Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Swedesford Road Open Space Guard Rail Replaced Today!

January 10, 2011
Comments

What’s the saying, a picture is worth a 1,000 words?

If you recall back in December there was discussion on the Swedesford Road Open Space repair project and whether the public works project should move forward in 2011.

As the closest resident to the Swedesford Road Open Space property, I believed a first-hand account of safety issues surrounding the property and its usage was important for the record and I spoke up at the December 21 Board of Supervisors meeting. I offered to the supervisors that for the open space to be available for public use, that the township bears a responsibility to make the property accessible and safe for visitors. I explained that a large section of guard rail at the entrance of the open space is dislodged to a recent accident. I stated that my husband and I do not have an opinion one way or the other about the bridge repair but thought it important to underscore the safety issues when visitors are forced to back out on to Swedesford Road because there is no turnaround space.

One of the supervisors suggested that I was ‘over-dramatizing’ the situation, that there had been no ‘reportable accidents’ and debated my remarks. The supervisor further suggested that visitors to the open space could just look in their rear view mirror and back out on to Swedesford Road.

Fast forward and for the better portion of today, an entire crew of workers, have been replacing the damaged guard rail on Swedesford Road at the entrance of the open space . . . the exact section of the guard rail that I reported to the supervisors in December was caused by an accident. I asked one of the guard rail workers what they were doing . . . and he responded that the police had called to report an accident and need for the guard rail repair. I asked when he received the report for repair; was the report in the last day or two. No, he explained that the report was probably a month ago.

Although I was told at the Board of Supervisors meeting there had been no ‘reportable accidents’ at this site, . . . we have repair to the guard rail at this site occurring today due to an accident. So very interesting!

To be clear, I am not saying (nor did I say at the Board of Supervisors meeting) that the accident occurred as a result of a car entering or exiting the Swedesford Road Open Space. I don’t know whether that was the cause of the accident or not. I only know this is a dangerous location (in the bend of the road) and backing out on to Swedesford Road is not appropriate.

Evidenced by a requirement to replace guard rails due to a ‘reported accident’ at the entrance to the Swedesford Road Open Space, these photos illustrate today’s repair work.

Share or Like:
        
 

TESD Finance Meeting Tonight . . . 2011-12 budget discussions continue

January 10, 2011
Comments

The Tredyffrin Easttown School District continues its 2011-12 budget discussion at tonight’s Finance Committee meeting, 7:30 – 9:30 PM (Click here for meeting agenda).

The meetings are open to the public and will be held in meeting room 200 of the Tredyffrin/Easttown Administration Building at 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1700 in Wayne.

Here is the link to the official recap of the Special School Board meeting as contained in the publication Action Line from the school district.

Share or Like:
        
 

And Then There Were 4 . . . Tredyffrin Interim Supervisor Candidate Drops Out

January 8, 2011
Comments

I have learned that Joe Muir has withdrawn his application from consideration for the interim supervisor vacancy. Mr. Muir was a member of Tredyffrin’s 2009 Budget Advisory Working Group (BAWG). He has a Marketing and Finance degree from Susquehanna University and his career has been in sales and sales management in the healthcare industry and is currently employed by IMS Health. I do not know the reason for Mr. Muir’s decision to withdraw as an interim supervisor candidate. I also do not know whether Mr. Muir will be a candidate in the Special Election.

Currently, there are four remaining interim supervisor candidates for consideration by the Board of Supervisors: John Bravacos, Eamon Brazunas, Mike Heaberg and Kristen Mayock. The deadline for submission of resumes to township manager, mgleason@tredyffrin.org is Monday, January 10.

Following the candidate interview process, the Board of Supervisors will vote and appoint a supervisor on Monday, February 7.

Share or Like:
        
 

PA Sunshine Act Requires Tredyffrin’s Interim Supervisor Candidates to be Interviewed in Public

January 7, 2011
11 Comments

At the January 3 meeting, township supervisor Bob Lamina formally announced a board vacancy. Interested residents were invited to submit their resumes to the township manager by January 10. The process for appointing a new supervisor as explained by Lamina was that the candidates would be interviewed by the supervisors and then a vote and appointment would take place at the February 7 Board of Supervisors meeting.

This process appeared to be straightforward to me. As you know, I called the township manager and received the names of the five individuals that had submitted resumes. I contacted the candidates and asked for their resumes, bio, etc. Three of the candidates (John Bravacos, Eamon Brazunas, and Kristen Mayock) supplied the information to me and the other two candidates (Mike Heaberg, Joe Muir) choose not to provide the information. In lieu of a resume from these two candidates, I provided a short bio.

What a difference a day makes! After numerous calls, emails, etc. I now understand that Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act complicates what appeared to be a simple, straightforward process to interview the interim supervisor candidates. Under the Sunshine Law, the selection of a replacement supervisor is required to proceed in a fashion that is substantially different from what would likely be the case in a non-municipal setting.

At the beginning of each township supervisor meeting, the chair of the Board of Supervisors announces the topics that were discussed in Executive Session. There are only three topics that qualify for private discussion (for purposes of reaching a decision) by the supervisors. Those three, that qualify under certain circumstances for Executive Session consideration involve: 1) certain legal related items; 2) certain real estate acquisition related items; and 3) certain personnel related items. The twist with #3 (and the reason that interviewing supervisor candidates does not qualify) is that a township supervisor is not an employee, from the standpoint of qualifying as a ‘personnel type’ that may qualify for executive session activity. In other words, the whole process, including the interviews for a replacement interim supervisor, is required by the Sunshine Act to occur in advertised public meetings.

If you are interested in further information, here is a link to the Sunshine Act, http://www.openrecordspa.org/sunshine.html A statement to consider from the Open Records website, “Open meetings are the basis for positive discussions between citizens and their elected officials. Government decisions should not be made in secret.”

So what does all this mean for the selection of an interim supervisor for Tredyffrin . . . ? It seems clear to me that the Sunshine Act requires public agencies to hold open meetings, provides for behind-closed-doors executive sessions in certain cases but specifically prohibits ones “involving the appointment or selection of any person to fill a vacancy in any elected office.” There is a regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, January 24 where the interview process of prospective interim supervisor candidates could take place. Since all Board of Supervisors meetings are advertised, I am guessing there would be no additional advertising (or expense) to the township. On the other hand, if I understand the Sunshine Act correctly, a Special Supervisors Meeting could be scheduled (and advertised) for interviewing the candidates.

However, the clock is ticking . . . so I suppose that the township manager, solicitor and Board of Supervisors are working on the next step to schedule the interview date for the five candidates. Again, remember you can still submit your resumes through Monday, January 10 to the township manager, Mimi Gleason at mgleason@tredyffrin.org. Having received emails/phone calls for me to encourage her, I am going to have another conversation with Judy DiFilippo and see if I can convince her to submit her resume to fill the interim supervisor position.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin Interim Supervisor Candidates . . . Bravacos, Brazunas, Heaberg, Mayock, Muir

January 5, 2011
58 Comments

Because of Warren Kampf’s resignation from the Board of Supervisors, there is a vacancy for an ‘interim supervisor’. The interim supervisor will serve on the Board of Supervisors until the Special Election in May.

At this week’s Board of Supervisors meeting the vacancy was formally announced and interested residents were asked to send their resumes to the township manager by Monday, January 10. Because the vacancy was anticipated, the interim supervisor position has been advertised on the township website since early December. Residents who have applied for the interim supervisor position is public information and I contacted the township manager for the list of candidate names.

After receiving the names, I sent an email to each candidate explaining that I would be writing an article and would be including the candidate names. As a means of keeping the selection process transparent and open, I offered to include a “summary of experience, brief bio or a personal statement” with the article if provided by the candidate.

The following individuals have submitted their resumes to the township manager for consideration as interim supervisor.

  • John Bravacos
  • Eamon Brazunas
  • Mike Heaberg
  • Kristen Mayock
  • Joe Muir

John Bravacos, Eamon Brazunas and Kristen Mayock responded to my email and supplied their resumes, bio, etc. and that information is available below. Information was not provided by Mike Heaberg or Joe Muir. However, I have attempted to find background information to include for these candidates.

John Bravacos

Email received from John Bravacos with his resume. (Click here for John Bravacos resume.)

Pattye,
Below is what I sent to Mimi for the vacancy.

Additionally, I have provided this to Board Members and other interested people. I would like to fill the vacancy only until the Special Election to:

1. Move the Rt. 252 Amtrak bridge forward;
2. Work with Willistown to create the joint municipal authority;
3. Start the discussion about the future of the Paoli Library and its lease which ends soon;
4. Help position the Board for the upcoming contract negotiations; and
5. Briefly enjoy the opportunity to serve the Township residents again.

I am not seeking election as there are excellent candidates for the Special Election and for the Primary that have the fresh perspective, enthusiasm and specific plans necessary to sustain them for the full term.

If you have any questions, I’d be happy to talk with you.

John G. Bravacos, Esq.
___________________________________________

Mimi,

Attached is my resume. I am interested in filling the vacancy on the Board of Supervisors created by the resignation of Warren Kampf. Having served on the Board for eight years and lived in the Township for more than 40 years, I believe I can provide valuable service during the brief duration until the special election. As I am not interested in being a candidate in that special election, my time can be focused on the needs of the residents and not electioneering.

John G. Bravacos, Esq.

Eamon Brazunas

Click here for Eamon Brazunas cover letter to the township manager and resume.

Mike Heaberg

With more than 25 years in investment services, Mr. Heaberg co-founded Axiom Asset Management in 2003 and currently serves as the company’s managing director. His previous experience was with Prudential Securities and PaineWebber. Mr. Heaberg is a graduate of Vanderbilt University and is a member of the CFA Society of Philadelphia. An original board member of FLITE, Mr. Heaberg continues to serve on the organization’s board of directors as chair of the Finance & Investment Committee.

Kristen Mayock

Email received from Kristen Mayock with her resume. (Click here for Kristen Mayock’s bio and click here for her resume.)

Pattye:

Pursuant to your request, I have attached my bio and my resume.

I am committed to serving Tredyffrin Township because I believe it is the ideal place to live, work and raise my family. The surroundings are idyllic, rich in history, accessible, safe and affordable. Our Township services and schools are among the best in the region. By serving as a member of the Board of Supervisors, I hope to preserve and improve upon the unique quality of life that Tredyffrin offers to the individuals and families who live here.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my background, experience and commitment to our great Township with Community Matter.

Sincerely,
Kristen Mayock

Joe Muir

Mr. Muir was a member of Tredyffrin Township’s 2009 Budget Advisory Working Group (BAWG). He has a Marketing and Finance degree from Susquehanna University and his career has been in sales and sales management in the healthcare industry and is currently employed by IMS Health.

______________________________________________________________________

Sometimes elected officials find it easier to embrace open government in theory than to facilitate citizen access. By keeping the candidate process in the public’s eye, I hope the supervisors will be open, transparent and accountable to the residents of Tredyffrin as they interview the candidates and ultimately choose the interim supervisor.

The intention of this post is to provide information to the public. Although I will accept comments on this post, I ask that your remarks be thoughtful and accurate. As a former political candidate myself, I know how it feels to be on the receiving end of negative campaigning and misrepresentation of issues and I do not wish to see these candidates have similar experiences!

Share or Like:
        
 

Another Grocery Store Closing . . . Wayne Acme on the Chopping Block!

January 5, 2011
25 Comments

When is it going to end?

Another local grocery store closing – this time it’s Acme in Wayne.

The Acme chain, part of the Supervalu network of grocery stores, operates 123 stores in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland is shuttering 6 stores, including one in Limerick and Wayne. The Wayne Acme is located at 300 E. Lancaster Ave. (Rt. 30).

This week a brief statement was provided by Supervalue in regards to the Acme store closings. Spokesman Steve Sylven suggested that these locations “are not meeting corporate goals.” He further remarked that, “Acme strives to ensure the success of all its stores. However, it is occasionally necessary to close those that are not meeting company goals in today’s competitive and difficult economic environment.”

Wayne’s Acme has long been rumored to be closing but it looks like it is no longer just a rumor. The lease on the property is up in March and will not be renewed. A blog, Acme Style, is dedicated to ‘Preserving the History of Acme Markets’ and features pictures and stories of closed, abandoned and repurposed Acme grocery stores. (Photo is this article provided courtesy of Acme Style.)

Are you curious as to what the landlord has planned for the property post-Acme closing? I understand that the landlord has plans to break up the space and create multiple restaurants . . . Panera Bread, Five Guys and Chipotle have been mentioned as possibilities.

So we have economy driving corporate decisions for grocery store closings but people have money to go to restaurants; what’s wrong with this picture!

Share or Like:
        
 

Special T/E School Board Plays to a Full House . . . School Board Members Divided in Budget Approach

January 4, 2011
45 Comments

The T/E School Board held a special meeting last night. Because I was at the Board of Supervisors meeting, I once again turn to my friend Ray Clarke to offer his notes from the meeting. It is interesting to note that the school board members are seemingly divided in their approach going forward (read Ray’s comments below). Under the category of school director approaches to the budget, it’s interesting to note the differences among the directors as to how to approach the deficit. Apparently there was standing room only at the meeting, so I encourage others to weigh in and add to Ray’s comments.

Notes from Ray Clarke:

The School Board did a nice job publicizing Monday’s Special Meeting, so the room was packed – although I understand many had to be first redirected from the Tredyffrin township building! Only one meaningful item on the Agenda, of course: whether to publish a preliminary budget that includes a 4.2% property tax increase, of which 2.8% would come from “Exceptions” that the State has to approve.

The motion to publish such a budget and to authorize the administration to take the necessary steps to apply for the Exceptions was approved 5:4.

The financials presented were those from the December Finance Committee. Notable observations:

  • The absence of the much maligned Federal stimulus will cost the district $1 million next year.
  • The budget deficit with the 4.2% tax increase would be $5.2 million, before any further expense control strategies.
  • There was NOTHING useful from bond counsel to assess the optimum fund balance level. How much money has he made off T/E.
  • The T/E average tax bill is right in the midst of Chester County comparables.

There was much public commentary before the Board discussion, breaking down along predictable lines that we have seen on CM. Maintain quality at all costs versus no tax increase at all costs. My attention was caught by the wife of a local doctor who spoke vividly about the economic conditions of her husband’s patients. And, although his income is down, he makes the sacrifices necessary to maintain quality. Not all TESD constituencies are at that point.

Others who spend a lot of time in the schools commended the school programs and wanted no reductions (although that was not the issue on the table); perhaps a large reason that the quality is high is that many parents spend a lot of time in the schools. There was much talk that it was OK to raise property taxes because they are not as high as Radnor and Lower Merion, but perhaps when taxes rise to those levels there will be less for mortgage payments.

It was interesting that Tom Colman resurfaced, citing his history of work with both TESD and TT that resulted in one year tax freezes. He would now go along with higher taxes, but he did not report on the survey in his BAWG report that favored income taxes over increased property taxes by a factor of 2:1.

So, it came to the board vote. There were four camps:

  1. Keep the options open: Cruickshank, Fadem, Buraks. No discussion of why it’s OK to keep the property tax increase open, but not the income tax voted down with no analysis just a couple of months ago. One good point from Buraks (who would not necessarily accept any exceptions if they turn out to be available): the expense side of the budget is still very fluid.
  2. Only tax beyond the Index if approved by referendum: Brake, Bookstaber The latter relying heavily on the Colman perspective. Dr Brake highlighted the property tax increase water torture (my term): an average increase of $191 next year (just 50 cents a day!) seems small – but that’s a cumulative total of $938/year over the last 6 years.
  3. Tax at the Index, control what expenses we can this year, draw down the Fund Balance: Mahoney. That forces attention on the unsustainable long-term structure next year, when the next contract will be negotiated, expense options studied further and other revenue options analyzed.
  4. Unexplained: Bruce (No exceptions), Motel, Crowley (Apply for Exceptions).

Hopefully others at the meeting can supplement my perspective. So, onward with an estimated 13 meetings before final budget and tax approval. Many opportunities to make your voice heard, starting with the January 10th Finance Committee.

Share or Like:
        
 

Tredyffrin’s Supervisors Mysteriously Extend Deadline for Interim Supervisor Resumes . . . Why the Intrigue?

January 3, 2011
8 Comments

Due to Warren Kampf’s formal resignation at Board of Supervisors meeting on December 20, a vacancy for an interim supervisor exists. From early December, there was a notice on the front page of the Tredyffrin’s township website, suggesting interested candidates send their resumes to the township manager by December 31, 2010.

Fast forward to tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting. The meeting was over in less than 30 minutes and for the most part, uneventful except for one thing. Chairman Bob Lamina (elected tonight by the other supervisors as chairman and Paul Olson as vice chairman) announced the supervisor vacancy (I thought the vacancy was announced at the last supervisors meeting with Kampf’s letter of resignation). Lamina then told the audience that the Board of Supervisors had decided to extent the deadline for interim supervisor resumes from the previously stated (and advertised) December 31, 2010 deadline to January 10. Why did the supervisors decide to extend the deadline? Don’t know and no explanation was offered. It is my understanding that a number of prospective interim supervisor resumes have been received . . . so why extend the deadline? I have to believe that there must have been at least one qualified candidate among the admissions. Very strange.

Lamina further explained that after the application deadline ends on January 10, each person will be interviewed by the supervisors. The intention is that the interim supervisor will be announced at the February 7th Board of Supervisors Meeting.

Not sure how many interim supervisor candidate resumes are needed, but . . . if you are interested, you now have an extra week to send your resume to Township Manager, Mimi Gleason, mgleason@tredyffrin.org

Share or Like:
        
 

Filling Tredyffrin’s Interim Supervisor Vacancy

January 3, 2011
1 Comment

Tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting agenda is now available online. In reviewing the agenda, I have a couple of questions.

At the last Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, December 20, former township supervisor Warren Kampf tendered his letter of resignation at the end of the meeting. Because of the November’s election results and Kampf’s election to the State House, his supervisor resignation was no surprise. Anticipating his resignation, a notice on the township website asked those interested in the position to submit their resumes to Township Manager Mimi Gleason; I wrote of the notification on December 3.

I understood from the Home Rule Charter that the Board of Supervisors has 30 days to name an interim supervisor. My understanding was that the 30 days would commence from the announcement date of the vacancy (December 20). However, on tonight’s supervisors meting agenda, I noted an item ‘announcing the vacancy’. Understanding it is semantics, I assumed that the clock started ticking on December 20 rather than 2 weeks later, on January 3.

Below is the section in the Home Rule Charter that deals with supervisors vacancies. Reading HRC 205.C.2 confuses me – one way that I read it agrees with my theory that the clock started ticking from December 20 but it could also be interpreted that the clock starts at the next supervisor meeting after the vacancy is announced – which would be today, January 3.

I have another question about the vacancy process as based on the Home Rule Charter. If I understand the process, those interested in the supervisor position were to send their resumes to the township manager. The township manager would then pass the resumes to the supervisors for their review and appointment decision. The identity and resumes of those applying for the vacancy are not provided to the public . . . correct? Am I interpreting the Home Rule Charter correctly . . . the decision of the interim supervisor appointment is the choice of the Board of Supervisors.

I could use some help with interpreting the Home Rule Charter. If there are any municipal legal authorities reading this post, I welcome your comments.

205. VACANCIES.

A. The office of a Supervisor shall become vacant upon death, resignation, removal of place of residence from the Township (or, in the case of a District Supervisor, from a District represented), legal certification of mental disability, or forfeiture of office as authorized by law or this Charter.

B. The office of Supervisor shall be forfeited if he is declared by any Court of this Commonwealth to lack any qualifications for the office as prescribed by law or is convicted of any crime classified as a misdemeanor of the second degree or higher under the laws of this Commonwealth, or is convicted of any comparable crime under the laws of any state or of the United States.

C. Whenever a vacancy exists in the office of Supervisor, the vacancy shall be filled under the following procedures:

1. At the next election, primary, municipal or general, which takes place sixty days or more after such vacancy occurs, a special election to fill the vacancy for the balance of the unexpired term will be held. The special election shall be conducted in accordance with election laws of this Commonwealth. The person elected to fill the vacancy shall assume the office on the day following certification of the election results.

2. The Board shall, at its first regular or special public meeting after the vacancy occurs, give notice that a vacancy exists and shall state that it will make an interim appointment to fill the vacancy at its next public meeting which occurs not less that thirty days from the meeting at which the vacancy is announced. Following such notice, the Board by a majority vote of its remaining membership shall appoint a qualified elector of the Township, and in the case of a vacancy in the office of District Supervisor, a qualified elector of the District in which the vacancy exists, to fill the vacancy until a duly elected successor is sworn into office.

3. If the Board shall fail to fill a vacancy within sixty days after the vacancy occurs, the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, upon petition of any individual Supervisor, or upon petition of ten or more qualified electors of the Township, shall make the interim appointment to fill the vacancy until a duly elected successor is sworn into office.

4. In the event that sufficient vacancies exist so that the Board lacks a quorum necessary to do business, the remaining members of the Board shall immediately make an interim appointment or appointments to fill sufficient vacancies in the position of Supervisor from the Township at large to form a quorum. Thereafter, the remaining vacancies shall be filled as otherwise provided herein.

5. In the event that all of the positions on the Board should become vacant, the Court of Common Pleas shall immediately, upon petition of ten or more registered voters of the Township, make interim appointments to fill the offices of Supervisor from the Township at large. Thereafter, the remaining vacancies shall be filled as otherwise provided herein.

Share or Like:
        
 

Will T/E School Board Include an Activity Fee in the 2011-12 Budget?

January 2, 2011
17 Comments

On the eve of the Special T/E School Board meeting, there is much discussion on the $8.8 million deficit for the district’s 2011-12 school year and its challenge. Over the last couple of weeks, I do not recall much discussion about the possibility of adding an activities fee to the 2011-12 budget. If you recall, the T/E School Board passed the 2010-11 school year budget without the inclusion of an activity fee. The estimated $80K in activity fee revenue was removed before the passage of the final budget. The consensus at the time was there was not enough time to look at the details required for such an assessment. However, it was thought that some form of an activity fee should be discussed for inclusion in the 2011-12 budget.

Every year, students of all ages opt for extra-curricular activities. The activity may not be high-profile football or some other “major” high school sports. The involvement may be in the performing arts or any variety of positive clubs or organizations that contribute to making school kids better citizens. Depending on the activity, the kids and their parents may spend a lot of personal money on extra-curricular expenses (sports workout clothing, voice or instrumental music lessons, club-related materials, etc.). In addition, along with time spent on their studies, these students spend inordinate amounts of time practicing to become better performers or working for the good of the club. It’s also not uncommon for them to devote many hours of added time with fund-raisers to defray organizational expenses. Parents are not to be spared, either. Any parent of an “involved kid” at school will tell you about driving kids to and from practice, helping with fundraisers, etc. So how do we feel about imposing an activity fee on the T/E students and their families? Do you think that an activity fee will impact participation?

Checking other school districts, Lower Merion, Coatesville, Phoenixville, Owen J. Roberts and Kennett school districts currently have no additional activity fees. (I was not able to verify that Radnor School District imposes an activity fee – maybe a reader knows the answer.) Great Valley and West Chester school districts do not currently have an activity fee but are considering such a fee for the 2011-12 school year. The Downingtown school district charges their activity fee at a flat rate of $25 per sport.

Unionville-Chadds Ford School District currently has an activity fee but is considering an increase for next year’s budget. Their suggested approach is a creative four level-tiered schedule – $10, $25, $50 and $75 depending on the type of sports and student activity. The fees will cover many kinds of activities from math and academic clubs to participation on sports teams, like football and basketball. With the increase, the activity fees will generate an annual income of $133.00. The calculation of fees was based on total cost of the activity, an amount not to exceed 20% of the total cost. Using football fees as an example, the proposed increase is 200%, from a current $25 fee to $75; the increase would still be under the 20% of total cost.

If T/E adds an activities fee to the 2011-12 budget, how would the assessment be applied . . . per activity, per sports involvement? Would the charge be an annual assessment per student or per family? Will the assessment be a flat rate or a creative multi-tiered approach? Where does the T/E school board stand on the activity fee subject? I will be curious to see if the activity fee subject is discussed at tomorrow night’s special School Board meeting.

Share or Like:
        
 
Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme