Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Hurricane Sandy Affected Firefighters & Families … You can help!

November 12, 2012
Comments

Watching the news of the devastation and loss in New York and New Jersey caused by Hurricane Sandy, left many in this community wondering what we could do to help.

The Radnor Fire Company (RFC) is continuing their collection efforts for firefighters and families affected by the hurricane. I received the following press release from Eamon Brazunas, RFC Administrative Director, encouraging the public’s help — deadline for donations for upcoming shipment to affected areas is this Friday, November 16, 10 PM.

WAYNE, PA – The Radnor Fire Company is continuing its partnership with the Friends of Firefighters, Inc. (FoF) as a drop-off site for donations for the Fire Department of New York and the New York volunteer fire stations that were destroyed or damaged in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. These donations will assist firefighters, their families and citizens as they recover from this disaster. Based on its organization and influx of donations, the FoF is taking on an expanded role in the wake of the disaster and is working to raise $5 million to aid in ongoing relief efforts.

The first round of donated goods and financial contributions were put to use in Breezy Point, NY and the surrounding areas affected this past weekend. In some cases the donations collected at RFC were among the first items residents received for relief.

To donate directly to the Friends of Firefighters, Inc. you can visit www.friendsoffirefighters.org and utilize the PayPal option. You can also drop checks off at RFC that will then be forwarded to FoF.

For community members who would like to donate, the following are needed:

  • Work Gloves – HIGH PRIORITY
  • Dust Mask – HIGH PRIORITY
  • Flash Lights – Battery Operated
  • ‘D’ Batteries
  • Bottled Water
  • Canned Foods
  • Cleaning Supplies
  • Toiletries
  • Trash Bags
  • Paper Towels
  • Shovels
  • Jackets

All donations to Friends of Firefighters, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, are tax deductible to the extent allowable by law.

The deadline to donate items for this shipment is Friday, November 16th at 10 p.m. The next convoy of donations will head up early Saturday, November 17th. All items are to be dropped off at the Radnor Fire Company located at 121 S. Wayne Ave., Wayne, PA 19087. The fire station is located one block off of Lancaster Ave. across the street from the Wayne Post Office.

Please contact Eamon C. Brazunas, RFC Administrative Director, by phone at 610-687-3245 ext. 10 or by email at admin@radnorfire.com if you have any questions.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin Township’s Proposed 2013 Preliminary Budget Indicates 5.5% Tax Increase

November 10, 2012
14 Comments

The proposed preliminary 2013 budget was unveiled at Wednesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting to a sparse audience – I didn’t count but there must have been fewer than a dozen residents in the attendance. As stated in an earlier post, three of the seven members of the Board of Supervisors were absent from the BOS meeting, including Chair Michelle Kichline, Vice Chair John DiBuonaventuro and Phil Donahue. Supervisor Paul Olson presided over the meeting as acting chair.

Acting Township Manager (and Finance Director) Tim Klarich presented the proposed 2013 preliminary budget, which includes a 5.5% tax increase, from 2.308 to 2.435 mills. Supervisor Mike Heaberg was the only representative from the Finance Committee in attendance at the BOS meeting and assisted Klarich with questions on the proposed preliminary budget.

According to Klarich, the 2013 expenses are slightly lower than the 2013 budget, but 7% higher than the 2012 forecast. I noted that the 2012 forecast is more than $1M lower than the budget for 2012 due to vacancies and a mild winter. The proposed 2013 budget indicates that the greatest expense increase next year, at 69%, is in salary and benefits category. The 2012 budgeted salary and benefits at $11.4 million, however due primarily to unfilled vacancies the forecasted 2012 amount is $10.7 million. Budgeted for 2013 in salary and benefits is $11.5 million which indicates the 69% increase. Currently there are 13 vacancies in the township, with the township manager vacancy to be filled shortly. As to how many of the remaining 12 vacancies are to be filled in 2013, I am not certain. In the reviewing the proposed preliminary 2013 budget, it appears that there are police vacancies that will not be filled.

An open issue that I hope will be addressed prior to finalizing the 2013 budget is the results from the police department staffing study. If you recall, this $49K consulting study was discussed at the June BOS meeting and then approved 6-1 at the July BOS meeting. The one dissenting supervisor vote was from John DiBuonaventuro; his non-support of the support of the study was that he thought that the money could be better spent on bringing the staff level in the department up to projected 47 officers (from the current 41 officers as of July 2012) or for police department equipment. Police Supt Tony Giaimo appeared to supportive but asked that the consultant expedite the study and that the final report take less than 125 days.(Presumably, so that the results would assist in the 2013 budget decisions). The consulting contract was approved in July, so it would seem that there should be results by this point.

However, based on the response given by Klarich and Supervisor Heaberg at Wednesday’s BOS meeting, it appears that the results will not be public prior to the Nov. 17 BOS meeting, when the final preliminary 2013 budget is presented. To be clear, I do not like the idea of paying more taxes (5.5% tax increase proposed) but I am more troubled that this tax increase may not include filling all police department vacancies.

Is it my imagination or lately does there appear to be an increase in crime (auto, house break-ins, and robberies) in Tredyffrin and some of which have occurred in broad daylight? So, if this is correct and that there is an increase in crime, how is it that the township can consider decreasing the size of the police department? If anything, wouldn’t an increase in crime suggest the need for an increase in the police department? I would think that the report from this $49K police department staffing study would be vital to understanding the police department needs so that the BOS can make an informed decision for the 2013 budget.

According to Klarich without a real estate tax increase, the 2013 revenue be flat compared to 2012. With the proposed 5.5% tax increase, 2013 revenue is 3% higher than 2012. Klarich explained that the four General Fund changes in 2013 are: (1) staffing and compensation; (2) Retiree medical funding; (3) Repair and maintenance funding and (4) Real estate tax increase.

According to the proposed 2013 preliminary budget, some (but not all) of the vacancies will be filled. Again, I am unclear how many vacancies will remain unfilled in 2013 and of those that remain unfilled; exactly how many are in the police department. There is a new health care plan that will save money but as Klarich explained, the new plan cannot be put into place until the police arbitration is completed. He spoke as if arbitration may be close to resolution but will be it in time for the budget approval – I do not know. There are raises in the 2013 budget – per contract and merit-based raises and bonuses for non-union staff. There was no background information provided on the formula for bonuses/merit-based raises. I would like to understand the criteria for employee bonuses.

Tredyffrin Township’s unfunded liability of retiree medical funding currently stands at $40M; $31M from uniformed retirees and employees and $9M from non-uniformed retirees and eligible employees. The non-uniformed union has agreed to changes but as Klarich again points out, the police department remains in arbitration so any possible changes that could help in the future are unknown at this time. Klarich explained that it is recommended that $2M should be budgeted annually to ‘buy down’ the $4M unfunded liability. In 2012, the budgeted amount was $250K and Klarich has budgeted $500K for 2013. At a rate of $500K per year, it will take the township 80 years to pay off this debit (and that assumes that the unfunded liability does not continue to increase.)

Here are some highlights in the repair and maintenance expense category contained in the proposed 2013 preliminary budget – – an increase of $114,500 for streets drainage. Considering only $15K was budgeted for street drainage in 2012, this is no doubt an increase that is long overdue. Building maintenance was budgeted in 2012 at $76K but has been increased by $63,320 in the proposed 2013 budget for a total of $139,320. No details offered as what is included in the $139K line item, AC/heating system for township building, repair of township building front steps?? I was disappointed to see that the proposed 2013 preliminary budget decreases maintenance in the township parks from $50K to $46,600. If anything, I think that Wilson Farm Park could use additional funding not less.

Real estate tax generates ½ of the General Fund revenue. Real estate tax is based on the assessed value of properties as set by Chester County. Tredyffrin’s tax base was only growing marginally before the recession, due to little development. Unfortunately, since 2009 the tax base has been declining, primarily based on successful assessment appeals. Therefore, it stands to reason that without a tax increase, the revenue will continue to decrease.

The proposed 5.5% tax increase for 2013 includes 3.1% increase in funding for the unfunded medical long-term obligations (doubling the $250K contribution budgeted in 2012 to $500K for 2013 – remember, the current outstanding debt obligation is $40 million!) and 2.4% increased funding for services ( $198K increase). The proposed 5.5% tax increase equates to a $448K increase in the $16.7M budget.

Following the presentation of the proposed 2013 preliminary budget, residents Carol and Raymond Clarke asked whether there would be public budget workshops, as held in previous years. There were also questions about a budget summary as former township manager Mimi Gleason prepared in prior years. If you recall, Gleason remained on as a consultant to the township after her resignation, primarily to assist Klarich and the other township department heads with the 2013 budget. The Clarke’s and other audience members were looking for background and supporting information behind the preliminary budget numbers. Supervisor and Finance Committee member Heaberg suggested that he would be available to discuss the budget with individual citizens. However, to the credit of Carol Clarke, she requested a public meeting so that all citizens with budget questions could attend.

Kudos to Carol for her follow- up with Heaberg; as a result, a public meeting to discuss the proposed 2013 preliminary budget is scheduled for Tuesday, November 13, 8:30 AM at the township building. If you have questions about the proposed 2013 preliminary budget, you are encouraged to attend.

The timeline for the 2013 township budget is for the BOS to approve the preliminary budget November 19 and to approve the final budget December 17, with a public hearing on either December 17 or January 2 to adopt the real estate tax increase. I do not recall a public hearing last year, regarding the 2012 tax increase. Someone help me here – was there a public hearing for the tax increase of 2012 and I am simply not recalling it?

In case you forgot, the preliminary budget for 2012 included a 6.9% increase which was ultimately revised downward (and approved) to a 3.5% tax increase. The township amended the 2012 preliminary budget by reducing professional fees, decreasing funding for IT, department expense reductions and deferring the equivalent of two police officers’ salaries and benefits until July 1, 2012. Holding off hiring of two police officer’s for 6 months added $127,400 to the overall budget expense reduction. Unfortunately, it looks like the 2013 budget may also going to include a decrease in the police department staff … stay tuned.

Share or Like:
        
 

Re Personal Letter on Government Website — Did Tredyffrin Supervisor DiBuonaventuro receive approval from his fellow supervisors?

November 8, 2012
16 Comments

Did John DiBuonaventuro actually have approval from fellow supervisors before using government resources and government letterhead to post his personal letter of September 5 on the government’s website? The answer to that question is not entirely clear, and the answer also depends on whom you ask.

As the resident targeted in DiBuonaventuro’s diatribe to the citizens of Tredyffrin Township, I was very interested to read the Main Line Media News article, “Majority of Supervisors may not have approved DiBuonaventuro letter posted to website”. In the article, Rich Llgenfritz explains that the newspaper filed an open records request with Tredyffrin Township asking for all information pertaining to DiBuonaventuro’s letter on the township website. However, it is interesting that MLMN only received one record; an email from DiBuonaventuro to Patricia Hoffman, executive secretary for Tredyffrin Township.

I am grateful to Llgenfritz and Main Line Media News for their continued interest in this matter. If you have followed Community Matters since DiBuonaventuro’s September 5 letter to the citizens appeared on the Tredyffrin Township website, you have read the September 7 email from former Township Manager Mimi Gleason to me. Following the email, there was a conference call on September 14 from Gleason and Police Superintendent Tony Giaimo, with no stated purpose except to continue to harass. (Click here for Community Matters post of September 18 which includes my personal statement and video of the September 17 Board of Supervisors meeting) As a result of DiBuonaventuro’s letter, Gleason’s email and telephone call, I sought legal counsel with attorney Sam Stretton.

One of several troubling unanswered questions in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s personal use of the township website, is did he act alone? Or, … was there discussion (approval) from the other members of the Board of Supervisors. In her response to my question on this matter, Gleason stated the following in her email dated September 7:

“ … In answer to your question, it is unusual to post a statement from an individual Supervisor, but given the inaccurate and derogatory statements and innuendo publicly made about John DiBuonaventuro, I decided to approve the posting of the letter on the Township website. In this case, he was the subject of baseless public speculation simply because he is a Tredyffrin Supervisor. The circumstances justified the use of the website to publicly defend him, carrying with it the implicit endorsement of the Township to the accuracy of his statements. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the Township Solicitor agreed that it was appropriate for the letter to go on the website.”

Gleason’s email states that the use of the government’s website by DiBuonaventuro carried with it the “implicit endorsement of the Township”. She further states that the Chairman [Kichline] and the Township Solicitor [Vince Donohue] agreed the letter was appropriate for the website. But did Kichline really see the actual letter? During the conference call with Gleason and Giaimo, Gleason maintained that Kichline had seen the actual letter. I argued with Gleason that she was incorrect … that Kichline had personally told me that she did not see the actual letter but that she gave her OK to DiBuonaventuro verbally for the letter on the website, as long as the solicitor Vince Donohue had read and approved it.

Subsequent to DiBuonaventuro’s letter going on the website, there has been no public statement from the other 6 supervisors on this matter, except by Kichline who said that the Board would work on a website policy. Why the silence from the other supervisors? Privately, some of the supervisors have told citizens that they never saw the letter and some have stated that they would not have approved of the letter on the government’s website. Why don’t the supervisors own these opinions in public? If I was being accused of harming the First Amendment rights of a citizen (especially one that I was elected to serve) and had not approved (or even seen) the letter in the first place, I certainly would not remain silent. Are these other supervisors afraid of doing what’s right or are they perhaps afraid of retaliation from DiBuonaventuro … or, the political party they all represent? Where’s the independent thought?

Going back to Llgenfritz’s MLMN article – the only piece of communication that was provided through the Open Records request, in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s letter on the website, is the following brief email from DiBuonaventuro to Pat Hoffman, executive secretary for the township:

“Pat, this is a confidential email. This letter has been approved by Michelle and Vince. Please put it on the township letterhead and make three copies for Kristen [Mayock], Michelle and I to review when we get in this morning. We will give you distribution directions once a final review is done. Thanks and see you around 8 or when you get in. JD. [John DiBuonaventuro]

This email clearly states that the Michelle Kichline, BOS chair approved the letter, but did she? If Kichline approved DiBuonaventuro’s letter, then that would mean that she lied to me. And I don’t believe that she lied. So which is it?

Another interesting thing to note on this email is that there was a private meeting of 3 supervisors – DiBuonaventuro, Kristen Mayock and Kichline. Why was Mayock involved but none of the other supervisors? As chair of the BOS, I understand the rationale behind Kichline attending the meeting but it is unclear if she actually attended or not. Mayock and Kichline are the two attorneys on the Board – was that the reason behind their request to attend this meeting? And it should also be noted that DiBuonaventuro states in this email, that he has approval from the solicitor Vince Donohue for the letter on the website. Everyone seems to be in agreement that Donohue saw and approved the letter – DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Gleason all state that Donohue approved the letter. Interesting that this short email is all that is contained in the files in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s letter. Just interesting.

Last Friday I posted the letter (click here to read) that my attorney Sam Stetton sent to members of the Board of Supervisors in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s personal letter on government letterhead on the government website. As follow-up to my posting Stretton’s letter, Llgenfriz had a phone interview with Vince Donohue, the township solicitor. It was alarming to me to see Donohue discuss the legal situation between myself and the township in the local newspaper. He furthered stated that he had sent a response to Stretton and that it would be up to me whether or not I made it public.

At last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, strangely there were three of the seven supervisors missing. I do not think I have ever been to a BOS meeting where two supervisors were missing, let alone three! Missing supervisors were Phil Donohue (stated reason for the absence was still recovering from surgery), Chair Michelle Kichline and Vice Chair John DiBuonaventuro — the stated reason for their absence was ‘personal’.

Supervisor Mike Heaberg read a statement in regards to the website policy which suggested that there would be a policy presented at the November 19 Board of Supervisors meeting. It was unclear whether or not the public would be permitted input into the website policy. Public input could prove important when you read the response from the township solicitor Vince Donohue to my attorney Sam Stretton below:

November 2, 2012

Samuel C. Stretton, Esquire
301 South High Street
PO Box 3231
West Chester, PA 19381
Re: Tredyffrin Township

The Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors is in receipt of your letter dated October 25, 2012.

As an initial observation, I read Supervisor DiBuonaventuro’s letter as a reaction in his official capacity as a Supervisor to Ms. Benson’s blog entries regarding, primarily, Township issues. This Board does not quash public discussion about Township matters. To the contrary, this Board’s emphasis on transparency and encouragement of public input is evident in all of the initiatives it undertakes. As to Ms. Benson specifically, I would point out that she actively continues to maintain her blog and participates during the public input portion of the agenda at virtually every Township meeting without censure or objection. Accordingly, neither the contents of the letter nor its posting on the Township website constitute an attempt to suppress, or a breach of, Ms. Benson’s First Amendment rights.

Second, it is important to note that the Board of Supervisors, as an entity, never endorsed nor rejected Supervisor DiBuonaventuro’s letter that was posted on the website. Accordingly, the Board believes that the issue involving the letter is one between Ms. Benson and Mr. DiBuonaventuro as an individual supervisor.

Nonetheless, this incident has highlighted the need for a policy governing use of the Township website and other Township-managed social media outlets as a means of communication by the Board and by each Supervisor (or group thereof). All seven members of the Board are entirely supportive of the initiative to enact such a policy, which has been under way since mid-September. It was discussed at the last meeting of the Board by chair Kichline.

The primary purposes of the policy will be threefold. First, it will document what the Supervisors already practice: that communications on the Township website, letterhead or other Township-managed social media outlets shall pertain to Township issues. Second, the policy will ensure that the reader is clear about the source of the communication – i.e., whether the source is an individual Supervisor, the Board as an entity, a subset of Supervisors, etc. Third, the policy will delegate certain communication responsibilities to certain senior Township staff, depending on the nature of the content of the communication (Township Manager, Superintendent of Police, etc.). This policy will cover not only the website, but also Township letterhead and other Township-sponsored social media outlets. The purpose of the policy is not, however, to restrict any Supervisor’s ability to communicate with Township residents on matters each deems appropriate.

Crafting the right policy is not a task to be rushed. The Board is diligently pursuing the finalization of this policy, but intends to be thoughtful in this ongoing process to ensure that the resulting policy addresses existing needs and avoids unintended consequences. The Board intends to complete this process soon and updates will be provided at each Board meeting until it is enacted.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss. Thank you,

Very Truly Yours,

Vince T. Donohue
Lamb McErlane, PC

Several things are interesting to note in Donohue’s response. He speaks of the transparency of the Board of Supervisors. Based on the issue of DiBuonaventuro’s letter alone, I’d suggest that this Board if far from transparent. Clearly, we still don’t know who saw the letter or who approved it. Donohue states that the Board never endorsed nor rejected DiBuonaventuro’s letter on the website, yet Mimi Gleason’s email to me clearly stated that the use of the township website for DiBuonaventuro’s letter, “carried with it the implicit endorsement of the Township”.

Donohue is saying one thing, Gleason is saying another, and I would suggest thirdly, that by using the government letterhead, which has all members of the Board of Supervisors listed looks like compliance to me. Obviously, if during the last 2 months, any of the other six supervisors had chosen to ‘distance’ themselves from DiBuonaventuro and the letter, that would be different … the problem is that they all “stood by their man”.

Nowhere in the letter does Donohue address the intimidation tactics used in DiBuonaventuro’s letter or Gleason’s email and phone calls towards me. Donohue however suggests that the Board believes this is a personal matter between DiBuonaventuro and me – two problems with that logic. First, DiBuonaventuro does not limit his personal attacks to just me, he also goes after the First Amendment rights of the press, specifically Main Line Media News. Second, if Donohue and the other supervisors view this as some kind of personal matter that DiBuonaventuro has with me and Community Matters, what business does a personal matter have on government letterhead and government website. How can Donohue claim the contents of DiBuonaventuro’s letter is Township business when the tirade includes my 2009 supervisor race?

Now look at what Donohue claims the township website policy will include –

  1. Document the communications on the Township website, letterhead, social media outlets that pertain to Township issues.
  2. Ensure that the reader is clear about the source of the communication – whether an individual supervisor, the entire board or some subset
  3. Delegate certain communication to Township Manager, Police Superintendent, etc.

Then you have this sentence in Donohue’s letter, “ … The purpose of the policy is not, however, to restrict any Supervisor’s ability to communicate with Township residents on matters each deems appropriate.” The way I read it, is DiBuonaventuro (or any other supervisor) gets carte blanche to continue to use government website as their personal ‘bully pulpit’ whenever the mood strikes. Looks like to me, that if you are a supervisor all you need do is label your communication to the public ‘Township business’ and the website is yours to use. I guess the policy needs to protect the rights of DiBuonaventuro to use government resources whenever he feels threatened by the local news media or Community Matters. As a citizen of Tredyffrin Township, I certainly will not find this website acceptable if approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin’s Solicitor Vince Donohue claims that government does not seek to suppress public comment … Really?

November 4, 2012
42 Comments

The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act requires all public agencies to take all official actions and conduct all deliberations leading up to official actions at public meetings. According to 65 Pa.C.S.A. § 708(a); Sunshine Act, Section 8(a), there are certain discussions that can take place in an executive session where the public is excluded. At the onset of every Board of Supervisors meeting, Michelle Kichline, in her capacity as chair, makes a statement that the Board met prior to the meeting in executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. Under the provisions of the PA Sunshine Act, those township matters pertaining to personnel or legal matters are not discussed publicly In fact, if during the ‘New Matters – Citizens’ section of the Board of Supervisors meeting, a resident asks a question that falls into the legal or personnel category, either a Board member of the township solicitor quickly points out that they cannot respond to the question. Over years of attending supervisors meeting, I can attest that the solicitor does not permit the supervisors to respond to citizen questions that fall into personnel or legal areas.

Understanding the provisions of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, it was surprising to read that Tredyffrin Township’s solicitor Vince Donohue had a public response on a legal matter in Main Line Media News article, ”Community Matters blogger Pattye Benson calls for Tredyffrin Township to adopt policy regarding the use of its website” written by Richard Llgenfritz.

If you recall Llgenfritz wrote the story, “Tredyffrin zoning hearing board member not guilty after police are a no-show at her trial” in late August. His article, in addition to TE Patch, Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily Local articles, blog posts on Chester County Ramblings and telephone and email inquiries from residents, were the reasons that I conducted my mini-research investigation.

As part of my research on the police matter, I spoke with Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors chair Michelle Kichline, Chester County District Attorney Tom Hogan, Tredyffrin Police Superintendent Tony Giaimo and District Judge Tom Tartaglio. For the results of my research and corresponding comments in post, “Community Matters closes the chapter on police investigation but Tredyffrin supervisor opens a new one”, click here.

Because of the newspaper articles, blog posts and related public comments on the police situation, Tredyffrin Township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro decided to write and post a personal letter dated September 5, 2012 on the township website, using township resources and township letterhead. Although the use of government resources by an elected official is surprising, it was the fact that the other six supervisors, the township manager and the township solicitor sanctioned the behavior of DiBuonaventuro that underscored the importance for a township website policy.

This past Friday, I posted the letter from my attorney Samuel Stretton on Community Matters. Stretton’s letter was sent to the seven members of Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors. I learned in Llgenfritz MLMN article, that Stretton’s letter was forwarded to the township solicitor Vince Donohue. No surprise as this was a legal matter and as the township solicitor, he clearly needed to be involved. However, because this is a ‘legal matter’ (remember the PA Sunshine Act and that legal and personnel matters in the township are not publicly discussed but held for executive session discussion), I was amazed that Donohue discusses Stretton’s letter with Llgenfritz. Gosh, I would think that Donohue should not be talking about sending a response to Stretton – isn’t this a legal matter? And then to further throw out there that it would be up to me whether I make the letter public or not? To my knowledge, Stretton has not received a letter and I certainly have not seen any letter from Donohue. (I will assume that Donohue’s response is ‘in the mail’). So, I am struggling to understand this – the supervisors are not permitted to discuss legal matters in public but it is OK for the township solicitor to discuss legal matters? Shouldn’t the more appropriate response from Donohue to Llgenfritz have been, “… this is a legal matter, and I am not at liberty to discuss”.

However, Donohue does not stop there in his comments to the newspaper, he goes on to address some of the issues that others and I have raised – i.e. First Amendment rights. According to Donohue,

“This township has no interest what so ever in suppressing anybody’s first amendment rights and in fact does not. All you need to do is take a look at our five six-hour public meetings that we’ve had in the last few years. All you need to do is look at the Trout Creek overlay ordinance process where we involved no fewer than 30 members of the public on working groups and commissions held six or seven public hearings even for those members of the community that didn’t like the outcome I think it’s hard to argue with the openness and the fact that the township encourages and invites public input. I think this township’s actions belie any claim that it seeks to suppress public comment positive or otherwise about township matters.”

All I can say is, wow. Donohue approved DiBuonaventuro’s letter going on the township letterhead on the township website. I suggest that he needs to go back and read it and then come up with a more convincing argument as to how his letter is not an attempt to silence those who dare to disagree. DiBuonaventuro writes in his September 5 letter, “What is more important for community to realize from this example is the disturbing trend that has developed with most of the internet elements of legitimate newspapers and the tabloid formatted blogs like “Community Matters”. Public discussion of important community matters is a ‘disturbing trend’ — whether public discussion is over the backyard fence, in the aisle of the Paoli Acme or on the Internet, it is our First Amendment right; open debate and commentary exists under the US Constitution.

In fact, before I contacted Sam Stretton, I sent DiBuonaventuro’s letter to several attorneys and journalists; individuals who do not live in the area and would not know any of the people involved. Not one person responded that they thought the actions of our government in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s letter were OK. In addition, I should add that many people used adjectives like ‘chilling’ in describing DiBuonaventuro’s attempt to suppress public discussion.

It is interesting that Donohue would point to the many meetings held over the Trout Creek ordinance (for the record, there were 7 public hearings), as somehow public comment at supervisors meetings was the same thing as DiBuonaventuro’s use of public resources, public letterhead and public website. Certainly, there were many meetings over Trout Creek, but I wonder how many of the Glenhardie residents feel that their voices were actually heard during the process? Donohue makes no mention of Trisha Larkin and her neighbors in the Daylesford neighborhood. Like the Glenhardie residents, how many of the Daylesford folks think that their voices made a difference to the outcome. The Daylesford neighbors, in addition to many residents throughout the township, were overwhelmingly opposed to the C-1 zoning change. However, as we all saw, their voices did not matter. Yet Donohue claims that the township “encourages and invites public input” … maybe that’s true if you happen to be developer Ed Morris or his attorney Denise Yarnoff, who now have the green light to build an assisted living facility on 1 acre on Lancaster Ave.

As a resident of Tredyffrin Township, this is all so very disheartening, including Donohue’s response to Main Line Media News. I am amazed that it is OK for the township solicitor to discuss a legal matter of a private citizen with the newspaper — to talk about a township response that he has sent to my attorney, Sam Stretton, that I have not even seen. Wow.

It’s like some of the rules in Tredyffrin Township only exist when they benefit our elected officials, not the citizens.

Share or Like:
        
 

Defending First Amendment Rights in Tredyffrin Township

November 2, 2012
23 Comments

It has been 8+ weeks, since Tredyffrin Township Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro wrote and posted his September 5, 2012 letter to the citizens on the township website. (click here to read the letter). Over the last 2 months, I continue to receive phone calls, emails and have had many discussions with residents that are troubled and concerned about DiBuonaventuro’s letter and use of government letterhead, government website and government resources for his personal attack of traditional news sources as well a private citizen, who dare to question our government. Subsequent to September 5th, we have learned that DiBuonaventuro’s personal letter and use of government resources, was apparently sanctioned and approved by former township manager Mimi Gleason, township solicitor Vince Donahue and the other six members of the Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors.

At the September 17, 2012 Board of Supervisors meeting, I read a personal statement (click here for Community Matters post and links to BOS meeting and statement) which addressed DiBuonaventuro’s letter and subsequent email and joint phone call from the township manager and police chief on this topic.

When the framers of our Constitution insisted on Freedom of Speech rights, one of their aims was so that all Americans – no matter their social class or position in our society – could vigorously examine and criticize our government. These rights have throughout our history nurtured our democracy and made us a beacon to the whole world. However, as history has played out, the battle for these rights has proven at times to be hard-won rights that we have to continually fight for and renew. First Amendment rights are a cornerstone to this nation’s government and citizens have a right to discuss issues that are of importance. The freedom is speech is in place for all of us – including the citizens of Tredyffrin Township. Further, freedom of speech includes ‘me’ as a citizen and Community Matters.

In 1996, Pennsylvania federal judge Stewart Dalzell, wrote his opinion in the ACLU v. Reno, the Internet – Freedom of Speech case, “As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion. It also deserves a great deal of attention from civil liberties activists who are concerned about free speech, privacy, and universal access – because the larger the scale of a new medium, the greater the temptation to restrict it.” As background, Dalzell, a 1969 graduate of Penn Law School, was recommended by Pennsylvania Senators Heinz and Spector and nominated by President George Bush to fill a judicial vacancy on the federal bench in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 1990. He was confirmed by the Senate in 1991.

The last couple of months since DiBuonaventuro’s September 5 letter appeared on the township website have given me time to reflect. Because all township supervisors, the former township manager and township solicitor supported DiBuonaventuro’s letter and use of the government letterhead and resources, I knew that I needed to take a stand for First Amendment rights in Tredyffrin Township. If an elected official is permitted to use the public website whenever they disagree with a news story, what’s next for the citizens of Tredyffrin Township? Where will it stop? What recourse do citizens have — we are not permitted the use of the township website to defend ourselves. The end result … a chilling effect intended to silence all those who disagree.

To be clear, DiBuonaventuro is entitled to his own freedom of speech; he has every right to explain himself, defend, etc. He could write a letter to the editor, make a comment on Community Matters, etc. etc. — I simply do not think it is OK to use Government resources for a personal matter by an elected official.

As a result of the September 5, 2012 letter written by township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro, using the government letterhead, government website and government resources, I sought legal counsel and have retained the services of attorney Samuel Stretton. The following letter from Stretton dated October 25, 2012 was mailed to each member of Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors. To date, there has been no response.

October 25, 2012

Michelle H. Kichline, Chair
Board of Supervisors, Tredyffrin Township
1100 Duportail Road
Berwyn, PA 19312-1079

John P. DiBuonaventuro, Vice Chair
Board of Supervisors, Tredyffrin Township
1100 Duportail Road
Berwyn, PA 19312-1079

Philip Donahue
Board of Supervisors, Tredyffrin Township
1100 Duportail Road
Berwyn, PA 19312-1079

Michael C. Heaberg
Board of Supervisors, Tredyffrin Township
1100 Duportail Road
Berwyn, PA 19312-1079

Kristen K. Mayock
Board of Supervisors, Tredyffrin Township
1100 Duportail Road
Berwyn, PA 19312-1079

Paul W. Olson
Board of Supervisors, Tredyffrin Township
1100 Duportail Road
Berwyn, PA 19312-1079

Evelyn Richter
Board of Supervisors, Tredyffrin Township
1100 Duportail Road
Berwyn, PA 19312-1079

Dear Supervisors:

Please be advised I have been retained by Pattye Benson, in reference to a letter of September 5, 2012 written by Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro. This letter was posted on the Tredyffrin Township website. This letter was done on the letterhead of the Board of Supervisors. Attached and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the September 5th letter.

This letter of Mr. DiBuonaventuro, in effect, used Government funds, Government letterhead, and a Government website to respond to a private blog on his personal issues. I believe it is entirely inappropriate to allow a Government official to use Government resources to respond to matters involving his personal conduct. I understand there was and is no policy as to the use of the government website and the expenditure of government funds.

I am asking that this Board immediately adopt a policy so this sort of misconduct and abuse of the First Amendment will not occur again. I am also asking that an apology be placed on the website. Further, I am asking that the letter be rejected by the Board as inappropriate to be placed on the township website.

Further, the letter is inaccurate. The blog “Community Matters” is written by Ms. Benson to raise important community issues. The blog at issue concerned the conduct of the Tredyffrin Township Police Department in not appearing at the two criminal hearings for a member of the Zoning Board. There were two different cases, and both were set for the same day. Coincidentally, neither officer appeared on that day, resulting in the cases being discharged. The failure to appear by two officers was surprising since the Tredyffrin police officers are known to always appear at criminal hearings. Clearly, the failure to appear raised some questions.

The blog “Community Matters” also raised the question about one of the supervisors and his relationship with the Zoning Board member. These are valid issues of public discussion and concern.

The letter, which is dated September 5, 2012, from Supervisor DiBuonaventuro, is essentially a personal attack on Ms. Benson, supposedly defending himself. This type of personal letter has no place on the Board of Supervisors letterhead and no place on the township website.

What is particularly disturbing is the last paragraph on the first page where Mr. DiBuonaventuro, using Government resources, Government letterhead, and the Government website, criticizes legitimate discussions of public business. He calls this a “disturbing trend”. He utilized the Government website to bully “Community Matters” and others.

This conduct, using Government resources to respond to those who speak out or discuss Government issues is unacceptable and should be disavowed by the Government immediately. If Mr. DiBuonaventuro is not able to accept public criticism, he ought to resign as Supervisor. Those who choose to hold public office have my respect. But as part of serving, one has to understand there will be differences of opinion, which should be welcomed as part of the public discussions. To utilize the platform of the Government website and Government letterhead to try to bully bloggers is totally unacceptable and foreign to the First Amendment.

This improper website use and letter has to be put in the context that my client then received a phone call from the Township Manager with the Police Chief on the same line. Clearly, such a tactic has the effect of chilling legitimate speech.

Further, when Ms. Benson spoke to the Township Manager about the letter, the response was an email dated September 7th to Ms. Benson criticizing her and supporting the use of public resources of the Supervisor without approval to criticize public comments.

It is a sad day if the Government resources can be used by Supervisors to defend their own personal issues. But it is a sadder day when the Government resources and the authority of the Government is used to try to chill First Amendment discussions.

I am requesting an apology to Ms. Benson and I ask that a policy be put in place to prevent Government resources to be used for individuals to express their personal dislike or disagreement of articles. It is unacceptable that an individual can use the power of Government to try to bully and prevent legitimate discussions of questionable conduct by Government officials. I will await your advice. I hope to have a response in the next 7 days.

Very truly yours,

Samuel C. Stretton

Share or Like:
        
 

It’s official, Shire will leave Tredyffrin for neighboring East Whiteland Township

October 24, 2012
51 Comments

So close, yet so far away. We have known for some time that Shire was planning to move its headquarters from its current Chesterbrook location but we now know where. According to a press release on Main Line Media News, Shire has signed the paperwork for the construction of a 600,000 square ft. office complex on Trammel Crow property at Atwater Business Park.

Shire has grown significantly since coming to Chesterbrook in 2004 and as a result, the employees are spread among four buildings. The company has expanded from 100 to 1,500 employees and apparently, there was not an option in Tredyffrin to create an adequate business complex. The opening of the new Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange is a bonus to companies that relocate to Atwater Business Park that is at the intersection of Rt. 29 and Yellow Springs Road in Malvern, East Whiteland Township. The move is expected to occur by the end of 2015.

Because the relocation is literally next-door to Tredyffrin Township, the good news is that the employees that live in are unlikely to move. Initially there was discussion that Shire was considering relocation possibilities in Delaware or New Jersey in addition to Pennsylvania but in the end, the decision was made to stay in Chester County. The official statement included the following rationale Shire’s decision of the Atwater Business Park — “geographic accessibility by current and future staff, a flexible footprint that will allow us to meet future growth and changing business requirements, and a single, contiguous layout that facilitates interaction and collaboration by our staff.”

Now that Shire’s decision on ‘where’ they will move is official, the township is not only faced with the upcoming vacancy of four large corporate buildings in Chesterbrook but much more. I would be remiss not to mention the enormous community contribution and support from Shire since relocating to Tredyffrin Township eight years ago – summer concert series, annual fireworks, Shire Pavilion in Wilson Farm Park, Tredyffrin 300 sponsorship, and the list goes on and on. Shire has been there for the Tredyffrin Township community whenever needed – their departure from the township is a real loss.

Earlier this month, Philadelphia Business Journal reported that on a number of vacancies in Chesterbrook, which are addition to Shire’s current lease of 425,000 sq. ft. AstraZeneca terminated its lease on 25,000 sq. ft., Liberty Mutual Insurance ended its 25,000 sq. ft. lease early, GFK Healthcare relocated out of 50,000 sq. ft., Navteq pulled out of 40,000 sq. ft and Centocor moved from their 120,000 sq. ft. location. These companies are either already out of Chesterbrook office park or are in the process of leaving.

Tredyffrin Township needs a an economic development plan for revitalization … where’s the Tredyffrin Township Business Development Council on the corporate mass exodus from Chesterbrook? Remember their June 18, 2012 report, click here.

———————————————–

Update — Since posting this article, a friend pointed out that East Whiteland Township has an Earned Income Tax. So … all those Shire employees who will continue to live in Tredyffrin Township and work in East Whiteland will pay an EIT. But because Tredyffrin Township does not have an EIT, no portion of that money will return to Tredyffrin Township but will remain in East Whiteland.

From the East Whiteland Township website:

A .5% Earned Income/Net Profits Tax became effective April 3, 1996 by passage of Township Ordinance Number 110-96. The tax requires that all persons living or working in the Township pay .5% on all individual gross earnings and net profits from businesses.

So much for the theory that companies will choose Tredyffrin Township because we have not implemented an Earned Income Tax. Here’s a major international pharmaceutical company moving its headquarters from a location without an EIT to a new location with an EIT.

  • Will it ever be the ‘right time’ to honestly and openly discuss an EIT?
  • How many millions of dollars are leaving the school district and the township annually and being paid to other townships?
  • Or is the answer to TESD and Tredyffrin Township that we just keep cutting programming, personnel, etc. etc?
Share or Like:
        
 

T/E School District and Teachers Sign New 2-Year Contract

October 16, 2012
38 Comments

After 9 long months, the T/E School Board approved a new 2-year (2012-13 and 2013-14) contract between TESD and T/E Education Association last night. To read the contract summary of the teacher’s contract, click here. If you prefer to read the entire contract, click here.

Ray Clarke attended the Special Meeting of the School Board and the Finance Committee meeting which directly followed. In his review of the teacher’s 2-year contract, I thank Ray for offering the following highlights and his personal commentary on the contract. As expected the teacher’s healthcare benefits and salaries are the primary focus of the changes in the new contract.

  • The basic details are more or less exactly the same as the first 2 years of the District’s 3 year proposal (as Keith Knauss predicted here). Salary freeze, no matrix movement, furlough days equivalent to 1% salary reduction in 2013/14, slightly higher contribution to healthcare premiums and prescription drugs, two new (lower cost?) health plans, capped tuition reimbursement, and one time $2,500 per employee bonus (a “legitimate” fund balance use?) in 2013/14.
  • Net saving vs status quo/budget of $400,000 for the current year (2012/13); 2013/14 cost increases from that by $400,000 plus the $1.1 million one time bonus (but presumably a cost saving vs the status quo model).
  • The rest of the contract structure basically unchanged
  • No demotions in either year of the contract, but specifically on the table for the next contract
  • No resolution of the 6 period CHS grievance (a ruling in favor of the TEEA would require the hiring of 12 additional FTE – say $1.5 million ongoing cost (salary, benefits, PSERS) plus one time payment of I think I recall $3 million?)
  • The President of the TEEA is allowed to speak at TESD Board meetings
  • Family health benefits available to same-sex domestic partners

My general sense is that both sides went about as far as they could go this round. This contract is only for two years, at which point we’ll see how the economy and political landscapes have progressed, and the Board members Rich Brake, Kevin Buraks, Anne Crowley and Betsy Fadem will have had to choose their election platforms, if running in 2013.

Interesting that the standard bonus helps those at the lower end of the scale more than proportionately (my concern, if teaching is to remain attractive for the next generation in an environment of benefits slashed in favor of the currently tenured), and that lead negotiator Deb Ciamacca keeps her higher-end CHS constituency happy by keeping the grievance on the table.

Following the Special Meeting of the School Board, the regular Finance Committee meeting followed. Ray offers the following notes from that meeting:

The Finance Committee reported on the Act 1 index for 2013/14 – 1.7%. Slightly higher than expected – someone in the state bureaucracy (or government?) made a decision to change the calculation method (to include a longer period for averaging state weekly wage increases) that raises the index by 0.2%. Shenanigans?

The Finance Committee spent some time discussing how to establish that parcels currently listed as tax-exempt conform with recent PA Supreme Court rulings that narrow the availability of tax exempt status. More details remain to be gathered on exactly what these rulings are and what entities might be affected. I was pleased to see that while Committee chair Fadem was advocating a 13 part, multi-point data request be sent to all tax exempt property owners (mainly the townships, federal government, schools, churches, right-of-way owners and land trusts), Board members Brake and Motel were at pains to avoid an “undue burden” on both volunteer charities and the district.

Share or Like:
        
 

A Township Resident is Tredyffrin’s New Township Manager

October 15, 2012
4 Comments

Although there were only 9 residents at tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting there is significant news to report. Chair Michelle Kichline reported that the township has hired Bill Martin as Tredyffrin’s new township manager, effective November 19.

Martin comes to Tredyffrin Township from Bridgeport where he has served as their Borough Manager since September 2011. Martin started his career in Nassau County (New York) as a Legislative Assistant. In 2001, he focused his career in local government with Radnor Township, serving as Assistant Finance Director. For the ten years he was in Radnor, Martin served in many different capacities from Acting Finance Director, Right to Know Officer, Assistant Emergency Management Coordinator, Director of Administrative Services, Interim Director of Community Development, and Assistant Township Manager to Acting Township Manger. He left Radnor Township to become Bridgeport Borough Manager last year. Martin received a BA and MBA from Villanova University and here’s the best part … he is a Tredyffrin Township resident! Martin could be the first township manager to live in the township, which I for one think should always be a requirement!

In other news, Kichline reported that she had delegated the task of drafting a website policy to Phil Donahue. She explained that Donohue is seriously ill in the hospital, having had surgery today. I don’t have any further details but I know that you join me in wishing him a speedy and full recovery. Because of the illness, Kichline explained that she will draft the website policy and expects to make it public next month. Having been on the receiving end of what I believe was the misuse of the township website (and taxpayer dollars) by supervisor John DiBuonaventuro, I am hopeful that the new policy will stop anything similar in the future.

Six months ago, at the April Board of Supervisors meeting, I asked for an update on the status of the sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club. At that point, it appeared that the sidewalks were finally going in with the necessary advance tree removal completed. Tonight Steve Burgo explained to me that due to the delay in the project, St. Davids had to update their permit with PennDOT before sending it out to bid. Unfortunately, this was exactly the same response that I received last April. I asked for follow-up and an update at the November supervisors meeting.

I inquired about Mimi Gleason’s consulting contract with the township and if there was an expected end date. According to Mike Heaberg, to date Gleason has worked approximately 50 hours under the new consulting contract, which he pointed out was less than what she would have been paid as township manager. It is expected that Gleason will work through the transition of Bill Martin starting as township manager next month. It appears that Gleason will be only working with the township a few days beyond Martin’s start date. I also asked about Gleason’s healthcare benefits – according to Tim Klarich, her township healthcare benefits ended September 30th.

That’s the highlights from the Board of Supervisors meeting. Tonight the School Board directors voted on the teacher’s contract so I look forward to hearing those details.

Share or Like:
        
 

A Job May Not be a Life but … Maybe Consulting at $125/hr Is!

October 14, 2012
20 Comments

After tendering her resignation as township manager back on July 17, in a Community Matters post, “… I asked Mimi Gleason why she was resigning – was it another job? No, she is not leaving Tredyffrin for another job. In fact, her explanation for the resignation was actually quite simple … ‘A job is not a life’. She went on to explain that she is uncertain about what she wants to do, but knows that she wants to do something different and to work less. Her plans after September 17 include taking a few months off from work, visiting friends around the country during the fall and her annual trip to Hawaii in January.”

Curious if there was any way that she would extend her employment past the September 17 deadline, I asked her that question. Her response, was an emphatic “no”, her mind was made up. Well, as we learned at the September 17 Board of Supervisors meeting, her mind was not made up. With a unanimous vote, the Board of Supervisors approved a consulting contract for Gleason, effective immediately. There was no disclosure from the supervisors as to the specifics of the contract, i.e. salary, hours, etc. though BOS chair Michelle Kichline did say that Gleason would be helping the township until sometime after a new township manager was appointed and that the former township manager would not have direct contact with the public. On a personal note, as probably one of Gleason’s final contacts with a private citizen, both in email and via her phone call to me of September 14, I completely support that aspect of the contract!

By the September 17 Board of Supervisors meeting, 2 months had passed since Gleason’s letter of resignation, but no replacement township manager had been appointed. If you recall with Tom Scott’s departure as assistant township manager, that position was eliminated. In the interim, township Finance Director Tim Klarich was appointed at the September 17 BOS meeting to serve as acting township manager until a replacement township manager was appointed.

Without details of Gleason’s contract by the Board of Supervisors, several residents asked me about the contract, her consulting fee, the timeline, etc. On September 23, I sent the township a ‘right-to-know request’, asking for the contract and any related correspondence. After a legal review of my request, I received Gleason’s proposal dated August 28 and the signed consulting contract dated September 17 this past Friday. (If you click on the contract, do not be put-off by the 29 pages, the attorney Robert McClintock, Lamb McErlane, included several copies of the contract in the pdf. I am unclear as to why multiple unsigned copies; perhaps they contain small changes, but regardless, go to the end of the document to find the signed and dated version.)

For those experienced in reading contracts, I encourage additional commentary. Below, I offer highlights of Gleason’s proposal and contract:

  • Assist staff in development of 2013 budget & 5-year plan
  • Analyze budget alternatives
  • Available to meet with supervisors, finance committee
  • Assist with BOS meeting preparation
  • Assist with collective bargaining agreements if needed
  • Hourly rate $125, billed monthly to township
  • Work 10-15 hours per week, with notice may work more
  • Will assist new township manager with transition

Working as an independent contractor, Gleason’s consulting contract commenced September 23, no end date assigned. According to the terms of the contract, the township has the right to terminate the agreement with 10 days written notice. Going forward, the agreement may be amended with mutual agreement of Gleason and the township.

Going back to Gleason’s comment to me of July 17 that, “a job is not a life”. Although a job may not be a life, apparently consulting may be the ticket to life. A couple of people, who attended her retirement party last month, reported that Gleason’s consulting plans go beyond helping Tredyffrin Township. According to these sources, Gleason intends to take her land development expertise and offer those skills to other municipalities as a consultant.

I always thought that Gleason’s continued involvement and intense personal interest in the outcome of the recent C-1 zoning change to permit assisted living at Daylesford, past her notice to resign somewhat strange. It is interesting to note that her last day of township employment had Gleason at the September 17 Board of Supervisors meeting and witness to the 7-1 supervisors vote to approve the C-1 zoning change. Now, I get the connection. Though many township residents opposed the C-1 zoning change, Gleason can now point to this success when negotiating her consulting services with other townships. I guess the same applies for the Trout Creek Stormwater Overlay district ordinance change and her involvement in that zoning change.

Having served 10 years in Tredyffrin Township government, Gleason is fully vested and receives a pension. In addition to the pension, it is my understanding that she will receive healthcare benefits for life. Pension, healthcare coverage and consulting jobs, looks like Gleason had bigger plans than our July 18 conversation following her resignation would have suggested. According to Gleason, ‘a job may not be a life’ but apparently consulting is.

Share or Like:
        
 

Biggest Party of the Year: Paoli Blues Fest 2012 this Saturday!

October 4, 2012
Comments

I know where I will be this Saturday, do you?

Billboard on Rt. 202 — Have you seen it?

Serving as co-chair with Marie Thibault for the Paoli Blues Fest, the largest annual blues fest in the Philadelphia region, I am looking forward to our fourth annual blues festival and street fair on Saturday. Last year an estimated 15,000 people attended and by all accounts, we expect at least that many visitors will enjoy this year’s community event.

We’ve got great musicians playing the blues, 100+ street vendors, beer & wine garden (plus margaritas & daiquiris this year), a special kid zone with lots of fun activities for the little ones, and more fun than Paoli has ever seen. The price of admission … we just ask for a non-perishable donation for the Chester County Food Bank. There will be well-marked containers set-up throughout the blues fest area for your non-perishable donation. Help those less fortunate with your donation in exchange for a day of fun at the Paoli Blues Fest! Help the Blues Fest help others … bring a donation with you!

This remarkable day of great music, food and laughter takes the effort of many people — from the generous sponsors that support us year after year, the organizations that believe in the Paoli Blues Fest and awards us grants, the many volunteers who will help on Saturday and the hardworking efforts of the festival committee, who work year round on the event and are committed to making each year bigger and better than the year before! The Paoli Blues Fest would not be possible without the help and cooperation of many people … for the spirit of community, we thank you all!

Although the Blues Fest hours are noon – 6 PM, the music will kick-off at 11:15 AM with a performance by students from Berwyn’s Music Workshop. The young musicians will warm-up the audience and help with the sound-check for festival. The schedule of bands for the day

Noon: Midnight Shift

Noon - Midnight Shift

Midnight Shift is a high energy band that specializes in what they call Rhythm, Rockin’ Boogie. It’s an infectious blend of blues, jump and rockabilly music. Midnight Shift is a smoking hot revved up band that plans to be around for years to come.

To hear a preview of Midnight Shift: http://www.myspace.com/mnightshift

1 PM: Randy Lippincott Band

1:00 PM - Randy Lippincott Band

The Randy Lippincott Band is a fine tuned five piece unit with many years of experience performing Blues, Boogie, Soul and New Orleans party tunes.The band takes the stage at 1 PM, heating things up with a powerful rhythm section and an exciting harmonica overlay by Joey ‘Hotbox’ Simon.

For a preview of their music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlmAx1Q_-bY

2 PM: Porkroll Project

2:00 PM - Porkroll ProjectThe Porkroll Project brings their brand of high energy, contemporary blues to the Paoli Blues Fest This seasoned group of artists has shared the stage with artists such as Bo Diddley, Los Lobos and Bobby Radcliffe, just to name a few, and played at events such as the Philadelphia Jam on the River and Philadelphia Folk Festival. Video of live performance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL17FC7CE6352C1769&feature=player_embedded&v=SE5sYHEJAfc

3 PM: Georgie Bonds

3:00 PM - Georgie Bonds

 

Blues powerhouse Georgie Bonds is a singer and frontman from Philadelphia’s Germantown. His powerful and soulful voice, combined the upbeat attitude of his songs, are, as he calls it, “Blues for your soul, soul for your Blues”.

Preview of Georgie Bonds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZp-d0ucaUg&feature=related

 

4 PM: Brooke Shive & The 45’s

4:00 PM - Brooke Shive & The 45’sBrooke Shive & The 45’s band is a father daughter act composed of Brooke Shive, the fiery vocalist, and her father, the band’s drummer, Steve Shive. Brooke’s gritty vocals and on-stage presence command attention. Come see Brooke Shive and the 45’s live!

To hear a preview of Brooke Shive & the 45’s: http://www.myspace.com/brookeshive

5 PM: Steve Guyger & the Excellos

5:00 PM - Steve Guyger & The ExcellosClosing out the 2012 Blues Fest is Steve Guyger & the Excellos. Steve Guyger is both a soulful vocalist and a legendary harmonica player. With the backing of his band, The Excellos, the group packs a powerful and energetic on stage presence that is sure to have you on your feet and dancing.

For a preview of Steve Guyger & the Excellos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyFf0CvUQ08

 

Hope to see many familiar faces on Saturday for the biggest party that Paoli has ever seen … Paoli Blues Fest 2012!

 

Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme