Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Looking for a Job? Local Government has Openings

June 4, 2011
11 Comments

Our local government has a couple of immediate employment opportunities – for a Director of Public Works and a Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer.

Steve Norcini’s last day on the job as Tredyffrin’s Director of Public Works Department was this past Friday. It is my understanding that Steve left Tredyffrin for a new job as the director of Public Works in Radnor Township. Under Steve’s leadership in Tredyffrin, the Public Works Department successfully battled the last couple of winters for the residents – this was no easy task and the residents were very grateful for the long hours and time to keep the roads cleared for the residents. Snow removal was just one responsibility on the long job description list as head of Tredyffrin’s Public Works Department.

Tredyffrin’s loss of Steve Norcini is Radnor’s gain . . . he will be missed! Congratulations and best wishes Steve!

Here is a partial description of the Director of Public Works position. If you are interested in the position, email a cover letter and resume to the attention of Mimi Gleason, Township Manager, director@tredyffrin.org .

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

The Director of Public Works must be well-organized with strong leadership and motivational skills. Capital projects must be demonstrably well-designed and cost effective. Effective communication with the public and staff is a must. The next Director must have the ability to develop a strong relationship with employees to maintain trust and morale while addressing the challenges facing local units of government today. Other necessary skills include effective budgeting, smart use of technology and time management. New initiatives will include developing performance measures and using web-based technology for work orders.

Minimum qualifications: Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering or related field and ten years experience, at least five years in a supervisory capacity in Public Works or a closely related field. Excellent benefits, salary based on qualifications.

Click here for job description.

The second job opportunity currently available in our local government is for a Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer. Emmy Baldassarree, an employee of the township for 18 years, currently holds this position but will be retiring in a few short weeks. As Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer, Emmy is actively involved in much of the township zoning and application process in the township. As a member of HARB for a number of years, I have had the pleasure of working with Emmy . . . she will not be easy to replace and will be missed by many in the community. Here’s to a happy retirement Emmy, you earned it!

If you are interested or know someone who may be interested, below is the job description for the Zoning & Code Enforcement Officer position.

ZONING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

Professional position involving administration of the zoning permit review process, making determinations of compliance with the zoning ordinance and property maintenance ordinance, managing the application process for and providing professional advice and assistance to the Zoning Hearing Board, maintaining the zoning map, conducting on site inspections, researching zoning ordinance and subdivision and land development ordinance inquiries, preparing regular reports to the Board of Supervisors, attending professional association meeting and conferences to remain current on planning and community development trends.

Minimum qualifications: College degree with one year of related experience. Necessary skills include ability to communicate clearly and concisely orally and in writing, general proficiency with common computer programs and software including Microsoft Office and Arc View, and manage multiple tasks efficiently and simultaneously.

Full time position with excellent benefits and competitive salary. Send resume and references to: zoposition@tredyffrin.org EOE.

Share or Like:
        
 

Reserve Funds Exceeding $3 Billion in PA Schools . . . But how Long Can School Districts Depend on Reserves to Balance Budgets?

June 3, 2011
1 Comment

There is an interesting report out this week about Pennsylvania schools, which states that schools across the state are holding more than $3 billion in reserve funds.

There is an ongoing debate about drawing from fund balances to balance school budgets, particularly in light of the current economic crisis. We have seen in the past 6 months of budget discussions that T/E School District is no different.

However, striking a balance between holding onto a buffer in the school district fund balance and increasing taxes doesn’t make for easy school board decisions. Some taxpayers have argued in the past, that the district fund balance in T/E is too large and that it represents past overtaxing of residents.

When looking at Gov. Corbett’s state education funding cuts and the rising costs to maintain teacher pensions, TESD finds itself in an enviable position — a school district that has a positive fund balance. Of course, when you look at the 5-year plan and pension costs, it is evident how quickly the funding buffer will disappear. So although TESD has a substantial fund balance, the pension contributions going forward will deplete the fund unless there is help from the state.

Question, should school districts be forced to use their fund balances to help make up the funding deficit from the state? Should the state be required to help school districts with the pension crisis or face the bankruptcy of school districts that cannot afford their contributions?

There are some interesting fund balance statistics from school districts around the state – here is the article in case you missed it.

Schools hold more than $3 billion in reserve funds — At least $1.7 billion may be set aside for pensions, bond ratings
By Darwyyn Deyo | PA Independent

HARRISBURG — Schools across Pennsylvania hold more than $2.8 billion in reserve funds, but legislators and school boards disagree about whether the money can be spent to buffer against proposed state government cuts this year.

The reserve funds are divided into two categories — designated and undesignated. The undesignated funds are not committed to any planned project. Designated funds and any other funds, such as capital reserves, are allocated to specific projects, such as new buildings.

School districts are required by state law to keep 5 percent of their annual spending in the undesignated reserve funds to preserve bond ratings. The Pennsylvania School Board Association, or PSBA, an association of school boards in the state, said that as recently as 2008-2009, 345 of the state’s 500 school districts had more than 10 percent of their spending in their reserve funds — more than double the expected amount.

Of those 345 districts, 223 districts held in excess of 15 percent. Out of the 500 school districts, 259 school districts saw their undesignated reserve funds increase in 2009-2010.

While many districts are holding plenty of cash in reserve, the number of districts with drained reserve funds is increasing. In 2008-2009, 14 school districts held a negative fund balance. The districts had overdrawn the undesignated funds for other purposes and had not repaid the money. In 2009-10, the number of overdrawn schools districts increased to 37.

The negative funds ranged from $64,217 at Farrell Area School District in Mercer County to more than $32.7 million at Philadelphia School District.

In undesignated reserve funds, the school districts – not including charter schools or other special programs – held more than $1.7 billion, which theoretically could be used for everything. In 2008-2009, school districts held $1.64 billion in undesignated reserve funds.

The data, said David Davare, director of research for the PSBA, is from this past year’s balance sheets, so there is no indication yet on whether school districts dipped into the reserve this year and further depleted the savings. “That number that was just released … was based on the school year that ended last June 30,” said Davare. “In 2008-2009, 156 districts consumed some portion of their fund balance as part of the school operations … so I don’t know how many districts planned on consuming (their) fund balance based on the current year.”

Blackhawk School District in Beaver County holds the least amount in undesignated reserve funds with $28,799. Delaware School District in Pike County held the most with more than $9 million.

State Rep. Paul Clymer, R-Bucks, chairman of the House Education Committee, said he would be open to school districts using undesignated reserve funds to help restore some of the funds that have been trimmed from the state’s education budget for the 2011-12 fiscal year. The state is proposing spending $10.19 billion on education, compared to the $10.77 billion it spent for fiscal year 2010-11.

“Yes, I would use it cautiously,” said Clymer. “Going to the limit — these dollars have to be held in reserve. Those that can do it and not risk the surplus they have accrued over the years, I would support that. It can only go so far and they will hit the required level as required by the school codes” for bond ratings.

State Rep. James Roebuck, D-Philadelphia, minority chairman of the House Education Committee, took the opposite view and argued that the state government still has to provide a “thorough and efficient” public education system, as outlined in the state constitution.

Using reserve funds “shouldn’t necessarily be predicated upon the individual districts coming up with money to do what the state is supposed to do,” said Roebuck. “The state has reduced, substantially, its commitment to public education and done away with significant initiatives that underwrite things like full-day kindergarten, dual enrollment to transition from basic to higher education,” he said.

Beth Winters, director of legislative services for the PSBA, pointed to the upcoming pension spike as a reason not to spend the reserve fund dollars now. By 2028, school districts face paying $30.6 million into the Public School Employees Retirement System, a contribution that will increase to $36 million by 2032.

“If you actually take a look at the public pension and special education costs, those fund balances will be depleted,” said Winters. “School districts are looking at this from a long-term basis, and if you look at the pension numbers, we’re going to have 20 years of double digit pension contributions (that) employers are going to make. … Those fund balances are to cover those costs.”

Erik Arneson, spokesman for Senate Republicans, said “school districts’ undesignated reserve funds will receive a good deal of focus during the ongoing budget discussions.”

The state Senate has opposed the education cuts proposed budget.

Share or Like:
        
 

T/E School Board’s Special Meeting on June 1 includes Amended TENIG Agreement . . . No Custodial Outsourcing but What about the $800K Proposed Savings?

May 31, 2011
31 Comments

The TESD 2011-12 budget process started in late 2010 and has included multiple budget, finance and school board meetings and updates to the public. The school board and administration have worked to present a timeline of budget information and to keep us informed on budget strategies. Hearing the ‘shared sacrifice’ appeal from the Board to the Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) teachers union, both sides were able to come to an agreement for the 2011-12 school year, which included a salary wage freeze. The process was tedious and both TESD and TEEA appeared satisfied with the results.

Throughout the budget process, the administration and Board supported TESD’s educational standard as its focus and priority. Any budget strategies requiring cuts to educational programming was only with much discussion. One such expense reduction decision was the budget strategy that included eliminating Latin and German in the middle school . . . a difficult decision, but one that was required to help bridge the budget deficit. Generally, I have observed willingness on the Board’s part to fully disseminate the budget information and to keep the budget process as transparent as possible. It is for that very reason that I find this week’s special board meeting and the notification of agenda items (or lack of notification) somewhat troubling.

I received email notification last week of TESD’s upcoming special board meeting on Wednesday, June 1 at 5:30 PM. The stated purpose of the meeting is to approve the Conestoga High School graduating Class of 2011. There was no mention of any other agenda items at the meeting – and I probably would not have bothered to check further except that a township resident alerted me. In review, the June 1 agenda includes a “proposal to amend the TENIG collective bargaining agreement”. Contained in the agenda materials is the proposed amended TENIG agreement and schedule of wages, effective 4/29/11 – 6/30/14. (Click Here for meeting agenda, see pgs. 5-7 for TENIG agreement and schedule of wages).

I will discuss the contents of the TENIG agreement and wages later in this post, but first I will address TESD process as it relates to the outsourcing of custodial services. For months, there has been discussion at the budget, finance and regular school board meetings about the possibility of outsourcing of custodial services as a budget strategy option. At each meeting where details of the budget were presented, there was always a slide indicating the possible savings of $800K for custodial outsourcing. To quantify the District savings, the administration sent out a RFP for custodial outsourcing earlier in the year. According to the School Board Meeting Minutes of 3/21/11, “. . . the results of bidding on outsourcing custodial services will be available on April 4 and will be provided to TENIG for review. The committee will evaluate the bid results as an option to balance the budget”.

The School Board Meeting Minutes of 4/25/11 further reflected that “. . . The District is in the process of analyzing bid results for the outsourcing of custodial staff. These bid results have been shared with TENIG, and we continue discussions with TENIG on alternatives to outsourcing. . . “

At the May 9 School Board Meeting, the 2011-12 Final Budget was presented; (Click Here for Final Budget) Page 15 shows the following:

*Remaining Budget Shortfall ($2,183,448)
Options to Close Shortfall:
1. Outsourcing Custodial Services: $800,000
2. Pay Increase Waiver TENIG only: $300,000
3. Additional Budget Strategies $0
4. Use of Fund Balance $2,183,448
(Tentative for Proposed Final Budget on May 9th)
*Includes TEEA Proposal of 50% Pay Increase Waiver of May 6th

Contained in the proposed final budget is the salary freeze offer from the teachers union, TEEA. There was no mention in the budget presentation of the status of the custodial services outsourcing or of TENIG’s contract.

After the meeting, I mentioned to a couple of Board members that I was surprised that custodial outsourcing was not on the agenda nor was there any mention made of the results of the bids for the outsourcing; but received no response. There was indication in the final budget (see above chart) that one of the few options remaining to close the shortfall was outsourcing of custodial services — an expected savings of $800K. How many outsource bids were received? What were the offers? How did the custodial outsourcing bids stack up against TENIG’s contract for custodial services?

Following the May 9 school board meeting, the TESD released a press release summarizing the proposed final budget:

http://www.tesd.net/2127101028153743227/lib/2127101028153743227/11may9.pdf

Highlights of the proposed 2011-12 proposed final budget includes:
(1) Property tax increase of 3.77%, which equates to an average increase of $171 to T/E homeowners;
(2) $3.85 million in expense reductions and revenue increases;
(3) And $2.25 million in fund balance contribution to address the $8.9 million budget gap between revenues and expenditures.

The press release further explained that the proposed final budget includes the offer from the T/E instructional collective bargaining unit (TEEA). As was the case at the TESD Board Meeting, the summary does not (1) address the projected savings resulting from outsourcing custodial services ($800K) or (2) pay increase waiver from non-instructional collective bargaining unit, TENIG ($300K). According to the May 9 School Board Meeting Minutes these are the only remaining options to close the budget shortfall

What I find fascinating in the May 9 press release is the statement that the Board is “still evaluating other options to close the budget shortfall and will present the final budget on June 13”.

We now fast forward to tomorrow’s special board meeting and find that negotiations between TESD and TENIG have apparently already taken place and there is now a proposal for an amended TENIG agreement.

Questions: What happened with the custodial outsourcing bid process? What were the results of the bids? Why did the notification for tomorrow’s special board meeting not include any mention of the TENIG amended agreement proposal?

The custodial services outsourcing process began correctly but somehow the Board lost the transparency in the process and now we are left with the end product – the amended TENG contract. Although the Board continued to say meeting after meeting that there were looking at the final remaining budget savings options, we skip over the $800K option to outsource custodial services without explanation. To be fair, it is entirely possible that after reviewing the bids for outsourcing, the Board decided for any number of reasons (cost, student security, etc.) that they wanted to keep the custodial service ‘as is’ and covered by TENIG. These reasons could be valid – but why not let the public know why and how that decision was made?

Now we if look at the amended TENIG agreement; I have received several questions and concerns from taxpayers on this matter. Yes, TENIG has agreed to a salary freeze for 2011-12 year and I think that savings may be $300K. However, there are two additional years to the TENIG contract with increases of 4.5% each year. Was there any attempt by the Board to negotiate those increases? Is it possible that the District is (1) losing the cost savings of outsourcing custodial services and (2) additionally giving a pay increase to custodial staff?

The Board has been so diligent in their budget review process when cutting educational programs and increasing student fees (increased student parking fees and driver’s education training), I am surprised that non-education wages of TENIG are increased.

In closing, I have a couple of problems: (1) where was the transparency in the outsourcing process, and (2) understanding there remains a $2+ million budget shortfall in TESD, how can the Board rationalize an increase in TENIG wages in 2012 and 13 when the District has been forced to cut educational programming and increase fees.

Share or Like:
        
 

Once a State Rep Campaign Debate, Could the Tolling of Rt. 422 be a ‘Model’ for Tolling Highways across the State?

May 28, 2011
13 Comments

What’s the saying, ‘What Goes Around, Comes Around” . . . ?

For most of the year 2010, voters of Tredyffrin Township had a front row seat as the ‘tolling of Rt. 422’ issue became a political football in the PA State House 157 race between incumbent State Rep Paul Drucker (D) and challenger Warren Kampf (R). Some political insiders might even argue that Drucker’s stance on 422 tolling may have contributed to the loss of his state representative position last November.

Although a heated campaign issue, post-election the tolling of Rt. 422 has had nearly non-existent discussion. That is until now. According to Pennsylvania Independent, an on-line news service, the 25-mile, four-lane US Route 422 will be promoted on Monday, June 6 as a potential ‘model’ for tolling highways across the state as a means to increase transportation funding.

Gov. Corbett’s recently appointed 30-member Transportation Funding Commission will hear a presentation on how tolls would work on Rt. 422 in Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties. The executive commission is looking at a way to generate at least $2.5 billion in annual transportation funding for infrastructure needs and the ‘tolling of 422’ may serve as the state’s model for how to do it.

According to Barry Schoch, Secretary of Transportation for Pennsylvania and chairman of the commission, “Route 422 model would allow county or municipal authorities to form a ‘local taxation authority’ and keep the revenue from tolls and local taxes dedicated for local highways”.

Construction of a local suburban commuter rail line was one of the possible uses of 422 tolls and a means to alleviate some of the highway traffic. If you recall, the Philadelphia-based Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) created a Route 422 Corridor Master Plan and presented their findings in 2010 to local municipalities, including Tredyffrin Township. Their plan, among other things, provided for a light rail commuter service and suggested tolling on Rt. 422 as a way of financing the project.

During 2010, the tolling of 422 provided a major talking point for the Drucker and Kampf political campaigns. Drucker supported DVRPC and the Route 422 Corridor Master Plan, which included tolling of 422. However, Drucker was specific that the tolling was for the commuter who was traveling the entire stretch of the highway on a regular basis, not the occasional user or those that would use it on-off.

In response to Drucker, Kampf’s opposing position on the Route 422 Corridor Master Plan was simple. On his campaign website, Kampf stated “My position on tolling Route 422 is clear: I oppose it.” Remaining true to his campaign words, when asked to respond to the upcoming Transportation Funding Commission presentation to use tolling of 422 as a model for the state, Kampf said, “Tolling is another way of taxing people. . .” He is opposed to using state and local funds to build, operate and maintain a commuter rail line that would benefit rail commuters at the expense of others.

Like much of the country, many of Pennsylvania’s roads and bridges are in crisis; desperately in need of repairs. Although lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree on the infrastructure needs, they may not be as unified in the funding solutions. No one has a crystal ball, but we now see evidence from Corbett’s Transportation Funding Commission that supports Drucker’s vision for the future . . . a suburban commuter rail line and the use of tolls to finance infrastructure improvements.

Some could argue that State Rep Kampf battled former State Rep Drucker successfully on the 422 tolling issue, but it looks like Kampf could face a far greater challenge in Harrisburg . . . and, from both sides.

Share or Like:
        
 

Memorial Day: Remember to Remember

May 28, 2011
Comments

Memorial Day weekend marks the unofficial start of summer and usually means a relaxing day off from work, maybe a trip to the Jersey Shore or hot dogs on the grill.

But in the midst of all the fun, please take some time to remember those who have served and sacrificed their lives to provide us with the freedoms and opportunities we so enjoy and to remember that freedom is not free.

Take pause this Memorial Day 2011 to remember the number: 1,344,000. That’s the number of American military members who have died in wars and skirmishes defending our way of life. War is a deadly business. This day is for those 1.3 million lives cut short, and their untold millions of dreams left forgotten and unfulfilled. Behind those lives lost are acts of heroism and sacrifice, known and unknown, on battlefields large and small, on very imaginable landscape in every corner of the globe. Their deeds and sense of duty helped save countless other lives and preserved our nation.

Our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen and our Marines . . . they take up arms to defend our freedoms. They protect us from tyrants and offer their lives in the name of liberty. For one day each year, we stop to remember those names on a wall that didn’t come home. Remember all those men and women who died defending our way of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Lee Greenwood’s lyrics say it best, “I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free. And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.”

Memorial Day 2011, let us give thanks for our freedom and remember those who made it possible.

Share or Like:
        
 

TTDEMS Chair Dariel Jamieson Offers Comment on Special Election Ballot Hand-Counting

May 26, 2011
8 Comments

Dariel Jamieson, chair of the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee, provided a comment to Community Matters. Jamieson’s remarks speak directly to the hand count by Chester County Department of Voter Services on Monday of the Special Election ballots. Her remarks provide us with further details of the recounting process and I thought it important to provide them in this post (see below).

In her remarks, Jamieson brings up an interesting point – it certainly would have helped if Voter Services had run the ballots through a voting machine prior to the hand count. I would think that if Voter Services could duplicate the machine malfunction error, there would be a greater probability of correcting the problem! Echoing a question that another CM reader posed, what were the candidates told by Voter Services as the ‘reason’ for the 61 uncounted votes.

[Subsequent to this post, Dariel Jamieson has provided an official press release from the TTDEMS, click here to read. According to Jamieson’s information, over 100 of the 223 precincts in Chester County have not reported voting irregularities. In my opinion, there should be a complete internal examination of systems and procedures at the Department of Voter Services.]

In reading between-the-lines of Jamieson’s remarks, is there a sense that the end of the story may not yet be told?

Comment from Dariel Jamieson, Chair, Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee

I have been told by our witnesses that there was NOT a machine count of the Tredyffrin votes prior to the full manual recount. We believe Voter Services acted with good intentions, thinking it would be helpful to speed resolution of the special election by going right to a manual count. While this did speed things up, I personally believe that a machine count first might have shed some light on how and why the machines might have been malfunctioning.

Voter Services also told our witnesses that there was no way to know for sure that all the uncounted ballots were Republican, although seeing the outcome of counting them Makes it look like they were. We were told that all the ballots that were accepted into the machines end up in the same compartment, so it could not definitively be said which ones were counted and which were not. If something was wrong with only Republican ballots, why did they not all reject?

A reconciliation of the number of ballots that were counted in the manual count has not yet been reconciled to the number of signatures in the sign in sheets and names in the poll books. Voter Services has said that those kinds of reconciliations will be done after all the precincts in the County have gone through the official count process. If those numbers all match, then one could conclude that the number of physical ballots that were manually counted was the correct number of ballots. If they should not match, one would have to ask where the additional ballots came from.

Speculation that putting the ballots in face up, face down, backward, or with poor tears of the perforation could all be possible, but that seems incompatible with the idea that all the unread ballots were Republican.

And adding 61 ballots to the mix will almost certainly change the totals in the other races, bur probably not enough to change any primary election vote outcomes.

We, too, are waiting for answers.

Share or Like:
        
 

Steve Shapiro, Judge of Elections for Tredyffrin’s W-2 Precinct, Offers Step-by-Step Guide to Voting Procedures

May 26, 2011
3 Comments

To help us better understand our voting procedure, Steve Shapiro, the Judge of Elections for the W-2 precinct, has graciously provided us detailed notes below. Steve’s explanation offers us the step-by-step guide to the voting procedure and to the close out at the end of an election day. As I read his notes, it is clear that Steve takes extra steps to protect the voting system process and to insure the quality and accuracy of election results. I know that all that read Community Matters, join me in thanking Steve for his thorough explanation . . . a great community service. Thanks Steve!

Steve Shapiro
Judge of Elections
W-2 Precinct, Tredyffrin Township

Here is an overview of the voting process and the end-of-night procedures:

Before we open the polls, we set up the paper ballot scanner (the M-100) and the electronic machine (the iVotronic). We print out a tape from each showing that no votes have been cast on either machine.

During voting hours, we look up each voter in the Poll Books. If we find them, we have them sign the Poll Book. We also record their name in a different book, called the “Numbered List of Voters Book,” which contains a separate numbered line for each voter. The Numbered List of Voters Book allows us to easily determine, at the end of the day, how many voters signed-in and received a ballot (either paper or electronic). If a voter chooses to vote on a paper ballot, we record the number of the ballot next to his or her name in both the Poll Book and the Numbered List of Voters Book. If the voter chooses to vote electronically, we so indicate in both books. Here a sample of the Numbered List of Voters Book from our poll worker manual, click here.

After a paper ballot voter makes his or her selections, he or she takes the completed ballot to the M-100. An election worker removes the strip at the bottom of the ballot that contains the ballot number, and gives it to the voter as receipt. Now that the ballot number has been removed, the ballot becomes anonymous (it cannot be traced back to the voter) and the voter places the ballot into the machine.

If there are no problems with the ballot, the M-100 processes it and drops the ballot into a locked compartment for safe-keeping. If there are any errors on the ballot that prevent the scanner from reading it, the M-100 displays an error message and returns the ballot (at least, that’s what it’s supposed to do). If there are any over-votes on the ballot (for instance, a voter votes for 3 candidates in a race where he only may vote for 2), the M-100 will display an error message and ask the voter whether he wants to either accept the ballot as-is (thereby invalidating the vote in the race in which he over-voted) or take the ballot back and correct it. Here is the summary of the possible M-100 scanner errors from the poll worker manual – click here.

If a paper ballot voter makes a mistake and needs to correct his or her ballot, we issue a new ballot, change the ballot number for that voter in both the Poll Book and the Numbered List of Voters Book, and keep the spoiled ballot so we can account for it when we close the polls.

An electronic voter makes his selections on the iVotronic’s touchscreen and presses the “Vote” button when he or she is done. The iVotronic will not let a voter over-vote or otherwise mess up his ballot, so we never have to deal with spoiled electronic ballots.

At the end of the night, the first thing we do it process the absentee ballots. The County delivers absentee ballots to us in sealed envelopes with the voter’s signature on the outside of the envelope. We first check the Poll Books to make sure that the voter did not vote in person and that the signature on the envelope matches the signature in the Poll Book. If everything checks out, we open the outer envelope, and remove the sealed inner envelope that contains the ballot. We then mix up the sealed inner envelopes to anonymise them before opening them, removing the ballots and scanning them into the M-100.

Next, we close the voting machines. For the iVotronic, all that entails is a few presses on the touchscreen to lock down the voting function on the machine. We then print off a closing tape that shows the total ballots cast and the number of votes each candidate received. The tape shows only totals — it does not show how each voter voted. We also remove the data card on which the votes are electronically recorded.

The M-100 requires more effort. First, we print out a tape that shows the total ballots cast and the number of votes each candidate received. Then we remove the data card on which the votes are electronically recorded. Next, we open the machine and remove the ballots. The M-100 deposits any ballots with write-in votes into a different compartment. We review those ballots and hand-write the write-in votes onto a tally sheet. We then add the ballots with write-in votes to the rest of the ballots and count all of them by hand to see how many ballots we have (in a primary we have the added step of separating the ballots by party before we count them).

Once the hand count is completed, we fill in a “General Returns of Votes Cast” form. Here is a link to a sample General Return from the poll worker manual:

The form is basically a worksheet that allows us to ascertain whether we have accounted for all of the paper ballots. We add up the number of paper ballots cast, the number of spoiled ballots and the number of left-over ballots. That sum should equal the number the ballots the County delivered to us at the beginning of the day. We also add the number of paper ballots cast to the number of electronic ballots cast to come up with the total number of ballots cast. If, during this process, the numbers do not add up, you are supposed to flag that for Voter Services by writing a note in the “Remarks” box on the General Return.

At this point, it is my practice to check the total number of ballots cast on the General Return against the following to make sure they jive: (1) the number of voters listed in the Numbered List of Voters Book; and (2) the number of ballots cast as reported on the machine tapes. That is how we discovered the problem last week — the number of ballots cast on the General Return did not match the number of ballots cast on the tapes. I concede that neither the General Return nor the poll worker instructions direct us to make that comparison (maybe it should), but it seems like common sense to me. In addition, all poll workers take an oath before we open the polls, and I believe that checking all of the numbers for discrepancies is consistent with the part of the oath in which I swear to faithfully perform my duties to the best of my judgment and ability. A copy of the oath from the poll worker manual is here.

After we discovered the problem last Tuesday, we made a note in the remarks box on the General Return. I also emailed Voter Services and copied a representative of each party (that is not required, but it seemed like good practice).

As for the poll workers’ signatures, even if the numbers on the General Return do not add up and we leave a note for Voter Services, we still have to sign the General Return. So we are not certifying that the numbers are correct; rather we are saying that the reported numbers are what we counted. Likewise, although we have to sign the tapes from the machines, we are are not certifying that the numbers on the tape are accurate. We could not possibly know, for instance, whether the M-100 scanned the votes properly. Rather, by signing the tapes we are saying that these are the tapes we printed from the machines.

Finally, we place the General Return and the data cards into a small pouch, which we seal with a security tab. We place the paper ballots into a large pouch, which we also seal with a security tab. We then drive both pouches, along with all of the other election supplies, to Voter Services in West Chester. The unofficial results you see on election night are taken, I think, from the data cards (the tapes are just a print out of the information on the data cards).

Share or Like:
        
 

Heaberg Claims Victory in Special Election but Questions Remain For Chester County Voter Services

May 25, 2011
7 Comments

Late last night I received a press release from Mike Heaberg (see below) that declares his victory in the Special Election.

Both political parties appear to be satisfied with the special election ballot hand counting on Monday by Chester County Department of Voter Services. The recounting process uncovered 61 ballots that were not originally counted, adding 52 additional votes to Republican Mike Heaberg and 9 additional votes to Democratic Molly Duffy totals. The original vote count had favored Duffy by 40 votes, but with the additional votes, the final vote count was Duffy, 2,275 votes and Heaberg, 2,278; a difference of only 3 votes, in favor of Heaberg.

We now know that all 61 ballots belonged to registered Republican voters, leading to many questions. It is understood that the actual ballots of the Republican, Democratic and Independent voters are printed differently. The only thing that makes any sense is that there appears the problem may have been a printing or alignment issues on the Republican voter’s ballots. I have also learned that the problem was not at only 12 of the 17 precincts as I previously wrote, but actually occurred at virtually every precinct.

Therefore, if we assume that there were mechanical issues with Republican ballots, printing or otherwise, I still find myself struggling with several issues and maybe someone can help me. After the polls closed on election day, I assume that there is a certain procedure that takes place, i.e. tallying the votes, posting the results at the precincts, delivery of materials to Voter Services, etc. As part of this procedure, each precinct must have an individual responsible for ‘signing-off’ on the accuracy of the vote count, correct? So did these individuals sign-off on the results? Did they report the inaccuracies to Voter Services when they delivered the materials that evening? I am curious how the actual procedure works — maybe Steve Shapiro as Judge of Elections for W-2 precinct could help us understand the procedure.

I understand that Voter Services was aware made aware of various issues, including malfunctioning machines, during the course of Election Day. If Voter Services knew there were problems and that the vote count was inaccurate, why would they bother to post the precinct vote count and the final totals on their website? Would it not be more appropriate for them to make a statement concerning the problem and that they were working to correct the discrepancies?

The issues surrounding the special election – the malfunctioning voting machines, the uncounted 61 votes, inaccurate reporting of ballot results, etc. are unsettling and troubling; and I look to Voter Services for answers and accountability. Not only about what exactly went wrong but also how they intend to correct these problems in advance of the general election in November. At a minimum, I suggest an internal examination of Voter Service procedures. Should the County Commissioners investigate?

Heaberg Wins Special Election
Thanks People of Tredyffrin, Chester County Voter Services

Tredyffrin Supervisor Michael Heaberg today released the following statement regarding the results of the Special Election held on Tuesday, May 17th:

“In light of the hand count of all votes in this race by Chester County Voter Services in the presence of representatives from both campaigns, and with the results of that count showing my campaign to have won, I want to thank the voters of Tredyffrin for their support and all of the people who worked so hard in this campaign to make this victory a reality.”

“I look forward to representing the concerns of all Tredyffrin residents and addressing issues of importance to all, just as I have as an interim Supervisor. I ran on a platform of continuing fiscally responsible government that meets the needs of residents and protects our quality of life, and I am grateful for the opportunity to serve and continue a successful track-record for the people of Tredyffrin.”

“While the special election is now over, I look forward to continuing to meet with and talk to the people of Tredyffrin as I seek their support for a full term as Supervisor.”

“I also wish to join with the leaders of the Democratic Party of Tredyffrin who expressed their confidence in Voter Services’ ability to come to an accurate and reliable tabulation. I thank the professionals there who took the time to investigate reports of voting machine issues on election day and put in the effort to ensure a result in which all residents can have confidence.”

Share or Like:
        
 

Hand-Count of Duffy-Heaberg Special Election Ballots in Tredyffrin Finds 61 Uncounted Ballots . . . Changes the Outcome of the Race

May 24, 2011
33 Comments

A week ago the polls closed, the votes were counted and unofficially Democrat Molly Duffy had won the Special Election against Republican Mike Heaberg by 40 votes. Chester County Department of Voter Services listed unofficially Duffy receiving 2,266 votes and Heaberg with 2,226 votes.

Immediately following the closing of the polls, there was discussion of voting inaccuracies and talk of machine malfunctions. We learned first hand from Steve Shapiro, the Judge of Elections at the W-2 precinct, that there were an additional 5 ballots found in the voting machine that were not counted. There were reports of similar malfunctioning machines at four or five other precincts in the township. As a result, Chester County Voter Services conducted a daylong hand-count yesterday of all 17 voting precincts in Tredyffrin. Duffy and Heaberg attended the recounting by Voter Services, as did their attorneys and representatives from the Tredyffrin Township Democratic and Republican parties.

Late yesterday, after recounting all the ballots by hand, it was determined that 61 ballots were not originally counted, changing the results of the special election. Of the 61 ballots found not counted, nine additional votes went to Duffy and 52 additional votes went to Heaberg. The new unofficial vote total indicates Duffy receiving 2,275 and Heaberg receiving 2,278 . . . a difference of 3 votes, this time in favor of Heaberg. If this total is accurate, it may be the closest supervisor election in the township’s history.

It is my understanding that there was vote count issues found in 12 of the 17 precincts. How is this possible? That strikes me as a very high percentage of malfunctioning machines! However, at this point, it is unclear to me if the problems were attributable only to machine malfunctions or if there were other types of errors. Who could have predicted that a 40-vote difference in favor of one candidate could change with a recount to favor the other candidate by 3 votes? What is the probability of that happening?

Again, there is caution that the new special election vote totals are unofficial until certified. Do we believe that the hand-count is accurate and that this final vote count will stand? Or, will it take 4-5 weeks as previously explained, for the certification process? Assuming the new hand-count number is correct; will the Democrats challenge the election results?

For me, I’m still stuck on how 61 ballots went uncounted . . . and how many times in past elections has this same scenario played out but may have gone unchecked? It really makes one wonder.

Bottom line, until there is official confirmation on the special election results, I guess we just need to stay tuned.

Share or Like:
        
 

Although the Dark End of the World Predictions Failed, There’s Light for Tredyffrin’s Special Election

May 23, 2011
5 Comments

If you are reading this, the end of the world predictions failed to pan out for Harold Camping. The religious broadcaster made the world’s biggest mistake, twice. Camping got the date wrong in 1994 when he said the world would end that year, and later explained its continued existence by saying he had made a mathematical error.

However, the May 21, 2011 prediction was different; Camping and his followers lavishly spent more than $100 million on billboards and radio advertising. Now Camping is left shaking his head, bewildered, that things did not go according to his prediction and the world did not end at 6 PM on May 21. With no Plan B in place, Camping may be forced to find some obscure, overlooked translation or an error in his math and then move the apocalypse date to a new date.

To follow up on last week’s special election in Tredyffrin, by the time you read this, there may be further news. It is my understanding that at 9 AM this morning (Monday), the two at-large supervisor candidates, Democrat Molly Duffy and Republican Mike Heaberg are meeting with Chester County voter service representatives. (The special election determined who would fill the vacated seat of Warren Kampf until January 2012). Also in attendance for the voter services meeting will be a representative from the local Democratic and Republican parties. Additionally, Duffy and Heaberg will each have an attorney present. Voter services will be conducting a hand count of the votes from the special election with Duffy, Heaberg and others in attendance.

I am not clear if voter services is hand counting the votes from all 17 precincts or only the precincts where is evidence of voting machine malfunctions. As it now stands, the unofficial vote count from last week’s special election indicates 2,266 votes for Duffy and 2,226 votes for Heaberg, a difference of 40 votes. The public needs to know that the total count in the special election is accurate and that all votes were counted, but . . . we as a community need to get to the other side of this issue and accept he voter services hand counting today.

Tonight is the Board of Supervisors meeting . . . will supervisor Heaberg remain on the dais as a member of the Board of Supervisors or, if the hand count with voter services supports the unofficial results that Duffy is the winner, will she take her seat as a supervisor? Originally, all indications were that the official results from the special election would be official and certified in 4-6 weeks. However, the special election hand counting is taking precedent over voter services handling of the primary election results; perhaps there will be an official vote count released today. Stay tuned.

Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme