Pattye Benson

Community Matters

No Second Term for DiBuonaventuro as Tredyffrin’s Vice Chair

January 8, 2013
3 Comments

Attending the organizational meeting of Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors last night, all I can say is, “What a difference a year makes!”

Last year with only two years of service as a supervisor (and neither as a vice chair) Michelle Kichline was chosen by her fellow supervisors as chair of Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors. Historically, this leadership position would have gone to the most senior serving member of the Board, John DiBuonaventuro. Instead, DiBuonaventuro was named second in command, ‘vice chair’, under Kichline, for 2012.

At last night’s 2013 organizational meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Kichline received a vote of confidence from her fellow Board members for a second term as chair. Then came the vice chair announcement. In what appeared to be a vague cover story, Kichline explained that supervisor DiBuonaventuro had removed his name from consideration as vice chair. She stated that for the next 2 months, DiBuonaventuro will be attending a canine training certification program and he did not think he had the time for the position.

The position of vice chair on the Board of Supervisors is for the most part ceremonial – I attended every 2012 BOS meeting, and to my knowledge Vice Chair DiBuonaventuro was never ‘acting chair’ in Kichline’s absence. DiBuonaventuro does not have time to serve in the ceremonial position of vice chair on the Board of Supervisors but he does have the time to serve as supervisor. Interesting.

The supervisors themselves decide the choice of who serves in the leadership roles of chair and vice chair. With a unanimous vote, Mike Heaberg was selected vice chair for 2013.

2012 proved to be a challenging year for Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors and some of their decisions not always popular:

  • C1 zoning ordinance change to permit assisted living (Duffy property in the Daylesford community)
  • 2 Tredyffrin police missing a criminal District Court hearing (due to clerical error)
  • Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay District (Richter property in the Glenhardie neighborhood)
  • Township Manager Mimi Gleason’s resignation and her township consulting contract
  • $49K Police Department consultant’s study
  • Costly arbitration of Police-township collective bargaining agreement
  • $40 Million unfunded retirement liability
  • DiBuonaventuro’s controversial personal letter using township resources which appeared on the township website, resulting in a township ‘communication policy’
Share or Like:
        
 

T/E School Board leaves option open for tax Increase — How much more can we afford?

January 8, 2013
1 Comment

At the same time as the Board of Supervisors organizational meeting last night, the T/E School Board held a special meeting to vote on using allowable exceptions to Act 1 for the 2013-14 budget. By using Act 1 exceptions, provides the School Board the ability to raise taxes above the State index of 1.7%. The School Board voted to apply for the Act 1 exceptions and the preliminary 2013-14 budget should be on the TESD website sometime today. The Board considers the preliminary budget at their regular meeting on January 28.

Due to a conflict with the township’s Board of Supervisors meeting, I was unable to attend TESD meeting. However, Ray Clarke attended the meeting and shared the following comments with me. His remarks suggest a rather strong position and I will be interested to know if others share his sentiments.

The School Board voted its usual 7-2 to publish a 2013/14 budget that includes tax increases of 1.7% from the Index plus another 1.74% from Exceptions. This is preparatory to a vote at the next meeting (Jan 28th) to formally apply for the Exceptions.

There was slightly more than the usual Board commentary that tonight’s vote was “only to keep the options open”, and certainly the numbers would support a moderation in the rate of increase. With a 1.7% increase the projected deficit is $1.3 million – just about equal to the one-time payment due to the teachers, which should absolutely not be built into the tax base.

Not only that, the projection model was positioned without the context of the 2011/12 actuals and 2012/13 forecast, which I have argued here would show an artificially inflated base. Remember the unexpected ~$3 million surplus last year. Also, there is no explicit consideration of the cost saving impact of retirements which have in recent past years saved $800,000 per year.

In addition, the administration did list a number of items that could have a significant budget impact that have yet to be quantified. The majority of the Board wanted more details on these. (I fear that the expense additions will turn out to total more than the subtractions). The more courageous move, advocated eloquently by Dr Brake, would be to have signaled a leadership commitment to manage these opportunities and risks within a modest tax increase that does not continue to load up the property tax base, and to begin a serious dialog with the community about the form we want TE public education to take.

Anyone with an interest in limiting the extent to which their pockets can continue to be picked by this Board should attend the Finance Committee next Monday (7pm).

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin Pays $83K for Police Contract Arbitration, or … was it really $133K?

January 6, 2013
11 Comments

The Board of Supervisors and the School Board have their first meetings of the New Year this week. As is often the case, Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting conflicts with the TESD Board meeting. Scheduled for Monday night is both the Board of Supervisor’s organizational and regular meeting at the township building and the T/E School Board will hold a special school board meeting to consider the 2013-14 budget at the T/E Administration Building. Unfortunately, both meetings are at the same time – 7:30 PM.

The Board of Supervisor’s organizational meeting includes the adoption of the meeting schedule for the various township boards and commissions, naming of emergency service providers, adoption of township fee schedule, legal and accounting reviews, etc.

One of the interesting aspects of the organizational meeting each year is the naming of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Supervisors. The seven Board members nominate and vote on these positions. Historically, these positions go to the longest-serving members on the Board. However, in 2012, that tradition shifted with the naming of Michelle Kichline as Chair. Kichline had only served 2 years as supervisor and neither as a Vice Chair, but received the unanimous support of her fellow board members for the chair position. Having served longer than Kichline, many had expected John DiBuonaventuro to receive the 2012 nod for Chair but instead he served as Vice Chair. The Board of Supervisors saw their share of controversy in 2012, so it will be curious to see if Michelle receives another vote of confidence to continue as Chair and JD to continue as Vice Chair.

After the ceremonious organizational meeting, there is a regular supervisors meeting, including a Public Hearing to “consider and enact an ordinance of the Township of Tredyffrin, Chester County, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, fixing rates of taxation for the year 2013.” We learned at the last BOS meeting in December that the township tax increase is set at 3.1%, down from the 5.5% originally forecast.

Since the December 17th supervisors meeting, we have learned of the Act 111 Arbitration Award issued for the collective bargaining agreement between the township and the police union. Much has been written about the agreement on Community Matters with many comments. If you are interested in details of the 4-year contract (2012-15), I would suggest you review posts from late December. Once the arbitration award was announced, I submitted a right-to-know request for a complete accounting of the arbitration related expenses paid by the township. It should be noted that this is the second police contract in a row that has gone directly to arbitration by the township. In both instances, the impartial arbitrator came down on the side of the police union in regards to the post-retirement benefits. We know that retirement benefits , including pensions and healthcare, were major contributors to the long-standing debate between the two sides.

According to township manager Bill Martin, the arbitration costs to the township (taxpayers) re the police contract is as follows – Michael Zobrak, impartial arbitrator $14,136.46 and township arbitrators John McLaughlin, Patrick Harvey, Brian Pinheiro, etc. billed 273 hours for $69,337.50. If my math is correct, the taxpayers paid $83,473.96 for the arbitration of the police contract.

Below are the details that Bill Martin sent for the township arbitrator costs. John McLaughlin, Patrick Harvey and Brian Pinheiro are all partners in the Philadelphia law firm of Ballard Spahr. The law firm billed the township 273 hours for a total of $69,337.50 which equates to $254/hr on the average. On April 3, 2012 there are 100+ hours billed to the township under the name, ‘PFM’ — I am clueless as to what that means but I will contact the township manager for clarification.

I am struggling to understand these billable hours from Ballard Spahr. It was my understanding that there was little (if any?) movement from the township’s initial position going into the arbitration process. If that is the case, how is it that the total number of hours in 2012 (setting aside the hours from 2011) are so substantially higher than the total billable hours of Michael Zobrak, the impartial arbitrator.

Something else I should point out is that on my right-to-know request in which I asked for ‘costs to date’ was dated January 1, 2013 and Martin’s response was dated January 4th. If you look at the last billing date from Ballard Spahr (below) it was back on Oct. 18, over 2 months prior to the signing of the arbitration agreement on December 23, 2012. It stands to reason that there are additional billable hours yet to be received from Ballard Spahr for those 2+ months, including the review of the arbitration award before its release. I would maintain that the township has not seen the end of the costs — $83K may not be the entire costs.

TT Arbitrator Costs

I would suggest that we should also add the ICMA (International City/County Management Association) police department consulting fee of $49K to the total cost of the police contract negotiations. Much of ICMA’s report was boilerplate language and their specific, cost-savings suggestions would require collective bargaining changes. The way I see it, the township has already spent approximately $133K trying to lower police department expenses. Based on the arbitration award, we know that the police department retained most of their prior contract benefits.

What bearing is the Act 111 arbitration award going to have on the township’s 2013 budget? The supervisors and the finance director Tim Klarich did not have the benefit of a crystal ball in regards to the arbitration award when they calculated the 2013 budget. In addition, we still have the issue that there were 47 uniformed police in the 2012 township budget and the 2013 budget has the number reduced to 42. The 42 uniformed police officers is two more officers than are currently in the department. Now that the police contract is settled, will the supervisors OK the hiring of those two additional officers?

Share or Like:
        
 

Community Matters 2013 … Fostering Constructive Conversations

January 1, 2013
2 Comments

“Hope
Smiles from the threshold of the year to come,
Whispering ‘it will be happier’…”
~ Alfred Tennyson

January 1 … Today is the first day of the New Year 2013. What I love most about the beginning of a new year is the hope that a new year offers. It marks a new beginning in our lives, but it is up to us to take advantage of this new beginning. I like the idea of ‘wiping the slate clean’ and starting the new year full of hope for an even better year ahead

Declaring our New Year’s resolutions makes us feel good, but we should make resolutions that lead us to change our behavior, not for a brief period, but for the entire year and for years to come. Over the last several months, I have received emails and telephone calls referencing some of the comments made on Community Matters. As a New Year’s resolution to myself, I am addressing the topic of civility on Community Matters.

Civility, at its best, is not about shutting people up, or forbidding passionate engagement. It’s about keeping in mind that everyone’s ‘voice’ matters, even the voices of those we disagree with. It’s about treating a debate not just as a disagreement, but also as a collaboration.

Looking at debate as collaboration as well as a disagreement can really change quality and tone of the discussion — isn’t this what we want? I think some of us make the mistake in believing that uncensored speech is the most free, which in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech. Civility enhances free speech and commentary.

What kind of discussion do I want to have on this forum? The overall goal of Community Matters is to create a welcoming space where we can have lively discussions of public affairs, without the ad hominem attacks that discourage many thoughtful people from participating in blogs.

Spirited discussion is encouraged on Community Matters. Of the writings of French philosopher Voltaire, one of his most notable pronouncements was “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” I am a firm supporter in our right to free speech but — when disagreeing with someone, be respectful of his or her opinions and avoid attacks of a personal nature. Attacks on policy decisions and ideas are just fine, but don’t go after the person. Any personal attacks toward another person may result in the deletion of the comment from Community Matters. Be honest in your comments and stay on topic of discussion.

Your voices do matters and my hope for 2013 is that we continue to foster constructive conversations on Community Matters.

Share or Like:
        
 

Why Tredyffrin’s Arbitration Award Wasn’t ‘In the Middle’

December 30, 2012
23 Comments

In the addendum to my previous post, “Tredyffrin Township Police Union Favored in Act 111 Arbitration Award”, I remarked that I had assumed that the independent arbitrator would make his award in the police contract arbitration ‘somewhere in the middle’. During the arbitration process, John Petersen had assured me that the arbitrator would favor the police union in his decision, and … we now know that my assumption was incorrect.

In response to my statement that a “further explanation of the arbitration process would be helpful”, John provided the following opinion for Community Matters:

We are where we are because of what was agreed upon in the past. An arbitrator’s role is to find the most “equitable” solution absent the parties agreeing to such. Normally, there is at least some level of negotiation prior to arbitration. It’s always best if the parties themselves can come to an amicable resolution. While there may be disagreement, when parties can mutually agree, it implies a certain level of functionality as to the working relationship. That doesn’t mean that arbitration itself implies dysfunction. Often, there are some points parties cannot resolve. Again, an arbitrator’s role is to resolve those points in contention – in the most equitable fashion possible.

When I learned that the township refused to negotiate, instead opting for arbitration, in hindsight, I was not surprised. It indicates a level of dysfunction that has become the hallmark of this government. As I have said before, the municipal government, like the school board, sought to claw back everything it has negotiated in the past 20-25 years.

There’s a legal concept in commercial law known as “Course of dealing.” In the absence of a written agreement, courts and arbitrators will look to how the parties dealt with one another in the past. In collective bargaining scenarios, there is of course, a written agreement and there is a clear record of past dealings. Going back to my first sentence – we are where we are because of what was agreed upon in the past. It may be, and actually is quite likely, the municipal government, like the school board, has buyer’s remorse.

Given current circumstances, the benefits conferred upon the union appear to be “too good.” Some will attempt to claim victim status by either blaming Harrisburg or by saying that their hands were tied.

Some here trot out the phrase “Labor peace” in terms of the cost. I like that phrase and I think in Tredyffrin, it applies. Once upon a time, there was a premium on labor peace. There was time that those in charge thought it unseemly that Tredyffrin would be the subject of a strike. Once upon a time, there was at the very least, a cordial working relationship with unions. That however, was a different time and the people were very different.

Other municipalities like Lower Merion apparently had the foresight to negotiate these things in a different way. This means that what is in the “Middle” for one group may not represent the middle for another group. The middle, relative to the facts and circumstances of each situation, is the same for all in that it represents the equitable mid-point for that agreement. When compared to other groups however, the specific data point that represents the mid-point, assuming there could be a normalized scale amongst disparate contracts, would be very different as between Radnor, Lower Merion and Tredyffrin. Nevertheless, arbitrators will look at those other situations as a barometer for what is reasonable.

This gets into another commercial legal concept known as “Trade usage.” All of this tends to put boundaries on where the result will end up.

When I heard about the time it was taking for this arbitration, the answer was very clear to me. It was interesting to note that some had questioned why the arbitrator in the police matter had not made a decision. I had posed to Pattye the following: “Perhaps the arbitrator is making a decision, by not making a decision.” Pattye asked me to clarify. I said, “It may be that the arbitrator sees as the most equitable resolution something that more closely matches the status quo.” Arbitrators, like judges, would prefer to have the parties themselves arrive at a resolution. In this case, there were two fundamental problems. 1 – The parties were miles apart and 2 – the township government, as I understand it, refused to negotiate and instead, leave its fate to an arbitrator.

Given the experience of the school board and given the general role of what arbitration is, the township’s stance in this matter was rather foolish and a bit disheartening. There’s a bigger problem here – one that cannot be solved with money. I have commented for years how this government does not work together, either as a board, or as to the entities, it has to deal with. We are now seeing this problem expand to other things like the Planning Commission. Governments are top-down organizations. They lead from the top and the top is what sets the example and moral tone for how the rest of the township government operates. The day isn’t long enough to count the problems incident to the staff, volunteer boards and elected officials. The only thing the township government excels at is dysfunction. If that is the “Gold standard” – then Tredyffrin is second to none.

At the end of the day, it was my contention that the Arbitrator was likely, a bit miffed at the township for what was a wholly unreasonable stance – both not willing to negotiate and its desire to end all post-retirement benefits. As sure as I was about the outcome of the negotiations between the school board and the teachers, I as more sure about the police matter. Why? Because of the facts and circumstances here made it clear where the most equitable solution was. Further, Tredyffrin’s situation is not that far out of whack with other jurisdictions. And where things may be better for the union in Tredyffrin, it’s only because the government agreed to such.

You don’t get t0 wipe away your bad business decisions at the expense of the other party. That’s not how the real world works. It’s not how judges and arbitrators will decide. Unless of course, it finds there was an unfair bargaining position – which in this matter was not the case. It is for those reasons I concluded as such. As to whether Michelle and the board already knew that or not, I don’t know. Speaking as a lawyer, I would have to think that any competent lawyer would know that refusing to negotiate is itself, an unreasonable thing and that an arbitrator may well find that such a position offends the system. I did see the meeting where she said to Pattye that she didn’t know why it was taking so long. Candidly, I chuckled at that response.

In this case, I think Tredyffrin was taken to the woodshed and made an example of. Other municipalities will or at least should think carefully about, following Tredyffrin’s folly strategy in a negotiating strategy that involves not negotiating.

As to the contention that the township’s unfunded liability should have anything to do with the arbitrator’s decision, that is pure nonsense. One has nothing to do with the other. That unfunded liability was an unfunded liability of choice. Those benefits were what were agreed to in the past. This is more evidence that the township sought to claw everything back in one shot – an unrealistic scenario. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the township’s and school board’s legal guidance leaves a lot to be desired.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin Township Police Union Favored in Act 111 Arbitration Award

December 29, 2012
7 Comments

Addendum … In an earlier post I wrote about the extreme starting positions of the police union and the township, and it was my opinion that the “answer for the arbitrator must lie somewhere between these two positions.” In response to my statement, John Petersen assured me that the arbitration award would not be ‘somewhere in the middle’ but rather it would be much closer to the union’s status quo starting position. At the time, I argued with him, figuring that ‘cutting the difference’ between the opposing union/township positions would ‘make sense’ to the arbitrator. In reviewing the arbitration award, it is obvious my assumption was incorrect … further explanation of the arbitration process would be helpful.

—————————————————————————————————

According to the township website, there is there has been an ‘Act 111 Interest Arbitration Award’ issued for the collective bargaining agreement between the township and the police union, Tredyffrin Township Police Association (TTPA). Enacted in 1968, Act 111 is a state law that provides binding arbitration to police and fire fighters in exchange for a prohibition against strikes. If collective bargaining reaches an impasse and proceeds to the interest arbitration level, the determination reached by the arbitration board is final on the issues in dispute and binding on both parties

I am not sure who is responsible for the arbitration award appearing on the website – our new township manager Bill Martin or Board of Supervisor chair Michelle Kichline. But to whoever is responsible, thank you … it was a pleasant surprise to find the award pdf on the website, without necessitating a ‘right-to-know’ request.

Since January 2012, the contract between TTPA and the township has been in arbitration; the 3-year police contract expired December 31, 2011. The process has been held captive for nearly a year, waiting for a ruling from the Board of Arbitration, impartial chair Michael Zobrak, Esq. township arbitrator John P. McLaughlin, Esq. and union arbitrator Stuart W. Davidson, Esq.

The biggest roadblock in collective bargaining contract disputes these days is health care benefits (in addition to salaries) and the Tredyffrin Township/TTPA contract proved no different. In reviewing the arbitration award, please understand that I do not claim labor attorney status or an expertise in contract law. However, it would appear that the independent arbitrator favored the township police in his award. Some of the highlights of the arbitration award include –

A 4-year township-police contract, retroactive to January 1, 2012. The term of the contract is January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2015. The arbitration award includes salary increases to TTPA members as follows:

  • January 1, 2012: 3.5%
  • January 1, 2013: 3.5%
  • January 1, 2014: 3.75%
  • January 1, 2015: 4%

The previous TTPA contract included yearly salary increases of 3.5% for 2009, 2010 and 2011. As a reference point, this week the Lower Merion Township Police Association signed a new 4-year contract that includes 3.5% yearly increase for the first three years and then 3.75% in the final year. It is interesting to note that unlike Tredyffrin, Lower Merion Township and their police department were able to reach a new contract agreement prior to expiration of their current contract. The TTPA contract expired December 31, 2011 and has been in arbitration for over 11 months.

The healthcare changes contained in the arbitration award for TTPA members should save the township some money. Under the new agreement, the township will be able to change to medical coverage as soon as possible to a less costly plan (from Aetna PPO to IBC Personal Choice). Co-pays will be $5 generic and $20 brand. TTPA members will not contribute toward the cost of their health care insurance premium for 2013; township will analyze premium contributions annually starting in 2014.

Here is a twist in the health care coverage that could produce savings for the township but also some extra money for our police officers – an ‘Opt Out’ plan. By opting out, the Township will pay officers the following amounts on a yearly basis:

  • Officer drops single coverage: $3,500
  • Officer drops dependent coverage (officer still covered) $4,000
  • Officer drops dependent coverage (officer not covered) $4,500
  • Officer drops spouse (officer still covered) $4,500
  • Officer drops spouse coverage (officer not covered) $5,000
  • Officer drops family coverage (officer still covered) $5,500
  • Officer drops family coverage (officer not covered) $6,000.

I like this incentive based healthcare coverage idea. If police officers give back on their medical coverage, it will save the township money and in return, produce a financial incentive for TTPA members … a win-win for police officers and the township.

The arbitration award contains an adjustment in minimum payment upwards for officers’ appearance at non-District Justice Court to 4 hours (previous contract was 2 hours). The award contains a downward adjustment on clothing allowance – previously, the clothing allowance was $600/yr. but is now amended to $200/yr. The arbitrator dropped the clothing budget by 66% for TTPA members but Lower Merion police officers saw an increase in their clothing allowance in their new contract … $900 for 2013, $950 in 2014, $1000 in 2015 and $1050 in 2016.

Other than the above points, all terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement, which expired December 31, 2011, continue under this new agreement. If you recall, one of the sticking points during the contract negotiations had to do with the post-retirement benefits contained in the former police contract. According to the arbitration award, post-retirement health care coverage for TTPA members is included in the new 4-year contract.

As a reminder, the 2009-11 police contract stated that if an officer retired on or after 1/1/2009, the township may coordinate its obligation to provide post-retirement medical coverage with available Medicare coverage. “For those persons eligible for Medicare, the township shall reimburse them for any cost associated with acquiring Medicare, including the cost of Plan B coverage. In addition to being responsible for all costs associated with Medicare coverage, the township shall purchase supplement insurance and the township shall self-insure such as is necessary to provide the retired officer and spouse with the same level of insurance coverage they enjoyed before coverage was coordinated with Medicare.”

The contract further stated that, “… Officers who retired prior to 1/1/09, as well as their spouses and eligible dependents, shall be permanently vested with, and continue to enjoy, the same level of healthcare benefits being provided for them by the Township as of 12/31/2008 at no cost, except for co-payments and deductibles then in effect.”

Part of the problem with the wording of the contract is that although the township will pay for Part B once a retired police officer qualifies for Medicare; there is not an absolute requirement for the police officer to go on Medicare. However, the costlier issue for the township has to do with the years of service requirement. According to the contract, the requirement for retirement before 1/1/99 was only 15 years of service. After 1/1/99, it became 20 years of service. Conceivably, a police officer could retire many years in advance of Medicare qualifying age but continue to receive full healthcare benefits for him or herself plus spouse and dependents.

It would appear that the longevity bonus pay also remains intact for TTPA members as in the previous contract. The bonus is computed as follows:

  • After 4 years of service 2% of Basic Yearly Salary
  • After 8 years of service 4% of Basic Yearly Salary
  • After 12 years of service 6% of Basic Yearly Salary
  • After 16 years of service 8% of Basic Yearly Salary
  • After 20 years of service 10% of Basic Yearly Salary

It should come as no surprise that the township appointed arbitrator John McLaughlin included his dissent with the arbitration award, claiming a “lack of overall balance in the award.” McLaughlin states that the “neutral arbitrator [Michael Zobrak] issued an unbalanced award that fails to address the Township’s central issue of post-retirement health benefits and the unfunded liability that the Township is facing as a result of those benefits.”

For the record, the township’s unfunded liability is currently $40M. The township’s 2013 budget contains an annual contribution of $500K to begin to ‘buy down’ the debt, however the unfunded liability grows annually by about $2M. McLaughlin claims that Zobrak was fully aware of the township’s unfunded liability issue but that he inexplicably, “failed to address this issue in the award. Instead, he [Zobrak] cherry picked around this issue, and issued an award that is a disservice to the Township’s taxpayers and all involved with this proceeding.”

It also should come as no surprise that the union arbitrator, attorney Stuart Davidson, concurred with the arbitration award. So … how do you explain the arbitration award? Did Davidson do a better job of presenting the union’s position at the arbitration hearing than McLaughlin did for the township? Or is McLaughlin’s suggestion correct, that fault lies with Zobrak, for the ‘unbalanced award’? And what about Zobrak, the independent arbitrator? Why did it take him 11+ months for this award decision? My research has shown that it typically takes 3-4 months in arbitration. Perhaps a timelier award could have saved the taxpayers some legal fees and certainly would have made the 2013 budget planning easier.

Beyond the financial responsibilities to the township contained in the new police contract, exactly how much did this yearlong arbitration cost the taxpayers? Earlier in December, I asked township manager Bill Martin that very question in a right-to-know request. As of December 14, 2012, the township had paid McLaughlin of Ballard Spahr $57,067.50 for 2012 legal fees. (McLaughlin’s billing rate is $300/hr.).

According to Martin, Zobrak, the independent arbitrator is paid on a per diem basis and submits his bill at the conclusion of the arbitration. Martin stated “He [Zobrak] charges for hearing days, days when executive sessions were held and study days (when he reviews materials and drafts the award). He also might charge partial days when the parties have relatively short conversations.” I have received conflicting information as to who pays Zobrak’s bill – my understanding from the township manager is that the bill is split between the two sides but a police union representative told me that the township would pay the entire bill. Now that the arbitration award is public, I will submit a new right-to-know request and obtain the total costs. (** See Note)

Now that the police contract arbitration is settled, I have to wonder how quickly (or rather how slowly) the current police department staffing needs in the township will be met. There are currently 40 uniformed police officers, although there were 47 officers listed in the 2012 budget. The 2013 township budget approved the hiring of two additional police officers for a total of 42 officers, although the ICMA police operations and data analysis report indicated a minimum of three additional uniformed officers (total of 43 officers) were required to maintain the safety of the community. Police Supt Tony Giaimo’s request to reinstate 47 officers in the 2013 budget was denied.

Every time I think about that boilerplate consultant’s report that cost the taxpayers $49K I get angry – what a complete waste of money. I wonder if the intention of some supervisors (in hiring consultants to review the police department) was to intimidate the police union during the negotiation process. Based on the outcome of the arbitration award, if that was their strategy, I’d say that their plan failed miserably.

Here’s hoping that the police department gets their budgeted, additional officers quicker than the sidewalks have gone in at St. Davids Golf Club!

————————————————–

** Note: According to Allegheny Institute of Public Policy, under the conditions of Pennsylvania’s Act 111 law, “The employer has to pay the costs of its arbitrator as well as the costs of the neutral arbitrator.” In other words, there will be no ‘splitting’ of Zobrak’s arbitration fee with the union — the taxpayers will pay bill for the township arbitrator and the independent arbitrator.

To make it sting more, I was told by several officers, that the township did not spend much time negotiating with the union, opting to go straight to arbitration. It makes me wonder — could the township have saved a year’s worth of legal fees if they had tried reasonable negotiations with the union. Upper Merion Township was able to negotiate with their police union without arbitration; signing a new 4-year contract prior to the expiration of their last contract.

Share or Like:
        
 

Searching for the Holiday Spirit after Newtown

December 24, 2012
2 Comments

With Christmas coming so soon after the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut many of us are wondering how to find joy in a season of such overwhelming grief. Could anyone imagine celebrating Christmas under the pall that has spread since the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School? The answer, somehow, is yes. . Along with a huge sense of loss, this year’s holiday brings an appreciation for how fleeting life can be. The holiday season should remind us that it is not about words but rather about caring about others and respecting their traditions. It is the charity in our hearts to consider others, to volunteer our time, to donate and to try to make this world a better place, each in our own special way.

Each of us may have different traditions with different memories and different stories of the celebration of our holidays, but our wishes are all the same. Whether one is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or any other faith is not the important lesson of the season. Believing in the spirit of the holiday season – whatever or whomever you choose or choose not to believe in.

For twenty-six years, I have been a member of the Noteables, a women’s singing group. When we began our weekly rehearsals in September for the 2012 holiday concert series, none of the members could have forecast the importance of one of the musical selections by our director Chris Puk. The words meaningful and the message poignant, the Noteables sang ‘Prayer to the Children’ this concert season. Dedicated to the young lives lost in Newtown, Connecticut and to children all over the world, may love, joy and peace be with you this holiday season.

To all who read Community Matters, best wishes to you and your families — May we all learn to practice tolerance and appreciate the gift of respecting each other’s holidays, traditions and opinions.

Prayer for the Children
Words by Cathryne Parks

Say a prayer for the children,
All around the world.
Say a prayer for little hearts,
The little boys and girls.

Guard them as your treasures,
Valuable and rare.
Lead them through the storms of life,
Encircle them with care.

Guard their steps with love, love of humanity,
Members of one family.
Different societies, yet born of one,
Born of one.

Tuck them safely in at night;
Listen to their fears.
Tell them magic fairy tales,
And dry their little tears.

Share with them a love of life;
Show them how to care.
Help them see with open eyes,
Great wonders everywhere.

Say a prayer for all of them,
For the little ones out there.
A prayer.

Share or Like:
        
 

NRA Statement: “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”

December 21, 2012
82 Comments

In advance of today’s statement, The National Rifle Association stated that the organization would offer “meaningful contributions to help make sure that this never happens again.” In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy, I was hopeful that the NRA would nudge national laws toward making it hard to gain access to some semi-automatic weapons, such as the one used last week. I was hopeful that the horror of Sandy Hook Elementary might trigger a change in the NRA’s policy toward gun control.

Unfortunately, the olive branch of compromise was not what the NRA had in mind. The NRA broke their week-long silence with a statement read by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre that calls for guns at every school in America. While the President is calling on Congress to act on gun control legislation, LaPierre believes that the only effective way to protect our schoolchildren is with “properly trained armed good guys”.

Echoing the sentiments of some Community Matters commentators, LaPierre said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” adding, “Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?” Others have argued on Community Matters, that rather than banning guns, the government should be arming teachers and administrators in schools so that they can defend students in the event of another school shooting.

LaPierre’s words scoffed at the notion that banning semi-automatic weapons or enacting gun control laws could stop school violence. Instead, he cast blame for gun violence in schools on the violence of video games and movies.

The NRA statement did nothing to address the problem of the availability of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Although the weapons used by the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary were legal, one-third or more of gun sales remain unregulated in the secondary market, which includes not only the gun show loophole but also private sales between individuals. NRA … why not address establishing a system of comprehensive background checks for gun purchasers?

The spirits of the twenty children killed last week will haunt us all this holiday season. It is unbelievable that the NRA’s response to the Sandy Hill tragedy is to arm more Americans. According to the NRA, the most effective way to protect against another horror like last week’s school shooting is … more guns.

The NRA’s failure to consider any meaningful gun regulations is offensive and is no way to honor the memories of the twenty-eight lives lost last week.

————————————————————————————-

A couple of related gun and school safety items:

Alan Thomas, Main Line Media News, spoke with Tredyffrin’s Police Superintendent Tony Giaimo on the procedure for turning in a gun to the police department, read ‘Turning in a gun, how it’s done” for details. According to Giaimo, to date for 2012, there have been 6 guns turned in, none of which were assault weapons.

In response to the Sandy Hook tragedy, the T/E School District has scheduled a ‘Community Meeting on School Safety’ for Wednesday, January 9, 2013, 7 PM at the Valley Forge Middle School auditorium. The meeting will feature a panel of experienced safety experts including representatives from the Tredyffrin and Easttown police departments, District building architects and representatives from the District Safety Committee.

Share or Like:
        
 

3.1% Tax Increase in Tredyffrin Township; Cuts to Police Department

December 18, 2012
7 Comments

As a taxpayer and an audience member at last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, I expected to have a copy of the final 2013 budget prior to the vote. According to BOS Chair Michelle Kichline and Township Manager Bill Martin, they were working on the final budget until the last minutes and ran out of time to have copies available.

The proposed budget for 2013 had indicated a 5.5% tax increase – the final version brought the tax increase down to 3.1%. Without a copy of the revised budget, it was difficult to know where the changes had occurred. The Finance Director Tim Klarich explained that differences from the proposed to final budget was due to a variety of adjustments. Martin ran through the changes quickly, making it hard to follow without a copy of the budget. One adjustment in the 2013 budget has the elimination of one full-time library position. It was offered that the changes in the final budget were minor from the proposed budget – if they were ‘minor’, then I really do not understand why copies of the changes could not have been available.

Prior to casting their vote, each supervisor offered a statement. Mike Heaberg, Phil Donohue, Michelle Kichline and Kristen Mayock voted in favor of the budget with the tax increase, explaining that it was fiscally responsible. Although the average increase to taxpayers in the 2013 budget, according to Kichline, is about $16, EJ Richter stated the increase would be $35 and would not vote for the budget with a tax increase. Paul Olson also voted against the budget, citing the tax increase. John DiBuonaventuro’s vote against the budget but his reason was specific to the decreased staffing of the police department.

Tredyffrin Township Police Department currently has 40 uniformed police officers, although there were 47 officers listed in the 2012 budget. The police operations study by ICMA ($49K consulting contract) indicated a minimum of 43 uniformed officers were required maintain the safety of the community. At the December 3 BOS meeting, Police Superintendent Tony Giaimo had requested that the Board consider reinstating ‘47’ officers in the 2013 budget. However, there are only 42 uniformed officers listed in the 2013 budget.

Again, I have to ask, what was the value of the $49K consulting study? The most important element of the report would be how many officers are required to maintain safety in the community. According to the consultants report the absolute minimum is 43 uniformed officers to maintain current safety levels – actually the 43 number assumed scheduling changes. Without the scheduling changes, the consultants recommended 45 uniformed officers.

Bottom line, why spend $49K to have consultants do a study if you are not going to use the results? How much more per taxpayer would it cost to add a few more police? If the average tax increase is $16 for 2013, I think most of us would gladly pay a few more dollars to maintain the level of safety. In light of the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy, the last area of the budget that needs to be cut is the police department. I am all for being fiscally responsible, but the police department needs to be adequately staff. To be clear, the 2013 township budget cuts police staffing from 47 uniformed police officers to 42 officers. And just think, it wasn’t that long ago that Tredyffrin Township had 50+ uniformed officers!

It should also be noted that those two additional uniformed police officers in the 2013 budget will not be hired until there is a contract settlement between the township and the police union. As of now, the arbitration continues without any indication of a settlement date!

The Board of Supervisors passed the 2013 township budget, 4-3 with a 3.1% tax increase (and a decrease in the number of uniformed police officers.)

Share or Like:
        
 

TESD Superintendent Dr. Waters Safety Response Letter

December 17, 2012
2 Comments

In response to the Sandy Hook tragedy, TESD Superintendent Dr. Dan Waters has released the following ‘Safety Response Letter’ . For those not on the District’s distribution list, I wanted to share the District’s response plan for emergencies and Dr. Water’s assuring words to the community.

 

Safety Response Letter from Dr. Waters

Dear T/E Parents and Guardians,

School violence in our country touches all of us. Friday’s tragedy in Connecticut evokes sorrow and disbelief. Our thoughts remain with the entire Newtown community as they deal with this tragedy.

Immediately upon learning about the incident at Sandy Hook, principals were contacted to ensure everyone was aware of the situation and had staff in place to respond to questions and concerns at the building level. Since Friday, the District has implemented elements of its response plan, including the following:

  • Counselors are available to students should they have needs in processing the events of this tragedy.
  • Principals have reviewed with the staff techniques to discuss Friday’s events in an age-appropriate manner.
  • School officials have talked with Tredyffrin Township’s Superintendent of Police Anthony Giaimo and Easttown Township’s Chief of Police David Obzud to increase police visibility in school parking lots in the coming days and to review existing school security plans.
  • Principals have reviewed emergency response procedures with all staff members.
  • District officials have notified the public of District actions via the TESD website.
  • District staff have posted web resources for parents regarding the support of their children.

Ongoing procedures are in place to promote safe schools including these measures:

  • All school doors are locked following the arrival of students with the exception of the main entrances, which are staffed by lobby monitors. This entrance procedure is reviewed by the District Safety Committee.
  • Any visitor entering a T/E School must have a legitimate reason for visiting and must register with the office or lobby monitor and be required to wear a visitor’s badge while in the building.
  • Staff members in all schools are instructed to alert the office in the event of unusual or suspicious circumstances.
  • The T/E School District has a collaborative relationship with local police who are readily available in the event of an emergency. The police review school emergency plans and conduct drills on a regular basis.
  • Staff and students practice emergency evacuation and lockdown procedures at regular intervals.

The District’s safety protocols are regularly reviewed by the District’s Safety Committee. The Committee is comprised of District and community members including police representation from both townships. An Emergency Response Plan has been developed by the Committee and disseminated to all staff members for implementation. The District has been advised by police authorities to refrain from making the details of the plan public for security reasons. General elements of the plan include the following:

  • Building evacuation drill procedures
  • Lockdown drill procedures
  • Bus evacuation drills
  • A plan for sequestering students in the school buildings or another safe place
  • A communications system to notify parents of the evacuation of students and to alert the whole school community when required
  • Instruction of students in emergency preparedness
  • An emergency notification system for staff to make appropriate administrative personnel aware of any emergency
  • On-going collaboration with local agencies, such as the police department, fire department and emergency management agencies to review and update existing plans
  • Instruction of staff members in the techniques for handling emergencies

The District website has a link on the home page for assisting parents on how to talk to children about tragic events. In January, the District Safety Committee will review the safety plan and make modifications, if required. In addition, the District will continue to meet with local police and emergency officials to solicit input on safety procedures and to implement recommended enhancements.

In the meantime, children need stability. Research advises that the maintenance of routine conveys to students a sense of safety and security. Tragedies such as the events in Newtown strike at the core of the entire community. As always we value our partnership with you. Together we can continue to reassure your children that plans for their safety and security are in place at school.

Sincerely,

Dan Waters

Superintendent of Schools
Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme