Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Perceived or Real Conflict of Interest?

February 17, 2012
14 Comments

I have been open in my concerns related to political committee people who continue to serve in that capacity once elected to the Board of Supervisors. Currently Tredyffrin Township has three of the seven supervisors (Michelle Kichline, Evelyn Richter and Kristen Mayock) also serving as committeewoman for the Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee (TTRC).

Once elected, township supervisors are elected to serve all the residents, regardless of their political affiliations. But by remaining in a political party committee position and serving as an elected official there could exist a conflict of interest — if only in perception. This is certainly not intended as an indictment on the performance of Kichline, Mayock and Richter as supervisors; I have spoken personally to Michelle and Kristen, voicing my concern over this issue.

Michele has served as a supervisor and now as chair of the Board of Supervisors, without any obvious bias towards the political party for which she is a committeewoman. However, as previously stated on Community Matters, our neighbor Radnor Township takes away the possibility of conflict (perceived or real) — their Home Rule Charter prohibits public elected officials from serving as political party committee people.

The following editorial in the Main Line Suburban by Jerry Kinkead, a former Tredyffrin Township Republican Committeewoman, supports my position and offers personal insight into what could (and has happened) when the lines of separation between a political committee person and elected official blur. Kinkead not only believes that the current arrangement in Tredyffrin Township is a conflict of interest but is calling for a change in Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter.

Conflict of interest

To the Editor:

Thanks to a local Tredyffrin township blog called Community Matters, I have recently learned that three members of the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors (Kichline, Richter and Mayock) are also elected members of the Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee. I believe this to be a fundamental conflict of interest, which could lead to the blurring of allegiance. I propose that Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter be amended to disallow this practice.

Community Matters pointed out that Tredyffrin Township’s Home Rule Charter does not address this issue, but that in the Radnor Township Home Rule Charter there is a prohibition against being an elected political official while, at the same time, holding an elected governmental position, as well as a provision for dismissal or termination of appointment should this prohibition be violated.

In Chester County, during the decade of the 1970s, we had a situation whereby the chairman of the countywide Republican Party was also chairman of the Chester County commissioners, which was seen as a conflict of interest by some. As a result, a group known as the Independent Republicans set out to make changes in the local Republican Party, with one of their most pressing goals being the separation of those two jobs. There was a protracted political struggle over this issue, though the County Republican Committee eventually saw the wisdom of the goal, after the indictment of the county chairman. Subsequently, the local Republican Party bylaws were changed to disallow the holding of those two influential offices by the same person.

In the 1970s case in Chester County, the county commissioner was found to be giving out contracts to people who supported the party financially. He did not follow the rules for bidding contracts and was eventually indicted and sentenced for breaking the law.

In my view, the problem with holding a political position and a governmental position at the same time is that the lines can become blurred, and measures may be supported by a government official that are meant to advance the interests of the political party. At a local level, there are decisions to be made about appointments, issuance of building permits, support of local institutions and the like, which should be made by people whose guiding interest is the government they are a part of, and not the party that they also serve.

I suggest that the three Tredyffrin supervisors who now hold joint offices should resign their positions in the local Republican committee, and I urge the Board of Supervisors to take a look at how to change the Tredyffrin Home Rule Charter to eliminate this clear conflict of interest.

With respect,

JERRY KINKEAD
Tredyffrin resident
Former Tredyffrin Republican Committeewoman
Wayne, PA

Share or Like:
        
 

Will the NRA Control Decisions on HB1523 … Follow the Money!

February 15, 2012
14 Comments

Here’s a latest update on pending Pennsylvania House Bill 1523 – although on the state House agenda since last Wednesday, the bill has yet to get to the House floor. Today is the last day the House of Representatives are in session before recessing until mid-March. With at least 13 proposed amendments to the bill, since the proposed legislation left the Judiciary Committee hearing, my guess is there probably will not be a decision today.

Thirty cities and towns across Pennsylvania have taken action to crack down on illegal gun trafficking but the pending bill threatens to punish them for taking local action on illegal gun traffickers and straw purchasers. As originally written, the bill would allow any gun owner to challenge these local ordinances and to collect legal fees and damages from the city that passed such an ordinance. As if that was not sufficient, HB1523 got a boost when it left the state Judiciary Committee … the amended HB1523 legislation grants legal standing to the NRA, allowing the pro-gun organization to sue the local municipalities, just like individual gun owners.

This is the NRA we are talking about – the most powerful lobbying organization in the country! If you look at the supporters of HB1523, you will see support from both sides of the political aisle; this is not a Republican versus Democratic issue. No, it seems to have less to do with party politics and more to do with legislators feeling the need to stay on the ‘right side’ of the National Rifle Association.

I wonder how many of these Harrisburg legislators have received money from the NRA? Or, are the legislators involved in current campaigns and feel the need to stay on NRA’s approved list of candidates or elected officials? Some of the elected officials in Harrisburg apparently do some kind of calculus and figure that there is more to be gained by staying on the ‘right side’ of the NRA than any possible downside to the safety of the local municipalities.

Why should the goals and objectives of the NRA guide the decisions of any local elected official? Why? What’s the saying, ‘follow the money’?

Apparently, I am not alone in my opinion. In today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, columnist Monica Yant Kinney writes about HB1523,

“Pennsylvania gun laws are a sick joke. Any state that happily sells buyers unlimited weapons on demand is a state where politicians fear the wrath of the NRA more than the loss of their own lives. … Legislators want to have it both ways: They refuse to protect citizens, but they’ll be damned if they allow cities to do it for them.”

Amen Sister.

Share or Like:
        
 

No Custodial Outsourcing for 2012/13 but looks like Sports and/or Activity Fees Could be a Reality in T/E

February 14, 2012
19 Comments

Based on attending the TESD Finance Committee meeting, it looks like the custodial outsourcing in the school district is ‘off the table of consideration’ for another year. If you recall, the most significant cost-saving measure to the District remaining from last year’s budget was ‘outsourcing of custodial services’ with a savings listed as $950K. After internal TENIG (non-instructional union of TESD) discussion, the custodial workers made an offer to the school district, which was presented to the Finance Committee by school board president Karen Cruickshank.

For the 2012-13 year, the custodial workers of TENIG have offered a 10% reduction in their salaries and they will not take the 4.5% increase contained in their existing contract. In real dollars, the cost savings to the District is $197K in salary reduction, plus the additional percentage contractual savings for a total savings of approximately $285K!

Beyond the generosity of the custodian workers offer, the Board realizes that it is difficult to measure intangibles in the in-house custodial services … many of the employees live in the T/E and their families are part o the community. With that comes a level of safety that is difficult to measure. Although the custodial workers offer has to be reviewed internally by the District attorneys, the it received overwhelmingly positive support from the Board.

A $285K savings to the school district plus the bonus of saving local jobs … congratulations to TENIG, custodial workers, District staff and Karen Cruickshank (on behalf of the school board) for such a positive outcome early in the 2012/13 budget discussions.

Ray Clarke also attended last night’s Finance Committee meeting and I thank him for his willingness to share his thoughts and opinions below:

Notes from Ray Clarke, TESD Finance Committee Meeting

A relatively well-attended TESD Finance committee meeting on Monday, and some important topics discussed – in varying depth and with varying data quality – the two not always correlated.

1. A significant announcement from Mrs Cruickshank at the end of the meeting: the janitorial staff in the TENIG union have offered to take a 10% reduction in wages for the 2012/13 school year. Their contract entitles them to, and the preliminary budget assumed, a 4.5% contractual increase. By my math, starting from the $1.97 million compensation line item provided by Dr Waters, this means a total benefit versus the budget of $286,000. In return the union asked for the district to remove the outsourcing option for 2012/13. (Also, with no further actions next year, the salaries would revert in 2013/14 to the contracted level – a 20% increase that would not of course be a tenable option).

After getting the numbers sorted through, the Committee was very appreciative and broadly in favor of this offer, weighed against a potential outsourcing saving three times the offer, but with risk and the uncertainty of basing the alternative on now-expired bids.

This looks to be a good result for all concerned. Employment security is maintained and compensation continues to move towards market levels. Importantly, it can continue to do so assuming similar flexibility next year and a more equitable benefits program in the next contract.

2. Much information was shared regarding possible fees for “sports and activities”. Most neighboring school districts have either implemented some kind of fee or are considering doing so. There are as many approaches as there are school districts. Significant money can be raised: at $100 per sport/activity (with a cost to the district), the revenue would be about $150,000 for both high school students and middle school students. For context, about 1700 of the 2050 high school students participate in at least one sport/activity of any type; the middle school numbers are similar.

There seems to be a consensus that the district should charge only for those activities for which it incurs costs for either extra teacher time (EDRs) or for transportation. (An interesting issue thus raised: the process by which a club gets the status of having compensated teacher oversight). Also clear is that there should be a process to ensure that no student should be prevented from participating for financial considerations.

Decisions still to be made:

  • The same fee for any sport or activity, or some kind of tier system loosely based on cost?
  • A fee per student regardless of number of sports/activities or a fee per sport or activity up to a maximum?
  • The amount of any fees

The administration was charged with coming back with further permutations. It seems to me that it would be helpful to also tabulate other districts’ experience regarding participation levels and administrative costs. There seems to be a good argument for action here. For me, fairness would suggest some kind of tiered fee structure with a maximum, if it can be administered reasonably. The Committee is keen to give this air time at the Budget Workshop.

3. On revenues: no immediate bad news in the Corbett budget proposal. The move to bundle four separately calculated state funding items (basic ed, social security subsidy and public and non-public transportation) looks to me like a plan to cap future funding in a way that is unrelated to the actual underlying costs of those items. The one loss is a $50,000 grant that TE uses to fund the homework club.

Less good news on the property re-assessment front: $573,000 of lost revenue more or less planned for in the budget, but in addition $550,000 at risk from nine commercial assessments being appealed to the state courts and $820,000 at risk from a Vanguard appeal.

This illustrates the district’s vulnerability from relying solely on one tax that falls disproportionately on a class or classes of taxpayer that see no direct benefit from the tax, when many of those who get the benefit see their tax dollars going to other jurisdictions. But unfortunately any discussion of diversifying the tax base was hijacked in the last election.

4. A big mystery around the district medical benefits cost. Independence Blue Cross is apparently proposing a change in the way it gets compensated for administering our self-funded plan. Currently they get a 2.5% administrative fee (if only the overhead for the entire US healthcare system were that low!). Much perplexity about the proposal since it is being couched in terms of changing provider discounts. However, the net effect would be a $400,000 to $620,000 cost increase. I’m not sure there will be too much to be done about what is effectively a price increase, but more clarity needs to be provided.

5. No net surprises in the current district financials so far. We are on track for a deficit of about $0.75 million, as budgeted after adding back the $1.3 million budget reversal.

Share or Like:
        
 

Pending HB 1523 Legislation Would Allow NRA Lawsuits Against Philadelphia

February 11, 2012
17 Comments

Due to the Marcellus Shale drilling debate, the amended PA House Bill 1523 is now scheduled for second consideration in the state House of Representatives on Monday, February 13.

The passage of HB 1523 to the House included an important amendment approved by the state Judiciary Committee. The amended HB 1523 legislation would grant legal standing to “a membership organization … that is dedicated in whole or in part to protecting the legal, civil or constitutional rights of its membership.” What exactly does this mean? The language would seem to give an organization, say the National Rifle Association (NRA), the same rights as a person when it comes to suing a town or city for enacting local gun reporting regulations. The protection of Second Amendment rights is the mission of the NRA.

Because the state legislature never adopted a statewide law requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns, 30 municipalities across the state, including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster, have taken local action in support of lost or stolen gun reporting. The NRA has challenged the local gun reporting legislation in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh multiple times and the Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly rejected the gun lobby’s challenges.

Pennsylvania House Bill 1523 could be a watershed moment for the NRA in Pennsylvania. Rather than continuing to take on individual cities or towns over their local gun reporting ordinances, according to the organization’s website, the NRA-backed HB 1523 “… would strengthen Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption law to further ensure firearm and ammunition laws are uniform throughout the state.” The pending legislation in the state House would allow the NRA to sue any Pennsylvania city with a lost or stolen gun reporting law.

Like the NRA, Kim Stolfer, Chairman of Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and a pro-gun leader in Pennsylvania, supports HB 1523. A gun owner rights advocate, Stolfer has posted a number of comments on Community Matters, including

“Our freedoms were carefully drawn up to protect citizens from the vicissitudes of the masses who, history has shown, can be easily manipulated. We are a nation governed by the ‘rule of law’ with the motto of ‘Justice for All’. House Bill 1523 will simply provide that a citizen can hold accountable these local communities that exceed their authority and violate Pennsylvania crimes codes and the Constitution.”

Cities and towns across Pennsylvania have taken action to crack down on illegal gun trafficking, but this Monday, Harrisburg could take a step closer to overturning these local decisions. HB 1523 threatens to punish cities and towns for taking local action to crack down on illegal gun traffickers and straw purchasers. Philadelphia and the other cities could face financial penalties for enacting their own gun-control measures that supersede state law. The bill would allow any gun owner (or the NRA) challenging the local ordinance to collect legal fees and damages from the city that passed such an ordinance.

CeaseFirePA joins other organizations, including the state associations of chiefs of police, district attorneys, county commissioners and the League of Cities and Municipalities in opposing HB 1523. On Friday, the organization released an Impact Analysis of HB 1523 (PDF) and I was provided with a copy.

Regardless of how you feel about gun control, CeaseFirePA makes an interesting point to show how financially draining gun owner and gun group lawsuits could be on Pennsylvania cities and towns that are already strapped by tough economic times. As a result of HB 1523, potential lawsuits could actually drain “government revenues from much-needed services, like keeping police on the street.” The claim from CeaseFirePA is that local governments with gun reporting ordinances may feel ‘blackmailed’ by the threat of lawsuits from gun owners and gun groups, and therefore will simply rescind their ordinances.

CeaseFirePA director Max Nacheman contacted me in regards to the pending legislation and provided the following statement for Community Matters on the proposed legislation:

HB 1523 is an unprecedented attempt by the NRA to seize power in Pennsylvania and legislators should be ashamed for even considering such a callous, dangerous proposal. Communities across the state are literally in a life or death struggle to reduce gun violence — but instead of supporting their efforts, the legislature is helping the gun lobby attack them. If passed, HB 1523 would allow the NRA as an organization to bring frivolous lawsuits against cities that are trying to crack down on illegal gun trafficking — and would set a dangerous precedent in Pennsylvania of allowing lobbyists to use the courts to pursue their own political agenda.

These “representatives” aren’t just turning their backs on their communities, they are actively trying to hurt them. Among others, State Rep. Tom Caltagirone attacked his home city of Reading by co-sponsoring the bill, and Rep. Todd Stephens abandoned his hometown of Ambler by voting in favor of it in the Judiciary Committee.

Now that more attention has been called to this NRA plot to punish cities for fighting gun crime, it remains to be seen if other suburban legislators like freshman Representative Warren Kampf will stand up to protect his community, or defend his NRA letter grade instead, like so many of his colleagues.

For the record, I sent a follow-up email to Rep Kampf in regards to his views on the HB 1523, asking whether or not he intends to support the pending legislation. To date, there has been no response to either of my emails.

If reporting lost or stolen guns would help the local police with gun trafficking and crack down on straw purchases, I remain at a loss as to why responsible gun owners would not support keeping illegal guns off the street by reporting a gun missing or stolen to their local police department.

Share or Like:
        
 

ROVER isn’t just for trips to the doctor or to the grocery store…

February 9, 2012
7 Comments

Have you ever wondered about the Rover buses that you see on the roads of Chester County? Who operates the Rovers . . . who are the riders? Where do the buses go, is there a schedule?

I often see a Rover driver dropping off passengers at the Paoli Acme or at the Paoli Hospital, but who are the passengers, did the riders pay for the service or is it a government-sponsored program? I asked several friends but no one seemed to know much about the Rover or its operation.

In my search to find out details about the Rover service, Chester County Commissioner Ryan Costello was especially helpful, as was the Director of Chester County Dept of Community Development Patrick Bokovitz and staff members Kathryn Ercole and Gene Suski, who showed an unbelievable degree of patience with my tedium of questions! With their help, I soon discovered that Rover isn’t just for trips to the doctor or to the grocery store!

As a strong supporter of the Rover Community Transportation program, Commissioner Costello offered, “One of the many things that I’ve come to learn and appreciate about county government is the paratransit services that are provided across the county, for a number of important purposes – all of which provide public transportation to those in need .”

Started on July 1, 1984, the Rover Community Transportation is a paratransit flexible passenger service in Chester County that operates outside of the standard public transportation system. Rover is available to specific populations based on eligibility.

The Rover Community Transportation’s three primary modes of paratransit service in Chester County are:

  • Senior Shared Ride: Any Chester County resident aged 65 or older, is eligible to use the Senior Shared Ride Program. Based on the price of gas these days, a Rover fare of only 75 cents for ‘essential’ trips is a real bargain! The remainder of the cost is covered by the Chester County Department of Aging and State Lottery proceeds that are administered by the PA Department of Transportation.
  • Medical Assistance Transportation Program (MATP): Residents who have active Medicaid benefits in Chester County are eligible to use MATP for non-emergency medical transportation to and from Medicaid billable medical services and treatment providers. Medicaid billable providers include both physical health services (doctor and dentist appointments and trips to and from the pharmacy) and behavioral health services (mental health and drug and alcohol treatment and counseling). The MATP program is funded by through the state Medicare budget.
  • Persons with Disabilities Program (PwD): Any Chester County resident with a disability that is not already eligible for Senior Shared Ride or MATP may be eligible for PwD. An eligible person with a disability pays a fare of two dollars ($2.00) or 15% of the total cost of the ride (which ever is higher) each way with the remaining balance covered by the PA Department of Transportation.

How many Chester County residents utilize the Rover system on a regular basis? I was told that the paratransit program is averaging just over 30,400 rides a month. In the Tredyffrin/Easttown area, the program has 157 registered riders. According to the Department of Community Development, ridership has slowly increased and the January 2012 numbers indicate an increase in usage. Although there is no data indicating why the increase, clearly the economic situation and gas prices are contributing factors. Statistics indicate that Rover had 2,450 more rides from July to December of 2011 then the same period in 2010.

Delaware and Montgomery counties have similar paratransit programs and Chester County Rover works with both counties when possible to coordinate rides for people who live on the county borders. Community Transit, http://ctdelco.org/disabilities.html provides service in Delaware County and TransNet, http://suburbantransit.org provides the service in Montgomery County.

With the exception of holidays, the Rover program operates Monday through Friday, with limited hours for specialized services only on Saturday and Sunday. Reservations for travel within Chester County must be made before 11 AM on the business day prior to the requested trip.

To determine eligibility and/or to sign up for any of the county’s paratransit programs, you just need to contact Rover Community Transportation at 484-696-3854 or toll-free 877-873-8415. You can also get more information from their website, www.riderover.com. To use any of the Rover Community Transportation services, residents must register – and registration is free.

One of the tag lines used in advertising Rover is “It’s Your Ticket to Independence!” If you are a Chester County resident and are 65 or older but still drive, you might want to take advantage of a ride with Rover, particularly when you need to go somewhere during the challenging winter months. Beyond the grocery store or the doctor, Rover can provide transportation throughout Chester County — to the shopping mall, club meetings, and the local train station or even a ride to visit a friend.

If you are a registered Senior Shared Ride participant using Rover for ‘essential’ rides within Chester County, the fare is 75 cents each way. Essential trips include:

  • Visits to the doctor or other medical appointments
  • Visits to the Social Security office
  • Visits to the Chester County Department of Aging
  • Attendance at Adult Day Centers and Area Senior Centers
  • Visits to the grocery store

However, what if your doctor’s appointment is outside of Chester County? For medical appointments beyond the county boundaries, Rover will provide travel to Philadelphia and neighboring counties. And the ride is still a bargain at only 75 cents each way – but that fare is only applicable for medical appointments outside of Chester County. All out of county rides must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance of medical appointment.

But what if you a registered Rover rider and want to go the shopping mall, to the theater or maybe the movies, can you use the county’s paratransit services for these types of “non-essential” trips? Yes, and the full fare cost is 15% of the ride. The Department of Transportation (through the PA Lottery Fund) pays for the remaining 85% of the ride. The rate is calculated on the distance of the ride – the longer the ride, the more expensive it is – however, the fare can also be reduced for group rides.

Here’s an example, say an individual senior wants to go the movies four miles away, the cost would be 15% of the total cost or $1.75 each way. However, if three or more seniors were picked up from the same location and were going to the same location, say the movies four miles away, that fare would be reduced to $1.15 each way, based on the total cost of the trip. To determine the exact cost of a non-essential trip for a Senior Shared Ride, call Rover Community Transportation at 484-696-3854.

For Chester County seniors who are interested in gambling, I was curious if there were plans for Rover to take riders to the Valley Forge Casino Resort (set to open this spring). The casino is located in Montgomery County (versus Chester County), so I was curious if Rover would cross the county line. For Chester County seniors interested in gambling inKing of Prussia, I have good news – if you are registered with the Senior Shared Ride program, Rover will provide rides to the casino.

Rover rides to the casino will be treated just as any other non-essential Senior Shared Ride group trip where groups of seniors go to a social activity such as a play, shopping mall, the movies, etc. A ride to the Valley Forge casino would need to be scheduled prior to 11 AM the day before and must leave from one central location, such as a senior center, retirement community, or one person’s home. Riders would have to pay full fare (15% of the total cost of the ride) since a casino trip is not considered an “essential” ride and therefore not sponsored by the Department of Aging. Riders will be given the exact cost of the ride upfront when scheduling the trip.

No need for Chester County seniors to go to Atlantic City to gamble – once the Valley Forge Casino Resort opens, Rover can provide transportation to the local casino.

I now know that the Rover isn’t just for trips to the doctor or to the grocery store. However, you cannot participate in the Aging Shared Ride Program if you are not registered. Call Rover now to get registered, even if you have other means of transportation available to you. You never know when you may need to go somewhere and your regular transportation is not available.

And as Commissioner Costello told me, “The Rover program can become even more successful in terms of helping County residents if we can continue to raise awareness and increase ridership.”

——————————————————————————————-

This article would not have been possible without the help of Chester County Commissioner Ryan Costello and the kind folks of Chester County Department of Community Development and Rover Community Transportation.

Share or Like:
        
 

PA House Bill 1523 Moves a Step Closer to Penalizing Philadelphia for Gun Control Measures

February 6, 2012
2 Comments

PA House Bill 1523 Update:

Today the Judiciary Committee voted on PA House Bill 1523 which “Clarifies and establishes specific and monetary relief for a person adversely affected by unauthorized municipal regulation of firearms or ammunition.” The Judiciary Committee voted in favor of HB1523, as amended, with a 19-4 vote. (2 Judiciary Committee members did not vote). Click here for amended HB 1523.

The NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) encourages support for HB1523, stating, “This much-needed pro-gun bill would make critical changes to enhance Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption law.”

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York and District of Columbia have statewide ordinances that require the reporting of lost and stolen guns to law enforcement, with several other states considering similar legislation.

With today’s vote, PA House Bill 1523 now moves from the Judiciary Committee to the state house floor for consideration — giving all legislators an opportunity to weigh in on the issue. The vote moves cities like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster that have taken local action to crack down on illegal gun traffickers and straw purchases, one-step closer to financial penalties for enacting their own gun-control measures. HB1523 would allow any gun owner challenging the local ordinance to collect legal fees and damages from the city that passed such an ordinance.

Members of the Judiciary Committee who voted against HB1523 were Eugene DePasquale (D-York), Matthew Bradford (D-Montgomery County), John Sabatina (D-Philadelphia) and Ron Waters (D-Philadelphia). In addition to serving as Pennsylvania state legislators, DePasquale, Bradford and Sabatina are attorneys and Waters is chairman of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus. It is interesting to note that 3 of the 4 Judiciary Committee members who opposed HB1523 are either from Philadelphia or the city’s suburbs.

Now that HB1523 will move to the state house floor for consideration, what are the thoughts of our State Representative Warren Kampf on this matter? PA House Bill 1523 and lost and stolen gun reporting legislation is a significant issue in Pennsylvania. Because Kampf’s legislative district is located in the Philadelphia suburbs, and one of the Pennsylvania cities that has a local lost and stolen gun reporting legislation currently on the books, it is important to know the views of our elected official.

According to the NRA-ILA website, HB1523 could move to the full House for second consideration as early as this Wednesday.

I have sent Rep. Kampf an email asking the following two questions and look forward to his response.

(1) What is your view of lost and stolen gun reporting legislation, and
(2) What is your opinion on PA House Bill 1523, and will you support it?

Share or Like:
        
 

Against Illegal Guns in Pennsylvania

February 3, 2012
45 Comments

If you follow Community Matters, you know that I support stricter gun control legislation. At the risk of causing another heated exchange over the rights of gun owners, I have an issue with Daryl Metcalfe (R-12) House Bill 1523 that is on Monday’s agenda in Harrisburg. The state House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take a vote on Metcalfe’s proposed pro-gun legislation HB1523 that would hold municipalities financially accountable for enacting gun laws. (To read proposed HB1523, click here).

I understand the meaning of the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, which protects the right of the people to keep and to bear arms. However, I think that most of us could agree that the 2nd amendment was not designed to protect the rights of people to keep and bear ‘illegal’ arms. Every year, thousands of criminals use guns that have been lost or stolen from legitimate owners.

A major research project is not necessary to know that most crimes in America are committed using illegal guns. However for the record, according to their website, www.wheredidtheguncomefrom.com, “… over 80% of guns recovered in crimes are obtained by perpetrators illegally.”

Assuming that you are a responsible gun owner and a supporter of the 2nd amendment; why would you not support keeping illegal guns off the street? If you discovered that your firearm has been lost or stolen, why would you not support reporting it missing to the local police? I cannot imagine under what conditions, a gun owner would not want to do this.

Reporting lost or stolen guns would help the local police with gun trafficking and crack down on straw purchases — people who buy guns and then sell them illegally to people who can’t buy them on their own. Isn’t this commonsense reform? How’s it any different from someone stealing your car — you’d report that to the police, wouldn’t you?

In Pennsylvania, a gun owner does not have to report their firearm lost or stolen. But some municipalities have ordinances that require gun owners to report the loss or theft of a gun to the local police, within a certain time from when they discover the gun is missing. Each municipality determines the time. These 14 cities in Pennsylvania have passed lost and stolen firearm reporting ordinances:

  • Allentown
  • Clairton
  • Erie
  • Harrisburg
  • Homestead
  • Lancaster
  • Munhall
  • Oxford
  • Philadelphia
  • Pittsburgh
  • Pottsville
  • Reading
  • West Homestead
  • Wilkinsburg

These cities and towns across Pennsylvania have taken action to crack down on illegal gun trafficking, but on Monday, Harrisburg may overturn these local decisions. House Bill 1523 threatens to punish cities and towns for taking local action to crack down on illegal gun traffickers and straw purchasers. Philadelphia and the other cities could face financial penalties for enacting their own gun-control measures that supersede state law. The bill would allow any gun owner challenging the local ordinance to collect legal fees and damages from the city that passed such an ordinance.

If members of the house Judiciary Committee are serious about upholding the law of Pennsylvania, they should follow the example set by these 14 municipalities! Rather than “cracking down” on communities that don’t follow the gun lobby’s agenda, the Judiciary Committee should recommend a statewide lost or stolen firearms reporting requirement that would help the local police with their efforts to crack down on illegal guns on the streets.

————————————————————————————————–

As an addendum to this post, look for an unprecedented commercial during the Super Bowl on Sunday. The mayors of Boston and New York may be cheering for opposing teams but they are on the same side when it comes to gun control. New York City’s Michael Bloomberg and Boston’s Thomas Menino have filmed a 30-second commercial for stricter gun control legislation, which will air during the big game between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots. Bloomberg and Menino are founders of Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition which lists over 600 mayors across the country as members.

Share or Like:
        
 

Paoli Train Station Back on Track with $7.5 Million from SEPTA!

January 31, 2012
9 Comments

Looks like the Paoli Transportation Center just took a step forward!

According to Anthony Campisi of PlanPhilly, the SEPTA board has

” . . . approved a nearly $7.5 million contract to Gannett Fleming Inc. for design of a new Paoli regional rail station. Long a priority of Tredyffrin Township, the Chester County municipality where the station is located, the current plan would involve building a new station 80 feet west of the current location that better connects with SEPTA and private buses and involves a reworking of a nearby Amtrak interlocking, as well as the installation of high-level platforms.”

This is exciting news for the community — we all know this project has been in limbo with virtually no movement. At the risk of sounding too enthusiastic, I think the next move on the project was funding from SEPTA. With the design team for the project named, maybe now the project will get back on track.

Former State Rep Paul Drucker championed the Paoli Transportation Center project during his tenure in the PA State House. After losing his re-election bid to Warren Kampf in 2010, Drucker has continued to stay involved in the Paoli Transportation project as a private citizen.

So . . . was it just coincidence that Drucker officially declared his 2012 candidacy for another run against Kampf, the same week that SEPTA awarded the design contract for the train station? What’s the saying about there are no coincidences in life. Kampf sent out notification of the SEPTA contract award via his Facebook page.

Looks like the 2012 match-up between Drucker and Kampf could once again place the Paoli Transportation Center squarely in the center as a campaign issue. If nothing else, the use of the train station as a campaign issue may keep the transportation project moving forward. Here’s hoping . . .

Share or Like:
        
 

Expert Negotiators Named as TESD Teacher Contracts Talks Begin

January 28, 2012
10 Comments

Tredyffrin Easttown School District contract negotiation process with the teachers union, Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) is officially underway. The current 4-year collective bargaining agreement expires June 2012. (Click here for current contract).

With a cooperative tone, both sides have issued their preliminary statements – the school board recognizing the quality and standard of the District’s teachers but reinforcing the severity of our economic times. And the teachers union proudly applauding the school district as one of the best in the state and stating their desire to work together through the contract negotiations. The TEEA however did voice concern that no school board director was part of the negotiating team.

Representing the school district for the teacher contract negotiations:

  • Dan Waters, TESD superintendent
  • Sue Tiede, TESD human resources director
  • Art McDonnell, TESD business manager
  • Jeffrey Sultanik, Fox Rothchild, Blue Bell*

* Sultanik’s law practice focuses on personnel and labor relations for municipal and school districts. He chairs his firm’s Education Law Group, which has provided legal services to more than 90 school districts throughout PA. During his tenure as former president of the PA School Board Solicitors Association, Sultanik presented legislative testimony before the PA Senate Education Committee, May 2009. Click here to read a copy of his testimony, ‘Public Hearing on Teacher’s Strikes in Pennsylvania and the Impact on Public Education’.

Currently at the helm of the school district’s teacher union is TEEA president Laura Whittaker, a Conestoga HS social studies teacher. Representing TEEA in the contract negotiations is Ruthann Waldie, a UniServe representative from the PA State Education Association. Other members of the teacher negotiating team have not yet been announced.

As an aside, Waldie represented the Unionville Chadds Ford School District teachers union in their recent and very long (challenging) teacher contract negotiations. If you recall, the state intervened and assigned an outside arbitrator in the UCFSD negotiations. Although the arbitrator was brought in to bring both sides together, there was a feeling from the UCFSD teachers union (a feeling that was shared by Waldie) that the arbitrator did not fairly represent the teacher’s side. I share this information, to point out that neither Sultanik nor Waldie are novices to school district negotiations.

With two ‘A players’ (Sultanik and Waldie) in the school district/teacher union negotiating world representing the opposing sides, we’ll have to wait and see if the TESD contract process may put their skill and experience to a test.

Looking beyond T/E school district boundaries, did you see the suggestion of one Philadelphia City Council member to help fund the Philadelphia city school system? With a larger than expected budget shortfall (nearly $80 million in the red!), Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown obviously supports the theory that difficult times require creative solutions. Her proposed legislature would keep the city bars open an additional hour, until 3 AM. This extra hour of liquor tax revenue would net the schools an extra $5 million. I’m all for the ‘thinking outside the box’ ideas but somehow the use of liquor and schools in the same sentence just seems wrong – isn’t there a better way?

Chester Upland School District has become the poster child for failing school districts in the state. CUSD announced to the state in December that they would be out-of-money by early January and therefore, unable to meet their payroll, utilities, etc. With the announcement, brought an offer from the CUSD teachers to work without pay, at least temporarily. At the ninth hour, the federal court intervened, issuing a short reprieve and an order for the state to advance $3.2 million to the district. Although the state money has continued to keep the doors open and the teachers on the job, this band-aid solution was only worth a few weeks.

Come the beginning of February, Chester Upland School District will have used up their advance and once again, be out of money – CUSD needs approximately $20 million to finish out the school year. Gosh, don’t the kids in CUSD deserve to know that their schools will be open until the end of the year?

Finally, click here for a draft legislative proposal that several PA state legislators have recently made public. Marked confidential, the draft proposal document is titled “Chester Upland Fiscal Distress” and dated November 4, 2011. Interesting to note that this draft proposal was written prior to CUSD’s request to the state for financial help. The proposal calls for the state to take over school districts in financial distress (starting with Chester Upland) and run the school district with the use of an oversight board – a ‘Special Board of Control’.

This special board would have the legal authority to cancel teacher contracts, turn district schools into charter schools, reassign or suspend staff and to close schools. To be clear, this is only a draft proposal and no formal legislation has yet been introduced – however, this draft would suggest that the ‘handwriting is the wall’ for the introduction of this, or similar legislation.

Looks like Chester Upland School District could become the model for all distressed school districts across the state. It is probably a fair assumption that how the state decides to handle the financial crisis in CUSD will be duplicated in every other failing school district in Pennsylvania.

Share or Like:
        
 

Kampf-Drucker 2012 Election Rematch for PA House of Representatives, District 157

January 25, 2012
18 Comments

Rumored for weeks, it is now official – Election Day 2012 will see a rematch between State Rep Warren Kampf (R) and former State Rep Paul Drucker (D) for the PA House of Representatives, District 157.

Drucker defeated opponent Guy Ciarrocchi (R) on November 4, 2008 to succeed retiring Republican Carole Rubley. If you recall, the Drucker-Ciarrocchi race had the distinction of being the most expensive (and possibly the nastiest) race in the state in 2008. A close race for the legislative district 157, Drucker defeated Ciarrocchi by a margin of 50.95% to 49.1%.

After serving 2 years as our State Representative, Drucker was defeated in 2010 in his re-election bid by Republican Warren Kampf. Earlier this month, Kampf formally announced his decision to seek a second term to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

The Chester County Democratic Party held their nominating convention tonight. Democratic Committeepersons and proxies cast their votes and by the end of the night, Drucker emerged from the convention endorsement process as the chosen endorsed PA House of Representative democratic candidate for District 157.

The Pennsylvania Primary Election date is April 24, 2012 and is likely an uncontested primary for both Kampf and Drucker.

Looking ahead to this rematch between Drucker and Kampf, can we hope that the candidates, and their campaign committees, will stick to the actual voting records and history on issues of their opponent?

Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme