Although there was a modest increase in the 2014-15 budget from the previous year, the budget increase remains well below the rate of inflation.
  • Pennsylvania received a $340 million cut in Medicaid Funds from the Federal government.
  • The budget includes an additional $250 Million to implement Affordable Care Act provisions;
  • The budget includes an additional $600 Million in increase in pension costs
  • The budget includes an additional $600 Million for Medicaid increase

There has been much discussion about Corbett cutting education spending but according to Kampf, the 2014-15 budget has education spending at an all-time high, and that the recently passed budget includes an additional $520 Million in educational spending. This topic was one of much interest from the audience members. We have all seen the campaign rhetoric with one side claiming cuts to education and the other side saying it is untrue

Kampf further clarified that Corbett’s budget includes $10.5 Billion on Pre K – 12 line items, stating it is the most ever committed. The budget includes an additional $20 Million for Special Education. The Pre-K Counts Program, which increases access to quality pre-kindergarten to PA children and their families with a priority in at-risk communities, received a $10 Million increase in the budget.

To help offset the cost of postsecondary education, the budget includes a new $5 Million ‘Ready to Succeed Scholarship’ that provides up to $2,000 to eligible students whose families earn up to $110K.

Pension costs and the need for reform continued to be a significant discussion point. Kampf offered the example that the PSERS line item on the 2014-15 PA Budget increased from $375 million to $1.4 Billion this year! As taxpayers, we know firsthand the effect that the skyrocketing pension costs have had on our own tax bill. The pension costs have impacted the school districts statewide, forcing school boards to make difficult decisions and painful cuts.

Clearly, pension reform is needed sooner rather than later. Kampf’s hybrid pension reform bill, HB 1353, which includes a traditional 401k type plan, was presented as a possible solution. It was interesting to note that there continues to be confusion among some of the residents – the suggested pension reform bill, HB 1353 is for new hires; not those workers currently in the system. Kampf believes that his plan would create $11 – $20 Billion in savings.

I was glad for a discussion on liquor privatization but it does not look like House Bill 790 is going anywhere anytime soon. The House approved the bill 105-90 in March 2013 but according to Kampf, the Senate has not agreed to move the bill forward. We hear the argument that the 600 states stores generate money and therefore the government should keep things status quo. Pennsylvania loses millions annual to neighboring states because of the inconvenience of buying at states stores. What is it going to take to bring Pennsylvania into the 21st century – 48 other states enjoy convenience and choice, why can’t we? Other than Utah and Pennsylvania, states don’t want to be in the business of selling alcohol.

On property tax reform, there were updates but little ‘new’ news. PA House Bill 76, the ‘Property Tax Independence Act’, remains in the House Finance Committee and has not moved forward for a vote. This legislation would eliminate school property taxes across the Commonwealth and replace those taxes with funding from a single state source.

Kampf voted yes on House Bill 1189, which would amend the Local Tax Enabling Act to provide school districts with the option to eliminate property taxes. Although Kampf supports HB 1189, he added that the Senate has not taken action on this legislation.

Because the Town Hall meeting was held in Phoenixville, several audience questions were local to that area. One question related to Phoenixville Area School District’s decision to acquire the Meadowbrook Golf Club via eminent domain and where did Kampf stand on the topic. Kampf supported the legal right of the school district to take the property [using eminent domain] but suggested it should only be used when all other alternatives were exhausted.

On allowing illegal immigrant children in the US, Kampf deferred to the Federal government, stating that as a State Representative he was not in a position to cast a vote.

A couple of people asked Kampf for his personal opinion on legalizing marijuana in Pennsylvania. Although he was not aware of any currently proposed legislation in the House on the subject, he said he could support the legalizing of medical marijuana. He was not going to commit himself beyond the use of marijuana for medical usage, preferring to take one step at a time.

On June 27, the Senate Law and Justice Committee unanimously voted in support of the bipartisan Senate Bill 1182, known as the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Act, to ease the suffering of people with epilepsy or other ailments. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have approved medical cannabis programs, could Pennsylvania be next?

I give credit to any elected official who holds a Town Hall Meeting with no pre-screening of questions. Last night numbers were distributed and the questions asked in numerical order; everyone with a question was given an opportunity to ask it. Nothing was off limits – only requesting that questions be asked by residents of Kampf’s legislative district. As a registered Independent, I am pleased to report that the evening contained no political party bashing by audience members or by Kampf. Would love to see a similar forum in Tredyffrin Township. Or how about a PA-157 State Representative debate between incumbent Warren Kampf and his challenger Marian Moskowitz?

Share or Like:
        
 

Education Degree no longer a requirement for PA School District Superintendents. With a graduate degree in management, business, finance or law, you could be a Superintendent

July 12, 2014
31 Comments

We all remember Chester Upland School District’s well-publicized financial struggle to keep their electricity on, the doors open and their teachers paid a couple of years ago. Chester Upland and other PA school districts in similar severe financial distress were aided by the passage of Act 141 of 2012 (House Bill 1307). The recovery plan legislation allowed the PA Department of Education the ability to declare school districts in severe financial distress and to appoint a CRO (Chief Recovery Officer) to improve academic performance and bring financial stability to these districts.

Other changes to the Public School Code of 1949 by the PA Legislature at the close of the 2011-12 included an overhaul of Section 1073, which governs the selection of school district superintendents and assistant superintendents through amendments made by Act 82 of 2012 and Act 141 of 2012. Section 1073.1 provides ‘Performance Review’ requirements for superintendent/assistant superintendent employment contracts including the following points:

  • The employment contract for a superintendent/assistant superintendent shall include objective performance standards and assessment tools mutually agreed to in writing by the school board and the superintendent/assistant superintendent. The legislation treats superintendents/assistant superintendents in the same fashion as teachers and principals. Objective performance standards may be achievement on PSSA tests, achievement on Keystone Exams, attrition rates, graduation rates, financial management standards, etc.
  • The district’s board shall post the mutually agreed to objective performance standards contained in the superintendent/assistant superintendent contract on the school district’s publicly accessible Internet website.
  • The school board shall conduct a formal written performance assessment of the district superintendent/assistant superintendent annually.
  • The district’s board shall post on the publicly accessible Internet website the date of the superintendent/assistant superintendent evaluation and whether each of the performance standards contained in the agreement were met.

It does not appear that the new requirements affected the existing contracts of district superintendents/assistant superintendents. There was no expectation that existing contracts were to be opened and the new requirements added. However, going forward all new superintendent/assistant superintendent contracts would need to adhere.

By now, most parents and residents know that TE School District Superintendent Dan Waters is retiring at the end of his contract on June 30, 2015 and that the school board has launched a superintendent search for his replacement. The District’s contract with whomever replaces Waters will need to adhere to new provisions of the Public School Code.

The PA Legislature updated another section of the Public School Code – Article X, Section 1003 Eligibility in 2012. Given the current superintendent search in T/E, I found the new provision added of particular interest. Did you know that the requirement that prospective superintendents and assistant superintendents have experience in a classroom was dropped when the Public School Code was updated in 2012?

That’s right — Section 1003 (b.1) was added to the PA Public School Code which states that if you have a graduate degree in business, finance, management or law you can be a school district superintendent in Pennsylvania. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, the highest-level manager of school districts no longer needs to be a teacher or principal or have an education-related degree.

To be a school district chief, the law previously required a person to have a letter of eligibility, issued by the state Department of Education. To receive that letter, the person had to complete a graduate-level program of educational administrative study, which consisted of two full academic years. The candidate also needed to have at least six years of experience in education, including at least three of those years in a supervisory capacity.

The ‘eligibility’ section of the Public School Code, states that someone with a graduate degree in business, finance, management or law, along with four years of relevant experience in business, finance, management or law, can also be a superintendent. From what I understand, the change in the law occurred for several reasons.

By expanding the allowable requirements for superintendents, it gives area school districts a much larger pool of applicants for the top jobs. However, more importantly, individuals with business and finance experience are what a school district superintendent needs in the time of unprecedented budget cuts in public education. Although sec. 1003 (b.1) of the Public School Code is set to expire in 2015 – it states, “A person who is issued a commission by the department based on satisfaction of the requirements of this subsection may retain his commission after the expiration of this subsection.”

TE School Board Vice President Kris Graham serves as chair of the District’s superintendent search committee. A review of the job posting on the TESD website, indicates that the board is seeking applicants with school superintendent experience, a PhD in education and requires PA letter of eligibility. As of June 2012, the Public School Code does not require a superintendent to have educational experience, a doctorate in education or a PA letter of eligibility. The public was told by Graham that there were only five qualified candidates inside the District and only one who had applied (Dr. Richard Gusick).

Graham served as chair of the District’s Legislative Committee and Gusick served as the administrative liaison and I do not recall Act 82 or Act 141 of 2012 changes to the Public School Code (particularly those related to performance assessment in superintendent contracts or the change in state requirements for superintendents) discussed in any of the Legislative Committee updates presented at school board meetings.

Pennsylvania legislators serving on the Education Committee fought hard for these 2012 changes to the Public School Code. I understand that our T/E school board directors can write the superintendent job description and applicant requirements, anyway that they wish. My question is why would they want to limit themselves to a superintendent applicant pool that is based on specific requirements that the PA Department of Education does not currently require? Wouldn’t they want to make certain that they had the best candidate for the job?

It is interesting to note that 1,000+ stakeholders in the TE School District returned the recent superintendent survey and that 74% of the respondents listed ‘leadership’ as the most important qualification needed by the new superintendent. The second most important qualification, cited by 58% of the respondents, was ‘budget & financial expertise’. Only 36% of the respondents believed that ‘teaching experience’ should be a requirement for the position.

The superintendent of a school district is the chief executive officer. The superintendent is the manager and he or she manages the fiscal and financial affairs, buildings and grounds, personnel, equipment, etc. A nontraditional candidate can offer a real benefit to a school district, including leadership, finance skills and knowledge about business or law.

As we learned from the survey results, T/E School District stakeholders placed leadership and expertise in budget and finances as the highest priorities needed in the next superintendent. The position could appeal to a number of people like a retired CEO seeking a new challenge. Or maybe there is a prospective candidate with management expertise and a law degree. An individual with strong financial and business management background could also be a good fit for the job.

Here’s my suggestion – I think my friend Neal Colligan should apply. An involved T/E School District resident, he has strong business/management background and finance expertise – BS in Accounting, MBA from Villanova U and has worked as a CPA. And he understands the District’s budgetary requirements and management climate. If you recall in 2013, Neal developed a plan that would provide health care benefits to the District’s aides and paras and help save their jobs from outsourcing.

Speaking of applying for the superintendent position, there is a short window of opportunity. The job posting for superintendent went up on the District website on July 1 and applications for the position will close on August 8, 2014. Why the rush? The start date for the job is not until July 1, 2015; I do not understand why the school board is closing the applications after barely a month.

To the TESD Superintendent Search Committee – please do not discount candidates because they do not have a doctorate in education or a superintendent letter of eligibility. For Neal and other qualified superintendent candidates, click here to apply.

Share or Like:
        
 

PA Pension Crisis: A Vote to Change the Pension Laws is a Vote to Protect the Taxpayers

July 7, 2014
3 Comments

Unfunded pension liabilities are the dark cloud hanging over the state budget. Years of underfunded retirement promises to public employees has plunged the state into a financial black hole that is approaching $50 billion. The cost of doing nothing increases on a daily basis, and translates into higher property taxes, an inability to fund public education in the manner in which it deserves and painful cuts to critical government programs. The time is now for meaningful pension reform.

Facing huge shortfalls in the two public pension systems in Pennsylvania – PSERS (Public School Employees’ Retirement Systems) and SERS (State Employee Retirement System), State Rep. Warren Kampf (R-157) turned to a strategy that a lot of private companies adopted years ago – moving workers away from the guaranteed pension plans and toward 401(k)-type retirement savings plans. In 2013, he introduced two pension reform bills to move the public pension systems toward a defined benefit plan with defined contribution systems for all new hires while protecting the benefits of employees currently in the system.

Working with Mike Tobash (R-125) from Berks County, Kampf’s House Bill 1353 was amended to a hybrid pension reform plan that would not change benefits for current employees but would place new employees in a “stacked” pension system, including both a defined benefit and a defined contribution component. An overview of the proposed hybrid plan, including details on the defined benefit and defined contribution aspects, from Tobash website indicates:

  • Benefits of current employees would not change
  • All new state and public school employees would be subject to the same plan
  • The plan is a combined traditional, defined benefit plan and 401-K-type defined contribution investment plan
  • Bill would include provisions to allow absences for leaves of absence, furloughs, military service, disability, maternity leave, Family Medical Leave Act while remaining in the system
  • Employee contribution would be 6 percent
  • Defined benefit for first $50,000 of salary, indexed 1 percent annually
  • Defined benefit is fully earned after 25 years of service
  • Participants are vested after 10 years
  • Defined benefit cannot be collected prior to age 65 without penalty
  • No different classes of service
  • Employee contribution of 1 percent and employer contribution of .05 percent on all compensation up to $50,000
  • Employee contribution of 7 percent and employer contribution of 4 percent on all compensation more than $50,000
  • Employee contributions vest immediately and three-year vesting of employer contributions

Private employers decided years ago to terminate traditional pension plans in lieu of 401(k) plans and likewise, it is time for government to shift the pension plan’s risk to the worker. Some employees prefer the 401(K)-type retirement system because it gives more control over the retirement assets, including the ability to take the money with them when they change jobs.

Pennsylvania’s pension reform bill was on a roller coaster ride this last week. Gov. Corbett has been urging the legislature to pass pension reform, indicating that he would not pass the 2014-15 budget without its inclusion. But rather than approving HB 1353, the General Assembly voted 107-96 to send it to the House Human Services Committee. Sending it back ‘to committee’ could have meant the death knell for the bill. Fortunately, that was not the case and the House Human Service Committee voted to send HB 1353 to the full House for final consideration when the legislators reconvene in the fall after summer recess.

According to Tobash website, the plan is “estimated to save between $11 billion and $15 billion over a 30-year project period” but it is not without its naysayers. Some who oppose the proposed pension reform plan suggest that it will not solve the current underfunding problem and that it will reduce pension benefits of new employees. Although it is correct that under this plan, new employees will not have the same retirement benefits as those currently in the system, I would ask what is the alternative … do nothing and continue to feed the ballooning unfunded retirement black hole?

Doing nothing to affect the pension obligations is not acceptable, because it only allows a very bad situation to deteriorate even further. Taxpayers in Pennsylvania are on the hook for almost $50 billion in unfunded pension liability. The staggering pension debt should concern all of us — it threatens our state’s economy, our citizens and future generations. Now is the time for meaningful pension reform and lawmakers need to take action. A vote to change the pension laws is a vote to protect taxpayers – support House Bill 1353.

Share or Like:
        
 

TE School Board Approves Administrator Bonuses, $22K/yr Salary Increase to Business Manager & 3.2% Tax Increase to Homeowners

June 17, 2014
39 Comments

Four important votes took place at last night’s TE School Board meeting and unfortunately there was little surprise in the results.

  • Approval of bonuses to TESD administrators – check
  • Approval of bonuses to TESD supervisors – check
  • Approval of $22K/yr. salary increase & 5-year contract to TESD Business Manager – check
  • Approval of 3.2 percent tax increase to TESD homeowners – check

It was encouraging to see some new faces in the audience and one resident, Tracy Gould of Wayne, came prepared with handwritten signs (see below) announcing her displeasure. Gould explained that she is a parent of three children and like many families, struggles during these economic times. She appealed to the Board to consider the residents and not approve the salary increases and tax increase.

School Board meeting

You know how sometimes you can just forecast what the result is going to be before a vote is actually taken – well, that is exactly how last night’s school board meeting went.

To their credit, Board members Liz Mercogliano and Scott Dorsey were the lone dissenting votes on the employee bonuses, salary increase to Art McDonnell and tax increase to the homeowners. Both explained that they could not support giving bonuses and salary increases when the District does not provide basic healthcare benefits for the aides and paraeducators. Although Mercogliano and Dorsey are outnumbered 7-2 by the other Board members in their votes, I appreciate that they are concerned about the effect on residents of another year of tax increases. Providing affordable health care to all District employees is important; I personally thank Liz and Scott for taking a stand on this issue and supporting the aides and paras.

School Board Vice President Kris Graham is chairing the superintendent search committee which also includes Board members Jim Bruce, Karen Cruickshank and Doug Carlson. In her update, Graham reported that over 1,000 T/E residents responded to the Stakeholder Survey and the results are available on the District’s website, www.tesd.org

According to the survey results, the top 5 traits chosen as the most important in a new superintendent are:

  • Honest (54%)
  • Student Centered (52%)
  • Creative Problem Solver (49%)
  • Approachable (37%)
  • Collaborative (37%)

The survey results indicted the top 5 strengths that the new superintendent should be expected to maintain or enhance:

  • Highly qualified staff (54%)
  • High expectations for students (39%)
  • Strong fiscal management (38%)
  • Safe school environment (38%)
  • Culture of continuous improvement (36%)

The top 5 most important qualifications of a new superintendent as selected by respondents:

  • Leadership (74%)
  • Budget & financial expertise (58%)
  • Administrative/education leadership experience (49%)
  • Educational experience (47%)
  • Strategic planning expertise (36%) tie
  • Significant classroom teaching experience (36%) tie

The final survey question, asked respondents to name the top 3 challenges facing the new superintendent:

  • Budget/finance (83%)
  • Government mandates (44%)
  • District labor relations (36%)

My takeaway from the Stakeholder Survey is that the vast majority of respondents believe that finances is the most important issue and that it is important to have someone with leadership qualities and a business/financial background as the District’s next superintendent.

The School Board hired a consultant to help with the superintendent search and Graham explained last night that the she has conducted a couple of workshops with school board members in this regard. According to Graham, there are currently five District employees with the educational qualifications for the position and they have received an application from one person. The in-house superintendent candidate was unnamed by Graham but she did say that the Board would be conducting an interview in the next couple of days.

In the District’s online update of last night’s meeting the following information was provided on the superintendent search:

President Kevin Buraks and Vice President Kris Graham updated the public on the work of the Superintendent Appointment Committee and results from the Stakeholder Survey. The survey results are available on the District web site. The Board will continue to keep the public informed on the search process.

Although the message here is that the Board will “continue to keep the public informed on the search process”, there appeared to be something missing from this online information and from the Buraks and Graham update last night. There was no mention about where the District has posted the job for the superintendent position. I would be interested in know which educational resources the consultant suggested to the Board and where the job is posted. Also, what is the timeline for the District to receive applications?

The Superintendent position is the most important job in the Tredyffrin Easttown School District and I know that the Board, parents, residents, employees and students want to make certain that the information is available to all possible candidates.

Although some in the administration disagree that a morale issue exists, too many District employees would suggest otherwise. I will continue to maintain that the only way to fully correct the morale issues in the District is to hire someone from the outside – an individual with strong financial/budgetary experience (business experience and background) coupled with the educational component and someone that does not have an existing history with current employees is what is sorely needed. The new Superintendent should fully understand the District’s financial needs and not simply rely on the Business Manager for answers.

Because the current Superintendent is not retiring for 12 months (June 30, 2015), the Board has the luxury to conduct a thorough superintendent search and fully vet all candidates for the job. Once the job applications are received from outside the District, the Superintendent Search committee will be able to short list the candidates and then include the residents in their analysis prior to the final selection.

As discussed at last night’s meeting, informing the public of the Superintendent search process is important. I look forward to the Board’s continued updates on the application process and search to find a new TE School District Superintendent.

Share or Like:
        
 

TESD Agenda includes bonuses for administrators & 5-year contract for Business Manager; Tredyffrin Township Agenda includes new Finance Director and Police Department news

June 15, 2014
16 Comments

On Monday, there is a TE School Board meeting at 7:30 PM, Conestoga High School. Rather than hitting the print button, I suggest that you read the agenda and accompanying materials online because it contains 450 pages.

On the fourth page of the agenda, under Section VII Other Recommended Action, these three items grabbed my attention.

A. 2014-2015 Supervisory and Confidential Employee Compensation Plan, Compensation Adjustments for 2-14-15 and June 2015 One Time Payment

B. 2014-2015 Administrator Compensation Plan, Compensation Adjustments and June 2015 One Time Payment

C. Business Manager Employee Agreement

In April, the School Board adopted a $120 million proposed final budget for the 2014-15 school year that includes a 3.2 percent tax increase. How is it that the District can increase our homeowner taxes for another year, but still manage to find available dollars for administrator and supervisor bonuses? Where is the fiscal watchdog looking out for the residents? (To find the current salaries and proposed bonuses on (A) and (B) in Section VII, you need to go to pgs. 435 and 436 of the agenda.)

Item (C) under Section VII, ‘Business Manager Employee Agreement’ refers to the proposed contract for Art McDonnell, the District’s current business manager. McDonnell’s salary for 2014-15 year is $163,220 although he is due to receive a one-time bonus of $1,632 as mentioned above. Under his proposed employee agreement (see pgs. 438-441), McDonnell will enjoy a significant salary increase of $22,000/yr. or approximately an 14% yearly salary increase – if approved his salary becomes $185K/yr. rising to $186,632 with the addition of his bonus.

Under the position responsibilities in the proposed employee agreement, the terms state that McDonnell is “responsible for responding to all questions relating to the District business, financial and operation matters” and that he “will interpret the financial concerns of the District to the community”. Further responsibilities refer to an ‘Appendix A’, which is not included with the agenda – the business manager duties are vague and the job description without detail.

Setting aside the salary, the pending employee agreement for Art McDonnell includes very surprising job security, especially given current economic times – a whopping 5-year contract with automatic renewals for additional five-year terms. How does someone get this kind of deal these days?

The length of the District superintendent’s contract is 3-years so why should the business manager receive a five-year contract. Who negotiated this contract with McDonnell? With the retirement of Dan Waters in June 2015, the replacement will inherit the business manager for the entire length of his or her superintendent contract. Having just launched the search for a new Superintendent, why would the school board agree to a five-year contract for McDonnell? Why would the Board want to force prospective superintendent candidates into this type of situation?

According to the proposed employee agreement, the District is required to give McDonnell 6 months’ notice if they want to terminate his contract; otherwise, his five-year contract rolls over with automatic five-year renewals. (With an unsatisfactory evaluation, termination notice is reduced to 60 days). Gratefully, McDonnell’s contract was not included in the consent agenda. Does this mean that the residents expect a Board discussion and explanation (rationale) for the terms of the proposed contract? Again, I ask who on the school board ‘negotiated’ this contract? It looks to me like Art McDonnell asked for “the moon, the stars and the sun” in this contract and he’s likely to get it – where’s the fiscal responsibility?

Also on Monday night is the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors meeting, 7:30 PM at Township Building. I found a couple of items interesting on the agenda –

(1) The appointment of Finance Director

(2) Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (2015-2018) with the Tredyffrin Township Police Association (TTPA)

If you recall, within a two-week period between February 10 and 25 of this year, the Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors terminated Public Works Director Scott Cannon without public discussion or comment and agreed to accept the resignation of Finance Director Tim Klarich, also without explanation. Klarich was Tredyffrin Township Finance Director for nearly 4 years. I always found his analysis and preparation of the yearly township budget detailed and complete and his monthly financial updates to the board unfailingly thorough. There was uneasiness with the departure of these two department heads four months ago and Klarich departure was particularly unsettling. I look forward to the announcement of the appointment of the township’s new Finance Director.

As for the other agenda item of interest — the residents are aware that the Tredyffrin Township Police Department has been working with an officer deficit during the last several years. If you recall, the supervisors approved the spending of $49K for a Police Department study that concluded hiring of additional police officers was needed. I am interested to see if the needs of the police department will be addressed in the Memorandum of Understanding.

Share or Like:
        
 

Will chain link fencing around the elementary schools make them safer?

June 12, 2014
36 Comments

fencing 2Like every other school district in America, the TE School District began talking about school security after the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy where a gunman killed 26 people, including 20 children. If you recall, the School Board hired former Tredyffrin Township Police Chief Andy Chambers as the District’s safety consultant. The School Board announced the formation of a District Safety Committee; members to include Chambers, District staff and residents. The District Safety Coordinator is Conestoga High School Assistant Principal Andy Phillips. Other than Chambers and Phillips, I am not certain who else is on the District Safety Committee and I could not find the information on the school district website.

Sandy Hook and other shootings have pushed the issue of school security into the limelight … we all want our kids to be safe. One of the security upgrades recommended by the Safety Committee to the Facilities Committee is the construction of 5-foot high chain link fencing around each of the District’s five elementary schools – Beaumont, New Eagle, Valley Forge, Hillside and Devon. The Facilities Committee acted on the Safety Committee’s recommendation sending out request for proposals for the fence construction. The capital project contract for site fencing at the elementary schools was approved by the school board on February 24, 2014 and the contract was awarded to the low bidder New Holland Chain Link, LLC for $220K.

I have received emails and phone calls from parents and neighbors associated with New Eagle, Valley Forge and Hillside schools, all opposing the school board’s decision to construct the chain link fencing. And the TE School District planned fencing project was on the local ABC Philadelphia news last week with residents explaining their opposition. I have to say that other than the school board, I have not heard anyone speak in favor of the 5-foot chain link fencing.

Residents oppose the chain link fences for a variety of reasons. Some of the arguments opposing the fencing include:

  1. The planned fencing will make it more difficult for children to evacuate in emergencies. Concern that children could be trapped inside the school property because of the fencing and that the fencing could hamper emergency aid from entering the school property.
  2. A limited number of gates in the fencing are planned making it difficult for children, teachers and staff to exit during emergencies. Gates are to be placed in the fencing only where walks now exist.
  3. The fencing is on three sides of the property but full access on the front.
  4. Residents are required to obtain a building permit for fences in Tredyffrin Township, did the District file the necessary forms?
  5. Five foot high fencing is not a deterrent, especially given it is only on three sides.
  6. Monetary cost to the taxpayers – $220K
  7. The fencing gives an institutional appears to the schools.
  8. Inconvenience, children who have safely walked to school will now (in some cases) be forced to take the bus because of the fencing.
  9. Complaints about the aesthetics, especially given that the elementary schools are located in residential areas; citing other school districts that have used wrought iron fencing (rather than chain link) so that it blends with the neighborhood.

Aside from aesthetics and inconvenience that the fencing may cause to residents, the real question that we need to have answered is, “Will the chain link fencing make the schools safer?” Rather than simply stating that the Safety Committee recommends the 5-foot high chain link fencing, did the school board receive background and research to support the committee’s position?

An update on the elementary school fencing project will be provided at on Friday, June 13, 2 PM, TE Administration Building at the Facilities Committee meeting. According to the agenda online, the District’s architect Tom Daley of Daley & Jalboot will present the update on the fencing project.

The school board approved the fencing the five elementary schools and signed a $220K contract for this capital project. Now the question is, will the residents have a voice in this decision or will the Board stand behind their decision?

Share or Like:
        
 

Call for Internal Investigation: Interference in Collective Bargaining Process of T/E Aides and Paraeducators … Was a Crime Committed?

June 8, 2014
51 Comments

Not all is equal. In the T/E School District, some workers enjoy equitable treatment and benefits while others do not. This is the story about the aides and paraeducators, the District’s lowest paid employees, their collective bargaining efforts and the questionable behavior of those trying to derail the process.

Most of you reading this post will have no idea what I am talking about or what has been going on with the District’s aides and paras since January of this year. My association with the aides and paras began last year with the District’s outsourcing threat over the Affordable Care Act and has continued during the collective bargaining process of the last five months.

At the request of Ruthann Waldie, UniServe representative for PSEA (Pennsylvania State Educational Association), I have not written about this matter until today. Early on, Ruthann told me that the collective bargaining process for the TE aides and paras was ‘fragile’ and if the effort were to succeed she suggested that I not write about it on Community Matters. I trusted her experienced wisdom and complied. However, during the last 72 hours, circumstances have dramatically changed that make it no longer possible to remain silent.

Before explaining the recent actions in the collective bargaining process, it is important to understand the timeline and review the details.

In 2013, after a very loud public outcry, the jobs of the District aides and paraeducators were saved from outsourcing – however, for only one year, the 2013-14 school year. At that time, there was talk among some of the aides and paras about forming a collective bargaining unit but once the school board agreed not to outsource (and to keep their hours intact), the discussion on the subject lessened. However, things heated up again when these employees received a threatening, demeaning memo from Sue Tiede, (the former TESD Personnel Director), in January of this year. Her communication established the 7-minute check-in and check-out policy for the aides and paras, and detailed the progressive discipline measures for violation, including suspension.

Tiede’s message represented a continuing trend of disrespect and intimidation directed at the aides and paras. Growing concern returned about possible outsourcing and … with that concern, a sense of urgency among the aides and paras developed. Unfortunately, many of the aides and paras continue to feel undervalued and unappreciated by the administration and references such as ‘disposable’ by at least one school board member have done little to improve their morale.

Without representation by a collective bargaining group, the District’s aides and paras are powerless; their continued employment is solely at the mercy of the T/E School District’s Superintendent and School Board. As a result, a small group of determined, dedicated aides and paras came together in early February to discuss options and plot a course of action to improve their working conditions.

According to Ruthann Waldie, PSEA representative, the aides and paras could not join the District’s teachers union because they were not considered ‘instructional’ employees. Furthermore, Ruthann explained that due to a law change five years ago, the aides and paras were prohibited from forming their own ‘new’ union when a qualifying union already existed. As explained, TENIG (Tredyffrin Easttown Non-Instructional Group) the District’s qualifying union with non-instructional employees and therefore, the aides and paras would become part of that group.

Before the collective bargaining campaign was officially underway, I spoke with TENIG president, Mary Minicozzi to ask her opinion about adding the 176 District aides and paras to their union. Her reaction was overwhelmingly supportive, stating that she was 110% in favor. I invited her to attend the upcoming organizational meeting with all the District aides and paras and PSEA representatives. Mary confirmed that she would attend the meeting and that she would ask fellow TENIG members to also attend. However, something happened between that phone conversation and the organizational meeting a few days later. Mary did not attend the meeting nor did anyone else from TENIG attend. To my knowledge, she has had no further contact with any of the aides and paras since that point.

Over the course of the following four months, we learned through PSEA representatives, that Mary was no longer supporting the idea of the aides and paras joining TENIG, although it remained unclear as to why. However, the PSEA representatives continued to tell the aides and paras that it did not matter because the law required them to join TENIG.

The organizing campaign for the aides and paras continued to move forward. On February 21, the T/E School District and the School Board received official notification regarding the aides and paras interest in collective bargaining. Once notified of the organizing campaign, the PA Public Employee Relations Act 195 protected the aides and paras from any interference, threats, harassment, reprisals, etc. from the District during the process. (Or so we thought).

The T/E School Board hired solicitor Jeffrey Sultanik of Fox Rothschild, LLP to represent the District in the aides/paras collective bargaining process. As an experienced labor relations attorney and school district contract negotiator, it is clear that Sultanik counseled school board members against interfering in any way with the aides and paras in the unionizing process. As their legal counsel, Sultanik would have explained the liability issues to the District if tampering occurred in the collective bargaining process. Likewise, that same warning would have applied to all District administrators, including the superintendent.

Before the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) in Harrisburg will schedule an election, there must be a suitable showing of interest by the employees in forming a union. PLRB requires a minimum of 30% of the effected bargaining unit employees to show interest by the signing of a ‘union assignment card’. The card does not indicate whether you would vote for or against a union – the signature simply signifies that you are in interested in moving the process forward and that you desire the appropriate local union (in this case the PSEA) to represent you for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, we learned that PSEA’s policy was to have at least 60% of the eligible employees sign the cards as an indicator of their commitment to the bargaining process.

As the campaign progressed, aides and paras from the eight District schools showed support for the collective bargaining process by signing the cards. (Due to years of intimidation and low morale issues in the District, the process however, was very slow.) In early May, after receiving 94 signed commitment cards, the PSEA representatives filed with the PA Labor Relations Board for an election for the aides and paras to join TENIG.

Upon approving the collective bargaining application, the PLRB was to set up a conference call between (1) the PSEA representatives, (2) the School District representatives and (3) the PA Labor Relations Board. The purpose of the conference call determines all the rules and details around the election and sets the date for the actual election.

The aide and paras hoped that if the conference call occurred by early June, PLRB would schedule the election for before June 20, the last day of the 2013-14 school year. To vote in the election, you must be an eligible employee. All 176 aides and paras are eligible to vote (whether they signed the commitment card or not). TENIG members are not eligible to vote. The PLRB requires that the union receive 50% + 1 votes of all employees who cast ballots. (Example: if only 10 eligible employees showed up to vote, the count needs to be six voting yes).

Unfortunately, the scheduled conference call between the Labor Relations Board, PSEA and the School District was delayed until June 18, which in turn pushed the election to September, after school starts. Although the aides and paras were disappointed to learn of the election delay, they had fought an uphill battle to come this far and remained committed to staying the course.

Then the unthinkable occurred this past Thursday, June 5 … the reason for this post. A pre-selected group of 6-8 aides and paras received word in a PSEA conference call that their collective bargaining application would be withdrawn from the PA Labor Relations Board. Why? Because Mary Minicozzi, president of TENIG, did not want the 176 aides and paras in her union. During the call, the PSEA representative further stated that the aides and paras would now need to start the campaign process all over again to form their ‘own’ union in the District.

By early Friday morning, as aides and paras learned the news, accusations of impropriety, collusion and tampering in the collective bargaining process began to surface. Interestingly, members of TENIG were also seeking answers. Evidentially there was no official discussion with the TENIG members about the aides and the paras joining their union nor was a vote taken by the TENIG members. It would appear that the president of TENIG, Mary Minicozzi made this unilateral decision on her own to exclude the aides and paras from joining TENIG. (Remember, this same individual personally told me four months before that she “110 percent supported” their inclusion!)

Many TENIG members have worked together with the aides and paras in the T/E School District for years. The aides and the paras are their fellow District employees and TENIG workers know all too well, what it is like to be the target of the school districts’ outsourcing ax. It seems highly unlikely that if the issue had come to a vote, that the TENIG members would have voted against including the aides and paras. Why would they? Adding 176 more employees to TENIG would increase their collective bargaining group to over 300 members.

And let’s not forget that PSEA’s Ruthann Waldie told the aides and paras from the start that ‘legally’ they had to be in TENIG – as she explained, it was their only option. She had further indicated that because it was the law, it did not matter whether TENIG wanted them or not.

The PA Labor Relations Board has already fielded calls from the District aides, paras and even TENIG members demanding answers – and some have already reached out to attorneys.

How is it possible that the TENIG president can control the future of 176 aides and paras in the T/E School District? If Mary didn’t involve her fellow TENIG members in the decision-making process, exactly who was involved. I find it impossible to believe that she acted completely on her own. It makes no sense — Why would you not include 176 additional workers in a union; adding the aides and paras would increase TENIG’s collective bargaining group to over 300 members strong!

We know that Mary’s decision was not based on an impending TENIG contract. If you recall, Mary signed a new TENIG contract in September 2013, 9 months before the existing contract was set to expire. The new 3-year TENIG contract begins July 1, 2014 and goes to June 30, 2017. I will not believe that Mary Minicozzi made this decision on her own – what did she have to gain? Was there a promise of something in exchange?

Why did Ruthann Waldie repeatedly tell the aides and paras that the law required them to join TENIG when this week the story changes and now are told they must form their own union? Things just don’t add up. It reminds me of the line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “Somethings rotten in Denmark”.

Section 1201, Article XII, Unfair Practices of the Public Employee Relations Act states that public employers, their agents or representatives are prohibited from engaging in ‘unfair labor practices’. As defined by Public Employee Relations Act, unfair labor practices include a couple of relevant sections: (1) Interfering, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights under Act 195 and (2) Dominating or interfering with the formation, existence or administration of an employee organization.

We know that interference has occurred in the collective bargaining process of the aides and paraeducators of the TE School District. At the ninth hour, the collective bargaining process was derailed. Why would anyone risk the legal ramifications of tampering with the process? Who is involved and why? Did the president of TENIG act alone or was she coerced? Did the Superintendent, the School Board or the District Solicitor know what was going on?

For the record, as of Friday, June 6, an attorney at the PA Labor Relations Board reported that the aides and paras collective bargaining file remains open and their application active. By exposing the interference in the collective bargaining process, maybe there is a chance that this situation can ‘right itself’ and continue to move forward with the June 18 conference call and a September election to join TENIG. The District aides and paras have earned this right.

The T/E School Board has a fiduciary responsibility to those who have elected them to serve as advocates and stewards of our school district. I do not want to believe that any member of the School Board was involved nor had any knowledge of the derailment of the collective bargaining process of the aides and paras. With accusations of interference, tampering, collusion, misconduct, etc. swirling, the Board needs to act quickly. I suggest an internal examination to figure out ‘who’ knew ‘what’ and ‘when’. The PA Labor Relations Board may deem there is sufficient evidence to conduct their own investigation and if I were T/E School Board directors, I would want to be out in front of such an investigation not behind it.

Share or Like:
        
 

Superintendent Search underway in T/E School District – Residents invited to assist in finding replacement

May 30, 2014
11 Comments

Next SuperThe T/E school board has launched a search for a new superintendent and is seeking input from the public through an anonymous survey, “Stakeholder Survey – Superintendent Succession Planning”, available online through noon on Tuesday, June 10. Participants can weigh in on the qualifications and experiences that they think are most important in a superintendent as well as the strengths and needs in the district.

Public input is important throughout the superintendent process and this online survey allows stakeholders (District residents, parents, students and employees) to provide comments that are a valuable part of the search for the next superintendent. The answers should help guide the school board in the superintendent search to replace current TESD Superintendent Dr. Dan Waters, who will retire from the school district on June 30, 2015.

The following seven questions are on the survey, each with a pick list of responses.

  1. Please select the stakeholder group(s) that best describes you.
  2. Gender
  3. Age Group
  4. Please select the top 5 traits you believe are most important for Tredyffrin/Easttown School District’s new Superintendent.
  5. Please select the top 5 strengths of the Tredyffrin/Easttown School District that the new Superintendent should be expected to maintain or enhance.
  6. Please select the top 5 qualifications which you believe are most important for Tredyffrin/Easttown School District’s new Superintendent.
  7. Please select the top 3 opportunities and challenges you believe our new Superintendent will face. Select at least 3 and no more than 3.

According to the District’s website, the survey results are to be made public. However, beyond making the survey public, will the results of the survey affect the Board’s selection process? The feedback reflects the unique needs of the community … how will the results be used by the Board.

Having the community, parents, school district employees and students involved in the superintendent search process provides support for the school board and will lead to a more favorable public perception and build trust. Sharing the survey results and the search progress in an open, transparent atmosphere makes us, the stakeholders, feel appreciated that we were consulted in the selection process and therefore, more inclined to getting the new superintendent off to a successful start. If the superintendent search is conducted behind closed doors, the new superintendent becomes promoted as the Board’s superintendent, not the community’s superintendent.

Some school board members believe that owing to their election by the community, that they have the right to make all decisions, start to finish, which effectively leaves the residents in the dark about the affairs of the school district. Taking that stance puts the District in a “no need to know” mode – which may lead the Board to conduct the superintendent search in secret or mostly behind closed doors. I have attended many school district committee and board meetings and often a prevailing attitude of “we know best” by some Board members and administrators exists.

Frequently attendance at T/E school district meetings is low unless there is an issue of personal concern to residents. Unfortunately, some Board members (certainly not all) equate minimal citizen participation at meetings as a stamp of approval for their governance; believing that the small group that regularly attends meetings (and is vocal) is not representative of the community. Regardless if five or five hundred people attend meetings, this community owns the schools and should be involved and kept fully informed regarding its investment.

Don’t get me wrong, I support the survey (and the inclusion of all stakeholders views in the process) but the survey results need to actually ‘count’ and not serve merely as window-dressing for the Board in the selection of the next superintendent. Most of the questions on the list are standard and the pick-list of responses to be expected. Some of the questions asked of survey participants appear to be designed to generate an intended result whereas one question ignores important issues facing the District. As an example, the #7 question completely overlooks significant concerns in the District, such as school safety concerns, drug and alcohol usage by students and low morale of employees — just some examples of important challenges facing the future superintendent.

Please take the time to fill out the District survey on the superintendent search. The final decision on the superintendent choice is ultimately up to the school board but the community’s involvement in the process is critical.

Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme