Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Police Department Provides Press Release re Clerical Error of Police Officers

September 5, 2012
9 Comments

Michelle Kichline, chair of the Board of Supervisors provided the following press release from the Police Department in regards to the Suzy Pratowski matter and the absence of police officers at the hearing. I believe that this was the press release that was sent to the Philadelphia Inquirer. This press release indicates that an internal investigation was conducted and the report was then reviewed by the BOS chair and by the District Attorney’s office.

Tredyffrin Township Police Department

Press Release

With reference to the case involving Suzanne Pratowski, a hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, August 21, 2012 regarding the summary charges of criminal mischief and public drunkenness. Due to a clerical error on the part of the officers (affiants) from a rescheduling of the original hearing date of Tuesday, July 24, 2012, the officers were unaware of the scheduled summary hearing.

A complete and thorough internal investigation was immediately conducted by and reviewed by the investigative division (internal affairs) of the police department. The Chairman of the Board of Tredyffrin Township Supervisors and the Chester County District Attorney’s Office has reviewed the police department’s findings. The findings showed that this was a clerical mistake on the part of the police officers and no outside influence of any type were evident in the process. Internal corrective actions were taken as a result of this investigation.

Share or Like:
        
 

UPDATE: DA Tom Hogan Weighs In … Is it a Get Out of Jail Free Card for Tredyffrin Official? You be the Judge!

September 3, 2012
75 Comments

9-3-12 UPDATE: District Attorney Tom Hogan Weighs In (See end of post)

There was a troubling news article in last week’s Main Line Media News about one of Tredyffrin Township’s Zoning Hearing Board members, Suzy Pratowski. TE Patch, the Daily Local and, then a couple of days ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer, picked up the story.

There are several reasons why I think this story caught people’s attention, me included. The initial newspaper headline, ‘Zoning hearing board member not guilty after police are a no-show at her trial’, causing some of us a double take. Zoning hearing board member? Trial? MIA police officers? What was all of this about? Since when do township police officers not show up at trials? I cannot believe that this is a regular occurrence … I wonder when the last time was that a police officer did not show up for a scheduled hearing?

Remembering back a few years ago, I decided to fight a traffic violation in Tredyffrin and showed up at my scheduled time at Judge Blackburn’s courtroom. The traffic officer who had written my citation arrived on time for the hearing with his 6 in. thick codebook ready to defend his case against me. Although I was well prepared, (albeit sans an attorney), the police officer’s testimony prevailed – I lost the case and paid my fine. The point is, my hearing was for a routine traffic violation and the officer involved showed up. From the newspaper articles, Pratowski’s case is far from routine, and she isn’t just ‘Joe Citizen’ … Suzy Pratowski is a supervisor-appointed member of Tredyffrin’s Zoning Hearing Board.

For those that have not followed the case, Pratowski was arrested in Chesterbrook on May 28, charged on two counts, public drunkenness and disorderly conduct, and issued citations. The situation involved a domestic altercation between Pratowski and her former husband, Jay Ciccarone. I have read the police reports and the account in the newspaper is accurate with one clarification. When Pratowski arrived to pick up her children at Ciccarone’s house, she was not driving but rather a passenger in a car driven by an unnamed male, a designated driver. Ciccarone was unwilling to turn the two boys over to Pratowski, citing their custody agreement, which requires that Ms. Pratowski not drink alcohol 10 hours before driving and picking up the children. The police officer determined that Pratowski had been drinking and therefore the children should remain with Ciccarone.

A photo accompanying the Main Line Media newspaper article showed Ms. Pratowski with township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro at a 2011 Devereux charity event. In reading the article, in conjunction with the accompanying photo, it is possible that a reader could conclude that DiBuonaventuro was the unnamed male driver on May 28. However, that assumption would be wrong … the police report names a Haverford attorney as the driver, not supervisor DiBuonaventuro. Pratowski left Ciccarone’s home without the children however, returned later that night on her bicycle and police were again called. With a PBT (preliminary breath test) reading of .18, the officer cited Pratowski with public drunkenness, disorderly conduct and returned her home in a police car.

Two years earlier, in June 2010, during a vehicle stop, Pratowski was charged with DUI, having received a PBT reading of .127. Pratowski’s two children were in the vehicle at the time and although initially charged with child endangerment, that charge was later dropped. Pratowski pleaded guilty to the DUI. In reading the police report from 2010, I noted that situation also involved Pratowski’s former husband Jay Ciccarone. Concerned for his children’s wellbeing, it was Ciccarone who called the police which ultimately resulted in Pratowski’s DUI arrest. The recent May 2012 incident was Pratowski’s second involving alcohol — a second offense that could have had grave consequences for Pratowski legally.

Although the charges against Pratowski were significant, it remains a real mystery as to why the police officers involved were no-shows at her hearing. Not just one police officer but two officers failed to show up. How is this possible? According to the Main Line Media News article, “Tredyffrin police Lt. Taro Landis said the officer who was supposed to show up in court that day was on another call at the time.” The police department explained the absent police officer as an ‘oversight’. Considering this was a second offense for this defendant, I do question why the police officer would have another call at the time. No mention as to why the other police officer was also MIA for the hearing.

In the Philadelphia Inquirer follow-up article, Tredyffrin Police Chief Tony Giaimo cited a ‘clerical error’ on the part of the officers as to the reason they did not show up at Pratowski’s trial. He further stated that the officers were disciplined but offered no details. OK, I’m confused … if it was a clerical error, why would the police officers need to be disciplined? And where exactly did the clerical error occur; within the police department, the District Court … the police officer’s Blackberry schedule?

It needs to be stated that the police officers involved in Pratowski’s May 28 arrest were not rookie cops. Allen Dori, is a 10-yr. veteran in the Tredyffrin police department and Daniel McFadden, a 20-year veteran and a certified crime scene investigator. Coincidentally just a couple of days before the Main Line Media story first appeared on August 24, both Dori and McFadden were promoted at the August 20 Board of Supervisors meeting. Police officer Dori was promoted from patrol officer to corporal and McFadden promoted from patrol officer to detective. Based on their experience and background, these two police officers do not strike me as individuals who would miss an important hearing because of a clerical error!

So let me understand this correctly, if there is a clerical error and the arresting police officer (or in this case, two police officers) does not show up at the hearing, the case is simply dismissed. Does this mean that the records of the case are expunged? When a clerical error occurs, am I to understand that there is no such thing as the rescheduling of the hearing. Magically, the problem is solved and the defendant receives a ‘pass’. Wow … amazing! Based on the remarks that Police Chief Giaimo gave to the Philadelphia Inquirer, it appears that the matter is closed, but should it be? .

In addition to process questions surrounding this incident, we are left with the open issue about Pratowski’s suitability to serve on the township’s Zoning Hearing Board. Appeals for relief from decisions of the Zoning Officer and/or requirements in the zoning Ordinance are handled by the ZHB. Unlike other boards and commissions in the township, the ZHB is a quasi-judicial body whose decisions are not subject to the approval of the supervisors. I am thinking that Pratowski’s guilty verdict for DUI in June 2010 should have warranted her dismissal from the ZHB. For those of you wondering what the grounds are for removal from the ZHB, the following is from the PA Municipal Planning Code that governs the ZHB in our municipality:

Article IX – Zoning Hearing Board and other Administrative Proceedings

Section 905. Removal of Members. Any board member may be removed for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office or for other just cause by a majority vote of the governing body which appointed the member, taken after the member has received 15 days’ advance notice of the intent to take such a vote. A hearing shall be held in connection with the vote if the member shall request it in writing.

Reading the section titled ‘Removal of Members’, it would appear that Pratowski should be removed from the ZHB. Pratowski occupies the seat on the Zoning Hearing Board once held by John Petersen. As a former ZHB member, a supervisor and an attorney, I asked him for his comments —

I was very sad to hear about Suzy’s troubles. I’ve known her to be a good person and I sincerely hope that she gets to a point, for the benefit of her and her children, where portions of her life are not being played out in the paper. In most cases, this would be a private matter. Back in 2005 when I was appointed to fill vacancy on the BOS, I left the ZHB and had recommended Suzy to take my place. I was happy to do so then as she was qualified and has done a good job. However, as a former member of the governing body and the ZHB, I also have to consider the consequences of actions that place confidence in our public institutions at risk. Serving is a privilege, not a right. Given the history here, I have to wonder why Suzy was not removed from the ZHB back in 2010. These latest incidents only serve to add to growing list of questions concerning the integrity of our local government. It’s even worse when there is no confidence in the police, who at various times, holds, albeit brief, a decisive role in a person’s individual freedom. Between township staff, elected officials, certain boards and appointees or the dealings of those appointees and the police, nothing appears to be working correctly in Tredyffrin Township. I actually fear our government and police as they don’t act in the citizens’ best interest.

As to the “clerical error”, as a lawyer, I find that to be hard to believe. It’s a rather generic answer – one that the Inquirer should have followed up on with this simple question: “What was the error?” The workings between the district courts, the County and the various police departments are actually quite efficient. If this was a clerical error, then it was an error that was of the same proportion of that single bullet on that fateful day on November 22, 1963. There would have had to have been errors in Judge Sondergaard’s office as well as the administration in the police department and other people. Did other Tredyffrin Police manage to show up that day for other cases, or the day prior or after? Why this case? Why this person? When was the last time this sort of thing happened? Maybe it’s a common practice? But for Suzy’s private issues and the fact that she is a public official did this one come to light? Again, it’s about the appearance of impropriety.

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but I think it is fair game for DA Tom Hogan to make an inquiry here. As I see it, a full and open investigation is the only way the matter can get cleared up. We’ve already had a major scandal with former chief Chambers. And not too long before Chambers, chief Harkness was dismissed amidst a cloud of allegations the subject of which are/were part of a confidentiality agreement. Between that, alleged civil rights violations and other things – it’s not been a good time for the police or the government as a whole.

For longer than I care to remember, too many bad acts. In many ways, we’ve not progressed beyond Harry Marrone. Too many questions. This really goes to the honor and integrity of people. What I’ve been seeing lately is a lot of inaction and indecisiveness from township leadership. Again I ask – when is it going to stop? When are the adults going to take charge? When can people have confidence that their government and police will treat all people fairly and equally instead of calling person’s political affiliations out as just being a “Data point?” Anybody else, with these players involved, and I doubt seriously that there would be a “Clerical error.” And when they don’t treat people fairly and equally, will those same governmental actors ever be held accountable? Candidly, I was not a fan of Giamo’s promotion – given the recent history. Has nothing to do with Tony as a person or his qualifications. It has everything to do with the integrity of the institution and the confidence that public has in that institution. Sometimes, you just have to bring people in from the outside. I believe had we had truly shaken things up, there would not have been a “Clerical error.” One simply cannot look past the fact that Suzy was at a time, a TTRC member, dating a supervisor and of course, is a member of the ZHB. Anybody who cites those factors as being irrelevant is simply being willfully naïve. I lost my political mentor John Waldeyer in 2005. He was a good man and a great steward of good and honorable political values. He always said to me that the most important thing in politics and service is to be identified with good government. Everything else takes care of itself. A lot of people forgot those words. I’ve never forgotten them. John would be absolutely ashamed of what we see today. And if he were around today, we would not see the crap we’ve seen for the last 7 years. People around here have long forgotten what good government is. No government is perfect, but it can still be good nevertheless. John exercised discipline. John was an adult.

Finally, a personal plea to Suzy – if you have not done so, offer up your resignation. Doing so would mark the first time in a very long time a public official did the right thing in the face of adversity.

Do Tredyffrin Township residents really need another St. Davids sidewalk saga or a ‘big check’ moment — remember the fire funding spectacle with cameras rolling? As Carla Zambelli, fellow blogger and friend, wrote on Chester County Ramblings in her post , “enough Tredyffrin. enough” … “Tredyffrin needs to get its house in order and stop sounding and acting like a Shakespearian tragedy meets a made for TV movie on Lifetime.” Carla does have a way with words, just wish in this case, she wasn’t right.

————————————————————————————————————————–

9-3-12 UPDATE: District Attorney Tom Hogan Weighs In

I sent an email to District Attorney Tom Hogan, asking if this situation constitutes an investigation by his office. The DA called and we had a lengthy discussion on this matter. It is with his permission that I can offer this update. According to the Hogan, there has been an investigation and review. Police Chief Tony Giaimo conducted an internal department investigation and then asked for an outside review from the District Attorney’s office on the ‘clerical error’ matter. According to the internal police report, there were scheduling issues and the two police officers were not notified of Suzy Pratowski’s hearing date. The DA also reported that Pratowski’s former husband Jay Cicarrone was also not notified of the hearing date. Pratowski and her attorney were the only ones to receive notification.

Hogan also offered that because of township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro’s relationship with Pratowski (and questions concerning his possible involvement), the police as part of the investigation interviewed DiBuonaventuro. The police department determined that DiBuonaventuro was not involved in the situation. The internal investigation determined that a clerical error as the reason that the two officers missed the hearing. The District Attorney’s office reviewed the police department findings and was satisfied by the report.

I asked the DA how often does a clerical error occur that police officers miss a scheduled hearing. Although Hogan said that it does happen, he did say it was not common in Tredyffrin Township. I let our District Attorney know that many of us were troubled by the appearance of this situation. For the record, the District Attorney’s office has no jurisdiction over Pratowski’s continued membership on Tredyffrin’s Zoning Hearing Board – the appointment and removal of ZHB members is a Board of Supervisors matter.

There was discussion of the ‘not guilty’ verdict for Pratowsk, given that the two police officers and Cicarrone did not attend the hearing. I will defer the legal explanation of the judicial process to John Petersen, who also spoke with Tom Hogan. Here are John’s comments:

I had an opportunity to speak to DA Tom Hogan on the matter. Normally, jeopardy does not attach in a case like this until the first witness is sworn – when the trier of fact (the judge in this case) has begun his journey of fact finding. This is all about protecting a defendant’s 5th amendment rights to due process, and specifically, a defendant’s right to not be tried more than once for the same crime. In this case, the judge had 3 options (really only two legitimate options in my opinion). The first is to find the defendant not guilty and close the case. This would NOT have been appropriate in my opinion because the prosecution was not present due to what has been regarded as an honest clerical error. How could a judge weigh facts that were not presented? The big problem with this option – jeopardy attaches. To review, in this case, not only did the police not show up, but the judge took the one choice that assured this matter went away forever.

The other two options were to 1 – dismiss without prejudice – giving leave to the police to re file the charges or 2 – to simply continue the trial. It seems to me the one that was most prudent in this case was to simply order a continuance. That would have remediated the clerical error and it would not have resulted in any constitutionally protected rights of the defendant being violated. Dismissing the case would have required the police to re-file charges – which would have resulted in additional time and expense.

Apparently, Judge Rita Arnold, another DJ, successfully quashed a citation against her son. In her case, she was suspended for 30 days. She’s back on the bench. As for her son, he gets off scot free. If you are thinking it pays to have connections you are right. I have been told there is a strong likelihood of a memo going out to DJ’s that gives better guidance on when it’s appropriate to make a determination on guilt vs. a dismissal vs. a continuance. It’s a bit concerning that guidance has to be given on this. Shouldn’t judges know better? The DJ system is broken and this reinforces my opinion that DJ’s need to be lawyers. This often surprises folks that DJ’s don’t need to be lawyers.

My conclusion on this – we’ll likely never know what really happened here. I have to ask whether a regular, non-connected person would be as lucky? The answer is absolutely not. Justice was not served here. And yet again, a connected person caught breaks that non-connected people don’t get. I am left with no other conclusion that this particular defendant was helped by many people with influence. How and why do I conclude that? Because there are no facts to suggest otherwise.

I have no faith in any aspect of our local government, it’s people and it’s ability to do the right thing.

Share or Like:
        
 

School Board Members to Join T/E Contract Negotiating Team

August 28, 2012
12 Comments

Last night’s School Board meeting represented a distinct shift in attitude from the School Board directors in regards to the teacher negotiations. Since the District named their negotiating team last January (Dan Waters, Sue Tiede, Art McDonnell and professional negotiator attorney Jeffrey Sultanik), I have been very vocal in my concern that there was no school board director serving on the negotiating team. I was of the opinion that the residents of TESD elected the school board members to serve them and at least one of them needed to sit at the negotiating table.

Without representation by a school board director, the reporting process had the appearance of a ‘whisper down the lane’. I understand that Sultanik was hired to negotiate at the direction of the School Board, but I think that the Board’s public appearance of ‘hands-off’ to the process, may have added to the strife with the teachers. The information and the updates that the school board receives were not by firsthand attendance at the meetings, the flow of information was from one of the four members of the negotiating team. I am not suggesting that the District intentionally mislead the public through its updates, but I was of the opinion that without a seat at the table, it was possible that subtle nuances that occur in a meeting could be missed in the translation.

But here is some good news for anyone that shares my concerns with the negotiation process. At the end of last night’s meeting, Board president Karen Cruickshank gave a brief update on the status of the teacher contract talks. She explained the District has made another offer to the teachers and offered hope that a resolution could be forthcoming. Not certain what is contained in the latest offer but there was something else … Cruickshank announced that going forward, school board directors would have a seat at the negotiating table. Karen Cruickshank, Pete Motel, Kevin Buraks and Betsy Fadem will join the negotiating team at all future meetings with the teachers union. I believe that this was the right decision for the District, the residents and for the teachers! The last few months have been contentious between the two sides, but I think this latest decision represents an encouraging sign.

Share or Like:
        
 

Given Our Economic Times, How Can T/E Afford A Real Estate Purchase?

August 25, 2012
25 Comments

Here we are nine days and counting until school starts, in the midst of contentious teacher contract negotiations and parents in the District hoping that school starts on time. Residents have repeatedly been told that T/E School District cannot afford the demands of the teachers … escalating health care and pension costs. With decreasing revenues and rising costs, in June we witnessed, as tough decisions were required to balance the District budget.

During the discussion on the Fact Finder’s report at the August 20 special School Board meeting, school board members weighed in on why they could not vote in favor of the report. Karen Cruickshank, Board president, commented in part,

“… The public knows how hard the Board has worked to balance the budget over the past 3 years. We have explored ways to increase revenues. We’ll be charging students an activity fee for the first time this year. We have raised taxes 2 years in a row to the Act 1 limit with allowable exceptions to referendum. We have cut $10 million from our budget, or one tenth. We have held administrators, aides and paras at zero raises over the last 3 years. The members of TENIG agreed to a 4.5% cut last year. The custodial staff has agreed to waive both the 4.5% increase for next year and has given back an additional 10% of current salary. The numbers still don’t balance. It is the responsibility of the Board to balance the budget. The Board has no control over large increases in state mandated pension obligations put in place by the legislature in 2001. The District has also suffered significant financial losses through commercial and residential real estate reassessments and tax appeals. These reassessments and appeals have resulted in the likely loss of $1.5 million this year. These factors together have wreaked havoc on what was once a stable T/E budget…”

For the most part, I think that residents are starting to recognize the economic problems facing the District and the importance of School Board members to make responsible and sound fiduciary decisions. It is because of this, that frankly I was astounded to see a specific item listed under the ‘Consent Agreement’ on the agenda for the School Board meeting, Monday, August 27. According to the agenda, a ‘Consent Agenda’ requires Board action but “… it is unnecessary to hold discussion on these items. With the consent of all members, they are therefore grouped and approval is given in one motion.”

There are probably 15 or 20 consent agenda items listed on Monday’s agenda, ranging from approving minutes, and acceptance of gifts to ‘purchase property’. All of these consent items are lumped together and then rather than going through them item by item, approved by the School Board in one motion. The purchase property item caught my attention but I had to read to page 45 of the agenda’s supplement materials to find the following:

Consent VII, E, 3:Purchase of Property

“That the Board of School Directors authorizes the Superintendent to execute, and the Board Secretary to attest, and deliver to the record owner of property designated as Tax Parcel No. 43-10L-2 [which is property adjoining the District’s property], the Agreement of Sale in the form attached to the resolution…….”

The agreement of sale that follows further identifies the property as 892 Old Lancaster Avenue, the seller as the Estate of Arthur Fennimore, and the price as $265K. The date of sale is left blank. On Saturday morning, I stopped by the property to take a photo and spoke with the grandson of Mr. Fennimore. He and his brothers were cleaning out the house in advance of the purchase by TESD. Mr. Fennimore was 97 when he passed away and was the original owner of the house. According to the grandson, closing between the Estate and TESD is expected by the end of the week.

I have attended most, if not all, of the 2012 School Board meetings and have absolutely no recall on the discussion to purchase additional real estate property, … especially given the agonizing budget decisions, the possibility of demotion and the contract negotiations with the teachers. Therefore, I don’t think that I missed the discussion about purchasing additional real estate.

This past Friday there was a Facilities Committee meeting and although I did not attend, according to the agenda there was no discussion about the upcoming purchase of the Fennimore property. To be clear, in the past, there have been on/off discussions about the maintenance building and the need to expand the storage facility. In fact, there are existing architectural plans — but as far as I knew, the project was ‘on hold’ for obvious economic reasons.

The Fennimore house is the last remaining property between the current maintenance building and T/E Middle School on Old Lancaster Rd. – the District previously purchased all other properties. So … I guess from an overall planning standpoint, the acquisition of this property makes sense. However, given the District’s current economic climate and the unsettled teachers’ contract, it would seem that the topic to ‘purchase’ would still require some discussion, not just buried with 20 other consent items. Unfortunately, the word that immediately comes to mind … transparency, or rather ‘lack thereof’.

Based on my conversation with Mr. Fennimore’s grandson, the estate has a deal with the school district and that closing and settlement will occur later this week. Given that there appears that there will be no discussion about the School Board’s decision to purchase the property, here are my questions …

How did they arrive at the price for the property? The sale price is listed as $265K. My friend Ray Clarke did the research and determined that the assessed value is $129,500. According to Ray, if we “… multiply $129,500 by the current Chester County Common Level Ratio of 1.70, you get $220,150.” Subtract $220,150 from $265K, and you have to ask, why is the School District paying a $45K premium for this property. Regardless of future development plans, for the time being, the District will need to tear down the house, which means an additional expense. Another question — is the maintenance-storage facility project still on the back burner or does the Fennimore house purchase have the timetable moved up on the construction project?

Some may suggest that a $265K real estate purchase in the T/E School District is a ‘bargain’ and a ‘smart’ move for the District in these depressed economic times. But the bottom line for me, is $265K really such a bargain for a property assessed at $130K? And what about the public – do we deserve an explanation about the purchase? What is the plan for the acquisition? And if there is a plan, how much will that plan cost?

I have the questions, but it doesn’t look like there will be much in the way of answers.

Share or Like:
        
 

TESD: Low Millage Rate … Does that Make it a Bargain?

August 24, 2012
13 Comments

Keith Knauss, a school board member in the Unionville-Chaddsford School District, and a frequent contributor on Community Matters has written an interesting article comparing the tax rates between UCFSD and TESD. As Keith points out, T/E residents are paying a substantially less millage rate for school taxes than UCFSD — 24.53 versus 18.65.

The academics between the two districts are very similar; always appearing together at the top of any state test results. So does this mean that for this community, we are getting a bargain when it comes to value of the school district. Our students come in at the highest testing levels but yet we are not paying at the same taxing rate as an equivalent district.

Thanks Keith for this article … your analysis forces us to see the situation in a different light. He concludes that the milleage rate does not indicate tax fairness nor it have anything to do with the school district management … and therefore meaningless as a predictor.

The Low Millage Rate Myth

Tax Capitalization, Tax Rates and School District Management

Common wisdom has it that a school district with a low millage rate is doing a better job of managing their finances than a district with a high millage rate. In fact, sometimes the low millage rate myth is used by school directors to justify large tax increases – “We’ve kept tax rates well below other comparable districts for years so a large increase this year shouldn’t bother you.” Sometimes the low millage rate myth is used by union leaders to justify large salary increases – “The district has one of the lowest tax rates in the state, so there is plenty of room to raise tax rates to pay for our salary demands.” A corollary to this myth is that residents in a high millage rate district are unfairly burdened with higher taxes relative to residents in a low millage rate district. Sometimes common wisdom is unwise.

Let’s compare two districts – Tredyffrin Easttown and Unionville Chadds Ford. I’ve chosen UCF and TE because they are very similar demographically and very similar academically. Both have excellent schools and similar academic results. The only striking difference is the millage rate. TE’s rate is 18.65; UCF’s is 24.53. Is TE doing a better job? Are TE residents getting an educational “bargain”? Is there room to raise TE’s rates to pay for teacher increases? Are UCF residents saddled with an unfair tax burden?

Let’s do a mental exercise. Let’s suppose there is a street that runs along the border of UCF and TE. A developer builds 20 new houses that are exactly the same. Ten are on the UCF side of the street; ten are on the TE side of the street. The builder prices them all exactly the same at $750K. The builder quickly sells five of the houses at the asking price of $750K and notices all five are on the same side of the street – the TE side. Why? It’s not the schools – they’re the same. It’s the taxes, of course. People are wise consumers and take into consideration not only the purchase price, but also the tax burden. The owner of the house on the TE side pays $2,425 less each year in taxes. (see calculation details below)

How much does the developer have to reduce the selling price on the UCF side to make the houses equally attractive? That requires the builder to capitalize the tax difference into the selling price. The present value of 25 years of $2,425 dollar payments is about $40,000. Thus, the developer has to reduce the selling price of the UCF homes by $40,000 to $710,000 so all the houses are equally attractive.

A year later, all 20 owners are at a block party. One of the TE residents says to a UCF resident, “Our school district is managed better because our millage rate is lower and we pay $2,425 less in RE taxes.” The UCF resident replies, “Not true; I’m getting the same great education for my kids and paying the exact same monthly amount to live here; you may pay $2,425 less in RE taxes, but I pay $2,425 less in mortgage (P&I) payments because of the lower purchase price”. Thus, taxes are capitalized into the selling price of homes and millage rates are a meaningless indicator of school district management and tax fairness.

Market Value: $750,000
Assessed value: $412,500 (based on the7/1/10CLR of 0.55)
TE School Tax: $7,695
UCFSchoolTax: $10,119

Notes:
1. The builder has another way to make houses on both sides of the street equally attractive. Instead of reducing the selling price by $40,000, the builder could keep the selling price the same at $750K, but add $40,000 worth of upgrades (kitchen, patio, landscaping, etc.) to the UCF houses. Thus, you’ll find that the buyer, for the same selling price, can get “more” house in a high tax rate district. (yes, I know this seems counter intuitive)

2. For an interesting study of the effect of taxation and school quality on home prices see:
Homes, Taxes, and Schools: The Effects of School District Rankings and Property Tax Rates on Property Valuations in Richmond Heights,Missouri
http://showmeinstitute.org/document-repository/doc_download/299-full-case-study-pdf.html

Share or Like:
        
 

Will T/E School District Open Without New Teachers Contract

August 23, 2012
35 Comments

Now that the 2nd vote on the Fact Finder report is behind us, it is my understanding that the school board and the teachers return to traditional method of negotiations. As the clock ticks down the remaining days of summer vacation, can we assume that schools in T/E will open on schedule. It is my understanding that until there is a new contract; the teachers will continue to work to the terms of their expired contract.

But how long can the T/E school district budget afford for the teachers to work to the old contract?

The Neshaminy teachers and the school district have been locked in a vicious contract debate for 4+ years with neither side willing to budge – sticking points in the bitter contract dispute is healthcare and salary. It is my understanding that the teachers want a 5% salary increase retroactively for the last 4 years.

As I wrote in January of this year, the teachers in the Neshaminy School District are the highest paid in the state but if we look at PSSA results, the Neshaminy School District doesn’t even make the top 50 in the state, coming in at number 245 among Pennsylvania’s 500 districts. Over half of the Commonwealth’s school districts have outperformed Neshaminy on PSSA tests for the last 10 years. Compare that to Tredyffrin Easttown School District and the ranking of third in the state. If the highest paid teachers, working in a school district that underperforms 50% of all other school districts in the state, are willing to strike twice in 6 months … what does that mean for other districts with teacher contracts pending?

Lower Merion School District is in a similar situation to TESD. Lower Merion’s teacher contract expired the end of June and the 1,300 union members are working ‘for now’ under the provisions of the old one. With school scheduled to open on Tuesday in Lower Merion, the School District officials and the union are set to negotiate tonight to see if they can settle.

Most people who I have spoken with do not believe that our teachers will strike in TESD. I am not sure what is to be gained by a teacher strike, aside from many aggravated parents. Or is it possible that teachers can be pushed to a point where they feel this is their only option?

Share or Like:
        
 

T/E School Board: 2nd Vote Not to Accept Fact Finders Report

August 21, 2012
83 Comments

Last night was both the Board of Supervisors meeting and the special meeting of the school district. I attended the BOS meeting and Ray Clarke attended the TESD meeting and kindly provided his personal notes of the meeting. Although we should not be surprised that the school board rejected the fact finders report a second time, in speaking with Ray I am troubled by something that happened. Now again — I was not there so if my interpretation is incorrect, someone please correct me.

It appears that there was a heated exchange between Sultanik (the negotiating attorney hired by TESD) and Laura Whittaker, the teacher union president. Apparently it is OK for Sultanik to make public claims against the union but Ms. Whittaker is not allowed to defend her position. Why? Because although Ms. Whittaker is a TESD teacher, she is not a T/E resident. Regardless of which side you support (TESD or TEEA) this does not seem fair.

I understand the economics of the school district, but that does not give Sultanik the right to disrespect the teachers and then offer no option for them to defend. These people teach our children, are they not entitled to respect? The school board has a policy that non-T/E residents are not permitted to comment at school board meetings and I appreciate that if there is long line of people waiting to comment, that it is fair that residents be permitted to speak first. Regardless of the union, TENIG, TEEA, etc. I am of the opinion that the union president representing his/her members should be permitted to speak at school board meetings, without a ‘residency’ requirement. I am not saying all the non-resident teachers, custodians, etc. just the presidents, should they be non-residents.

Again, I did not attend the meeting and would certainly appreciate the opinions of other who did attend. Bottom line for me … I want both sides fairly represented but I don’t like the idea of public ‘dressing-down’ from either. Here are Ray’s notes:

The School Board took advantage of the forum offered by tonight’s Board meeting to present their side of the contract negotiations and to outline the details of their three year offer suggested at the last Board meeting. Unfortunately, perhaps, they felt the need to rebut the TEEA week-end comment that “School board members have not met with us….” with Mr Sultanik recounting a minute by minute list of the emails between him and the union’s Ms Waldie, during which an offer to meet was repeatedly made, and which did in fact lead to a meeting of the parties on August 15th. At that meeting the Board presented their proposal, to which – according to Sultanik – the TEEA has not officially responded. There were shouts of “You lie!” or similar from the audience, but Ms Whittaker, not a district resident, was not permitted to speak.

Here’s the essence of the District proposal:

– Freeze matrix, step and column positions for 2 years. One step and column movement halfway through Year 3

– One time $2,500 bonus for all teachers in Year 2 and one time $1,000 bonus for all teachers on the top step in Year 3

— Sizable incentives that do not build in recurring expense (use of the fund balance!)

– 189 day calendar in Years 2 and 3, down from the current 191 days

— Locking in the 2 furlough days (1% salary reduction) in the Fact Finder report

– Two health plans with family coverage with premium share rising from 9-10% to 11-12% in Year 3. The individual dollar cost for the most expensive plan is projected at $1,743 to $2,531, compared to $1,020 under the current plan. A $50,000-$60,000 copay pool in Years 2 and 3 if the higher cost healthcare plan can be dropped due to less than half the employees selecting that plan.

— The national average for premium share is 29%

— There’s a tax provision that allows employees to deduct their premium share, reducing the net cost by their marginal tax rate

– A cap on tuition reimbursement of $150,000 in Years 2 and 3 (compared to $290,000 under the current MOU and $650,000 last year)

–– Radnor and Lower Merion have introduced caps on tuition reimbursement

– Prescription copays as in the Fact Finder report

– Demotions allowed for economic reasons in Years 2 and 3

– Settlement of outstanding grievances, particularly re the CHS 6 period day

— If ruled in favor of the union would require the hiring of 12 additional FTE at a cost of $1.2 million a year

Sultanik stated that the deadline for a TEEA response is August 27th at 12 noon. It’s not clear if that is a mandatory deadline per the law, but it could be, since the process is still under the aegis of the state arbitrator and law does require continuation of the negotiating process.

Art McDonnell presented two slides that provided the current status quo budget/3 year projection and the Fact Finder report. As presented, the Fact Finder report reduced the Year 1 and 2 deficits by about $300,000, but the year 3 (and 4) deficits increased by the same amount. He did not show how the latest Board proposal would stack up under the same model, but in response to my question there were general comments from the Board that the deficits would still not be eliminated under likely tax scenarios. (I think that there may be enough data to model the impact ourselves, and with some time over the next couple of days I’ll take a shot at that, but it will be difficult to account for all the inter-relations of salary, PSERS, etc.)

Ann Crowley and Kris Graham explained their August 9th votes to accept the Fact Finder report largely on the basis of expediency and on the intangible impact of an unsettled contract on home values, teacher stress, need for students to continue to out-perform, and so on. Mrs Graham thought there was now benefit to the teachers to get the 3 year deal and so changed her vote tonight, in order to get the parties back to the negotiating table. Mrs Crowley abstained from voting in protest of the email litany recounted by Mr Sultanik. Dr Motel reminded the audience that salaries for all other employees have been flat for three years, and at some point increases may need to be found. President Cruickshank also noted this and the give backs from TENIG employees and separately custodians. She noted that the Board has to balance the budget and recounted the last three years total of $10 million expense cuts, maximum tax increases and falling real estate assessments. Remaining options are to cut kindergarten, transportation and extra-curriculars. She made a plea for “two austere years to right the financial ship”.

The Board voted 8 to 0 with one abstention to reject the Fact Finder report.

The audience seemed to be largely teachers, with little public comment. Andrea advocated rationalizing the healthcare benefit craziness by providing a defined contribution rather than a Blue Cross-specific defined benefit; another resident supported the Fact Finder report on the basis of retaining qualified teachers and supporting property prices. ABC News was there, also.

Share or Like:
        
 

T/E Teachers Union Appeals to School Board to Accept Fact Finder Report

August 18, 2012
26 Comments

President of Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA Laura Whittaker has released the following appeal in advance of Monday’s TESD vote on the Fact Finders report. The statement urges the school board to vote to accept the report at the special meeting. Whittaker claims that the school board has not moved from their original position of last February although TEEA has offered “significant financial sacrifices”.

The clock is ticking down to September 4, the first day of school. If the school board does not vote to accept the Fact Finder’s report, is a teachers strike on the horizon … ?

Board’s decision to reject impartial Fact Finder’s report further exposes its inflexibility

Tredyffrin-Easttown Education Association President Laura Whittaker is calling on the members of the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District board to reverse their decision to reject an impartial Fact Finder’s report intended to settle the district’s expired contract with TEEA members.

In the fact-finding process, a neutral, third-party arbitrator reviewed the contract proposals of each side and made recommendations intended to settle the expired contract. The review took 40 days. Once the fact finder issued the report, each party had 10 days to accept or reject the fact finder’s recommendations.

The TESD board rejected the report at its August 9th meeting, and will vote again on the issue during its Monday, August 20, special school board meeting. The meeting starts at 8 p.m. in at the Tredyffrin-Easttown Administrative Offices.

TEEA members voted to accept the Fact Finder’s report even though it contained significant financial sacrifices on their behalf, including approximately $500,000 in lost wages, a reduction in health care benefits, and a loss of tuition reimbursement for professional development.

“School board members have not met with us, and they rejected the Fact Finder’s report without having moved from the original proposal they gave their negotiator in February. They now have another opportunity to vote to settle this contract,” Whittaker said.

Whittaker urges all members of the T/E school community to turn out for Monday night’s school board meeting and make their voices heard. “Parents do not want their children’s education interrupted because of the school board’s stubborn inflexibility,” she said.

“If the board would be reasonable and accept the impartial Fact Finder’s report, it would assure that the school year can start on time and without disruption,” Whittaker said.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin’s C-1 Zoning Ordinance Change … Still Looks Like Spot Zoning to Me!

August 17, 2012
7 Comments

Until 11 PM last night, Daylesford neighbors and members of our community reasoned, argued, cajoled and attempted to change the minds of Planning Commissioners in regards to the proposed change to C-1 zoning to allow the use of assisted living facilities. Unfortunately, the Planning Commissioners ignored the dissenting voices of the community and recommended the C-1 zoning change.

The Planning Commission meeting started with 8 Commissioners (Tom Cooper absent) but when the agenda moved to the C-1 zoning change, the PC Chair Bob Whalen recused himself, leaving the meeting without explanation.

Attorney Denise Yarnoff, representing Ed Morris, the developer for the proposed assisted living facility (ALF) at the Jimmy Duffy catering site, wrote the C-1 zoning amendment change and its subsequent re-written version. Acting PC chair, Trip Lukens, asked that Yarnoff and Trisha Larkins, president of the Daylesford Neighborhood Association, provide opening remarks. Lukens requested Yarnoff and Larkins to confine their remarks to the C-1 zoning change only versus the specific proposed project – the assisted living facility at the Jimmy Duffy catering site.

Although asked repeatedly to speak up, Ms. Yarnoff words were often barely audible to the audience. Standing directly adjacent to the dais, apparently it was more important for the Planning Commissioners to hear Ms. Yarnoff than the audience members. Whether by design or not, I probably only heard about one-third of Yarnoff’s remarks. However, as any good attorney, throughout the evening, Yarnoff provided an explanation or response to any question or concern posed by the public, Planning Commissioners or township staff. It was unclear to me (and remains so) why Yarnoff was deemed the ‘expert’ on all things related to assisted living facilities, the township’s comprehensive plan, process and the like.

In contrast to Yarnoff’s, Ms. Larkins had prepared a PowerPoint presentation to explain the timeline for the zoning change, other municipality ALF comparisons and a background (explanation) as to why the DNA opposed the proposed C-1 zoning change. Thorough and professionally delivered, Larkins repeatedly made the case that the DNA did not oppose ALFs in the township; it opposed a zoning change to permit assisted living usage in C-1.

After Yarnoff and Larkins presented their opening remarks, the meeting started a downhill spiral and to many in the audience, quickly became out of control. Although Lukens had asked that the C-1 zoning change be the focus of the discussion, every couple of minutes the comments and suggestions returned to the Jimmy Duffy site and whether the changes would work for that project.

Resident after resident questioned the PC as to why the ‘rush’ to make this decision; why not wait for the results from the $100K consultant hired to review commercial zoning in the township. Like so many, I was frustrated that no matter what the issue, the Planning Commissioners deferred to Denise Yarnoff; wanting to make sure that their changes would fit the proposed ALF project. In desperation, I told the PC members that it is no wonder that we believed this C-1 change to be ‘spot zoning’ – every time the public brings up a point, you defer to Yarnoff and the plan. Lukens stated that he wanted the C-1 ordinance change to be about all C-1 properties but there was no discussion to support his opinion. Is development so important in this township, that we cast aside reasonable discussion, review of other municipal ordinances, ignore the township’s comprehensive plan and instead do whatever a developer wants, so the project ‘works’?

After hours of debate, the Planning Commissioners drafted changes for the C-1 zoning ordinance. The proposed C-1 zoning ordinance change now includes the following points:

  1. Density. Minimum Lot Area of not less than 650 square feet per unit.
  2. At least 10 percent of the lot area shall be provided as passive recreational space for the residents of the ALF. Such space shall include outdoor seating areas, interior courtyards, pedestrian walkways and/or similar facilities.
  3. The maximum number of beds per Assisted Living Facility building shall not exceed 100.

Prior to voting, the public continued to weigh in with their displeasure. There was not one person in the audience who favored pushing this ordinance change through including attorney Dan McLaughlin, vice chair of the Zoning Hearing Board. McLaughlin lives in the Daylesford neighborhood and offered very impassioned, effective remarks as to why the Planning Commissioners needed to hold off taking a vote until all questions were answered. I did not think it possible that the Commissioners could ignore McLaughlin; but they did. Trip Lukens called for a vote on the C-1 zoning ordinance change stating he would abstain due to the 10% open space requirement. Without pause, the remaining six PC members voted to recommend the C-1 zoning change to the Board of Supervisors.

No one will convince me that the PC vote to change C-1 zoning ordinance change was not based on one developer and one development project. Every decision on what to include in the ordinance change balanced against the backdrop of whether it would fit the proposed assisted living facility at the Jimmy Duffy site.

With so many, many unanswered questions surrounding this project, including the use of the R-1 parcel, grandfathered usage, invalid sketch plan, etc., how could the Planning Commissioners refuse to do their homework and instead, push it on to the Board of Supervisors. I thought it was the responsibility of the Planning Commissioner to thoroughly understand and vet the situation before recommending it to the supervisors. Guess not. Rather than relying on the expertise of the Planning Commissioners, it will now be up to the supervisors to find the answers.

Share or Like:
        
 

T/E Teachers Union Weighs in on Fact Finder’s Report

August 14, 2012
23 Comments

Last night I received the following press release from Laura Whittaker, president of teacher union Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA).

TEEA Votes to Accept Fact Finder’s Report, Asks for Community Support

On Monday, August 6, the members of TEEA met to discuss and vote on the Fact Finder’s report. Acting as an independent third party, Fact Finder Mr. Timothy Brown carefully examined all of the issues in dispute as well as the District’s finances and revenue potential. By law, TEEA members were required to accept or reject the report in its entirety, and the membership voted to accept the report.

Under the provisions of the Fact Finder’s report, professional employees would be frozen at the current salary for a year and a half. Association members also agreed to a choice between two less expensive health care plans as well as increases in premium sharing and prescription costs. The report linked no demotions of professional staff with a reduction in tuition reimbursement during the second year of the agreement, a provision that built upon the previously established Memorandum of Understanding which reduced tuition reimbursement in exchange for no demotions during the first year of the contract. Furthermore, the Fact Finder acknowledged the District’s desire for cost savings by allowing the District, in the second year of the contract, to furlough teachers for up to two full days with a corresponding salary reduction, a provision currently non-existent in any teacher contract in the state of Pennsylvania. TEEA estimates that the furlough days alone would cost TEEA members approximately $500,000 in lost wages.

“We are disappointed by the School Board’s choice to reject the report and stated efforts that they would like to continue bargaining,” TEEA President Laura Whittaker said. “By voting to accept the report, TEEA members have acknowledged the need for shared sacrifice. We believe that the report offers a fair and reasonable contract settlement. We urge members of the public to read the full Fact Finder’s report that is available on our website and ask the community to support acceptance of the Fact Finder’s report in order to reach a contract settlement so that we can all focus on the education of the children of the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District.” The School Board will take their second vote on the Fact Finder’s report on Monday, August 20 at 8 pm at the Tredyffrin-Easttown Administrative Offices at 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700 in Wayne.

Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme