Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Bob Lamina

Tredyffrin Fiscal Responsibility . . . or taxpayer disrespect? Update from Board of Supervisors Meeting

December 21, 2010
20 Comments

The last supervisors meeting of 2010 was far less theatrical than the last meeting of 2009 that included the infamous cardboard check to the fire companies. However, last night had its moments.

As my last post explained, the Swedesford Road Open Space bridge repair project was back on the agenda last night for a supervisors vote. I attended the supervisors meeting knowing there would be little discussion; and understanding that a decision ‘not to approve’ was most likely determined in advance of the meeting.

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. The Township’s purchase ($825K) of this property in 2006 was made possible with a $400K grant from Chester County. As a condition of the grant, the open space was to be available to residents, and “utilized perpetually for park, recreational and natural-resources conservation purposes.”

For this open space to be available and advertised for public use, I suggested to the supervisors that the township bears a responsibility to make the property accessible and safe for visitors. A large section of guard rail at the entrance of the open space is dislodged due to a recent accident which I addressed in my remarks last night. I also 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.

Considering that in all likelihood the decision not to move the bridge repair project forward was made prior to last night’s official supervisors vote, what did I expect as a response to my comments? Following my remarks, all that was required was a simple ‘thank you’ – take the vote and move on. Unfortunately, for me, it was not that simple. Supervisor DiBuonaventuro, the western district township supervisor (Swedesford Road Open Space property jurisdiction) debated my remarks, questioned the accident and guard rail damage and suggested that I was over-dramatizing the situation. He further suggested that there was no problems for visitors leaving this open space; drivers can just look in their rear view mirror and back out on to Swedesford Road. Swedesford Road is a highly trafficked state road . . . trust me, you do not want to back out on to Swedesford Road!

Mr. DiBuonaventuro further claimed that the property is only used by a few fishermen. I am the one who lives directly across the road from the property but apparently, my observations regarding the property’s usage are not viewed as valid. One hopes that the fingers-crossed approach to safety will continue to work.

So what was Mr. DiBuonaventuro’s motivation for his behavior and attitude . . . to take a personal stand on fiscal responsibility? Again, I suggest that a simple ‘thank you’ for my comments would have sufficed. After all, the vote was predetermined so the debate of my remarks was clearly unnecessary.

Deteriorating bridge, parking safety concerns, liability issues . . . Why spend taxpayer money on open space and not maintain?

December 19, 2010
12 Comments

Back on November 15, the Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors agenda included awarding the Swedesford Road Open Space bridge repair contract. (The lowest qualified bidder was Bill Anskis, Inc. in the amount of $84,655.50.) This bridge repair has been on the Township capital projects list for a long time and had finally found its way to the top. The Swedesford Road Open Space property is located directly across the road from my house, so I am acutely aware of its usage and its associated parking issues for anyone attempting to use this Township open space.

I spoke at the November 15 supervisors meeting to explain the Swedesford Road Open Space usage, particularly during spring and summer trout fishing season. Swedesford Road is a highly traveled road and I assumed that once the liability issues to the township were understood, this project would move forward. In fact, in the township’s five-year plan, improvements to the Swedesford Road Open Space project specifically state, “bridge and parking lot safety improvements”. Additionally, the necessary repairs needed for the Swedesford Road Open Space bridge and parking improvements is included in the implementation of the latest Township Comprehensive Plan. Rather than approving the Public Works project, the supervisors voted to pass it to the Parks Board for further discussion.

The Parks Board met last week and the Swedesford Road Open Space bridge project was on their agenda for discussion. It is my understanding that the Parks Board voted unanimously not to support the bridge repair and parking safety project. I simply do not understand. Either the members of the Parks Board did not visit the Swedesford Road site (and see the deteriorating bridge and existing parking liability issues) or they are choosing to follow the lead of some of the supervisors. But it does surprise me that members of the Parks Board would not support the needed repairs and maintenance of one of the parks they are appointed to protect. As an appointed member of the township’s HARB (Historical Architectural Review Board), I liken their decision to . . . me not supporting the historic buildings in the township. I guess I do not understand the Parks Board motivation.

If the township (1) supports open space through purchase of property and (2) advertises the use of the open space and parks, then (3) doesn’t the township have a responsibility to maintain the property so that it is accessible and safe for the residents to use?

Back in 2006, there was a firestorm of debate over the purchase of the Swedesford Road property (and its price tag). The purchase price for the 5.7 acres of open space was $825,000. However, a Chester County grant paid for more than half the cost. The Swedesford Road Open Space ordinance in 2006 stated the property was to be “utilized perpetually for park, recreational and natural-resources conservation purposes.” Many in the community thought that the price was too high for this property but that debate is long gone . . . the taxpayers own the property and it should be accessible for use.

It is also important to note that the Swedesford Road Open Space project is a capital expense and not included in the township’s operating budget. The project is funded through bond and grants money and would not affect the supervisor’s passing of the 2011 budget.

In reviewing the agenda for the upcoming Board of Supervisor meeting on Monday, the Swedesford Road Open Space bridge repair and parking improvements is listed. With the reinforcement of the Parks Board member’s unanimous vote not to move the repair project forward, it is doubtful that the supervisors will approve this Public Works project.

I do hope that the supervisors recognize that there is a liability issue for the township by choosing not to repair the bridge or improve the parking situation. Residents see the township’s sign ‘Swedesford Road Open Space’ and attempt to pull off the road on to the open space property. With no room to turnaround, drivers are often forced to back out on to Swedesford Road . . . a risky proposition!

If the supervisors are not going to repair the bridge and improve the parking, I suggest that the township remove signage and close the area of Swedesford Road Open Space to discourage visitors. However, before taking down the Swedesford Road Open Space sign and closing the area to public use, perhaps the township supervisors should notify Senator Andy Dinniman and Commissioner Carol Aichele. Chester County dollars through a grant were used to fund this open space purchase and their names appear on the sign!

________________________________________________________________

Additional notes:

Following the November 15 Board of Supervisors meeting, an article, ‘Tredyffrin has its own bridge to nowhere’ appeared in the Mainline Media News newspaper – here is a link.

For those that are unfamiliar, I have included some photos of the Swedesford Road Open Space property – the bridge and the parking area. In the last few weeks, there has been a traffic accident at the Swedesford Road Open Space where the guard rail has become dislodged.

Interested in Filling Anticipated Vacancy of Supervisor Warren Kampf? Send Your Resume to Mimi Gleason by 12/31/10

December 3, 2010
Comments

A couple of announcements in the Supervisors Agenda for Monday, 12/6 caught my attention. Here they are:

The Township has scheduled a public meeting for the SR 252/AMTRAK Grade Crossing (Bridge/Intersection) Project. The meeting will be held on December 8 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the Delaware Valley Friends School Auditorium on East Central Avenue in Paoli.

With the recent election of Mr. Kampf to the PA General Assembly, the Board of Supervisors anticipates a vacancy in the near future. We would request that all interested citizens wishing to be considered to fill the unexpired term created by this prospective vacancy submit their resumes to the Township to the attention of Ms. Mimi Gleason. We would ask that all interested parties submit their resumes no later than December 31. The formal process under the Home Rule Charter for filling a vacancy will not occur until the time of the actual vacancy.

I thought it would be good to look up the exact wording from Tredyffrin Township’s Home Rule of Charter. Here is the applicable information relating to vacancies on the Board of Supervisors:

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.

Looks Like Tredyffrin Township May Have a New Finance Director

June 10, 2010
7 Comments

The Main Line Suburban Life newspaper is reporting that Radnor Township has hired a permanent finance director who will start in July with a salary of $127,000. Watching from the sidelines in Tredyffrin, the residents of Radnor have had more than their share of financial problems and it’s good to know that help is on the way for them.

The article also mentioned that this new hire in Radnor will be the regions best-compensated finance director and listed the salary of Lower Merion’s finance director at $114,921. At the end of the article, one sentence caught my eye — stating that Tredyffrin Township’s new finance director will start this month at a salary of $100,000. This was news to me — I checked the township website and I didn’t see an announcement (actually the website has the finance director position listed as still available). I have emailed the Board of Supervisors and Mimi Gleason for confirmation. I’ll let you know if Board of Supervisor chairman Bob Lamina responds.

As a taxpayer, I am very concerned about the township budget and its financial oversight and would feel more comfortable knowing that our township has a qualified finance director onboard. Here’s hoping that the news is correct.

Update: Mimi responded to my email — yes, a new finance director has been hired and will start on June 28. She offered that she could provide further details on that date.

Devon Resident Bill Bellew’s Remarks at Monday’s Board of Supervisors Meeting Appear as Letter to the Editor

May 26, 2010
9 Comments

In a post yesterday, I provided a YouTube link for Bill Bellew’s comments at Monday night’s Board of Supervisor meeting. Several people have asked me if I had a ‘hard copy’ of his remarks so I was delighted to see that Bill submitted his comments in a Letter to the Editor in this week’s edition of the Main Line Suburban Life newspaper. Bill’s words provide a powerful statement. (see below).

I agree with Bill that we (supervisors and residents) need to be looking ahead to the 2011 budget. Mid-year provides an excellent opportunity to review the actual vs budgeted expenses and revenues of the 2010 budget to date. (the next supervisors meeting in June marks the halfway point). In addition to a mid year 2010 budget review, work needs to begin on the 2011 budget. The 2010 township budget required major cuts across the board, including personnel, fire and library funding, etc. If you recall, by this time last year the BAWG was in place and well underway in 2010 budget discussions.

The 2011 budget cannot wait until November or December; delaying the discussion does not demonstrate fiscal responsibility.

Tredyffrin drama must end

To the Editor:

Day after day, Tredyffrin seems to be bombarded with political drama without an end in sight. Now in May of 2010, the budget “play” leading up to the 2010 year is still out there. A personal opinion might be that the Board of Supervisors might have told the firefighters serving the township ahead of time that a cut in funding had to be made. Added to that might have been a suggestion that together, the BOS and the firefighters could join forces to fill the void.

The reality is that filling the void was not on the BOS’ minds beforehand. Only when the “people of all walks of life” rose in a concerted chorus to point out what impact the “modest 5-percent” cut would have on the three fire companies (our leading volunteers) did the BOS see the dilemma they created for themselves.

For some unknown reason, the BOS has been unwilling to share where the $24,000-plus in contributions to fill the void came from. Let’s end the political drama three of the BOS members created. Here is what I know to be fact:

1) The Republican Party spearheaded the effort to acquire the funding.

2) They did it ahead of schedule and raised more than they thought they would.

3) The party did not write a check – their members wrote individual checks in excess of $5,000 – or approximately 20 percent of the total raised.

4) Six large donations from companies, trusts, and law firms totaled $5,500 – or approximately 23 percent of the total raised.

5) Eight present or former members of the BOS contributed $2,800.

6) One present board member contributed $5,000, which is not part of other contributions listed here. Yes – five thousand dollars.

7) The remainder came from other sources solicited by the Republican Party.

8) Now that is political purpose!!! Hats off to the party for this work. Thank you from all of us.

What many citizens do not understand is why the BOS has taken courses of action that have stirred controversy and raised the hair on the back of our collective necks for no intelligent reason. The two examples to be mentioned are the cutting of the fire-company budget without sharing that with the firefighters beforehand, and the totally unbelievable vote on the sidewalks near Mt. Pleasant.

Transparency in this township is starting to disappear. Some of the present board appear to be turning what happens in Tredyffrin into a back-room game to be run by political hacks.

A few weeks ago, the chair of the BOS wrote his second major article since Dec. 9 of last year explaining himself and his actions. Why? Why is it necessary that so much effort be put into all of this when – if the BOS had been up-front and open – we could be talking about the future and not the past?

What were you thinking? We are not stupid people. My personal feeling is that the BOS has brought the dysfunctional politics of Washington to our community. Ladies and gentlemen of the board – respectfully – knock it off.

We are looking for leadership – not a “bully pulpit” approach to township business. We are looking for progress – not a drama. If the chair thinks “we’re doing what we believe is the people’s business” by the present-day actions of this board, then he is sadly mistaken. The political game is exactly that – a game. The BOS was elected to govern. do it !!!

We have too many important issues in front of us – the largest of which is how we will fund 2011 and beyond. How do we partner with each other to raise funds both privately and collectively? How do we encourage the volunteer spirit to continue across the entire township playing field? How do we make the necessary changes in the budget process?

Keep your eye on the ball, members of the board. Serve the constituents who elected you – all of them. No more surprises. The people of Tredyffrin are watching.

This is indeed a great place to live, and the BOS has helped make it that. Don’t go backwards.

Bill Bellew , Devon

Lamina’s Characterization of Some Residents as ‘Gnats Nipping at His Heels’ is Troubling . . . Some Residents Claim They are ‘Victims of Taxation Without Representation’

May 12, 2010
60 Comments

In last week’s Main Line Suburban newspaper, BOS Chairman Lamina characterized those that disagree with him as ‘gnats nipping at his heels’. Having been the target of his insulting remarks at the supervisors meeting and also in the paper, I was curious if residents would defend Lamina or find his governing style offensive as I had? Guess I didn’t need to worry, as this week’s edition of the Main Line Suburban Life newspaper contained no resident letters of support. Just the contrary, newspaper editor Tom Murray ran an entire section of letters under the heading, ”Some Tredyffrin residents not pleased with board chairman’s comments’. Again, there are no letters in support of Lamina and, in fact one letter from Mr. and Mrs. Diamond of Malvern calls for Lamina to step down as chairman of the board. I suppose such a request would need to be generated from a majority of the other supervisors and, given that one of their own will appear on the ballot next week, such a suggestion would appear highly unlikely.

Stepping back and looking at the situation, . . . where does all this leave those in the community that have questions of our elected officials? Why should we bother risking public humiliation by asking questions? If like me you ask the questions, but are treated dismissively, bullied or called names (and still receive no answers) . . . why bother? There has been a continuous theme among some of these supervisors since December; those that rule this township will remain in power and continue to ‘make the rules and break the rules’ as they see fit. Disrespecting citizens can now be added to the list.

In reading through this week’s letters in the newspaper, the following letter caught my eye. In the closing of his letter, Mr. Poppel of Devon states, ” When I hear the chairman of the Board of Supervisors and some of his colleagues dismiss the concerns and those of others who may not agree with him or who are members of the opposing party, then I must infer that we, too, are victims of taxation without representation. More to the point, it is clear from both Mr. Lamina’s comments and printed statements that he works not for the benefit of all the citizens of Tredyffrin but just those who support and agree with him. This is not the American way.” As someone who really believes in this community and the importance of everyone’s voice, it truly saddens me that one individual’s [Lamina] words have the capacity to isolate and alienate some of Tredyffrin’s residents.

To the Editor:

In his article in Main Line Suburban Life, Chairman of the Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors Bob Lamina attempts to answer critics and justify his behavior in several recent meetings of the board. His attempt falls flat.

In the most recent example, Pattye Benson, in a calm and well-reasoned presentation, questioned the apparent inconsistency between the treatment given by the supervisors and their legal counsel to an apparently unsolicited offer of services to the Historic Preservation Trust and the actively solicited cash contributions to make up a decrease in fire-company funding. In the former case, it was determined that there was a “pay-to-play” issue due to the presence of a sitting supervisor on the Trust’s board. In the latter it was considered OK, even though the solicitations were made by several of the supervisors using the township logo on some of the associated documents.

Instead of responding to the substance of this question, Mr. Lamina deflected the issue by praising the civic-mindedness of the donors and accusing questioners of not wanting the additional money to come in. He then fell back on one of his most common tactics, questioning the motives of the questioners. In his article he falls back on the common tactic of saying what a wonderful, well-governed place we live in without addressing concerns that could make it better.

Though I have not attended many supervisors’ meetings, I am struck by the fact that at several of those I have attended, Mr. Lamina uses his “bully pulpit” to act as a bully. He insults his questioners and attempts to marginalize their concerns. His claim in some instances that he speaks as an ordinary citizen doesn’t wash when he is making the comments from the dais.

Now, in Main Line Suburban Life, he has informed the citizens of Tredyffrin that if they don’t agree with him or question his and his colleagues’ actions, either at the meetings or in other media such as blogs (which he says he doesn’t read), they are simply “gnats” nipping at his heels.

Well, this particular gnat has been a resident and taxpayer in Tredyffrin for over 30 years. I’m not running for office. When I hear the chairman of the Board of Supervisors and some of his colleagues dismiss the concerns and those of others who may not agree with him or who are members of the opposing party, then I must infer that we, too, are victims of taxation without representation. More to the point, it is clear from both Mr. Lamina’s comments and printed statements that he works not for the benefit of all the citizens of Tredyffrin but just those who support and agree with him. This is not the American way.

Eugene H. Poppel, Devon

Lamina Can Play in his Sandbox by Himself

May 8, 2010
7 Comments

Since Lamina’s letter was published in this week’s paper I have received many phone calls and emails from residents, and also some from neighboring townships. I think Lamina might be surprised to learn that many in this community do not share his ‘bully tactics from his bully pulpit’ partisan style of governing. (And to think that I initially offered excuses for Lamina’s behavior and missteps.)

Friends and family members have come to my defense against Lamina’s personal attacks and have wondered why I have not been more outraged. Simply put, Lamina isn’t worth it! I have always been a big believer in the mantra, what goes around, comes around, and I think eventually Lamina will get his due. In my world, everyone eventually pays a price for their bad deeds. If an elected official is determined to be a bully, misrepresent the facts and cover-up their actions . . . there’s no point in getting upset.

Lamina might be sadly mistaken if he thinks his words at the Board of Supervisors meeting or his outrageous diatribe in the paper have somehow improved his standing in the community. No, I would suggest just the opposite. An elected official who degrades its residents and refers to those who disagree as ‘gnats’ cannot be respected. A wise friend once told me (when I was upset about something a stranger said about me) – – – isn’t it more important what those closest to you think about you than a complete stranger? I think this friend was right, . . . Lamina can play in his sandbox by himself.

Here is a new response to Lamina’s letter, which appears in the Main Line Suburban Life, which I found interesting:

diamondgrl wrote on May 6, 2010 5:38 PM:

” In MR. Lamina’s world, black is white and citizens’ questions about the appearance of pay-to-play politics have only ONE motivation – partisan mudslinging.

Also Mr Lamina seems to adhere to the same thinking as a former president who insisted, “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” According to Lamina, those of us who don’t accept his storybook version of unprecedented generosity from township businesses and individuals – including $5000 from a single supervisor, are a danger to the community and had better “put politics aside for the good of the community” – that is, keep our mouths shut.

But there are many in Tredyffrin who believe adequate dedicated funding for fire/EMT services is essential going forward and should be paid for by all who benefit – that is, all residents and businesses located in the township. Funding should never again be dependent on “holiday firefighter fund drives” solicited by public/private officials, or the whims of tax-averse supervisors, one of whom is running for election on a platform of no new taxes.

As for Mr. Lamina’s laughable attempts to politic on behalf of his friend Warren Kampf and throw darts at individuals and groups who have opposed their votes and conduct – even suggesting we are “gnats” nipping at their heels -well, he is nothing more than a buffoon and a bully. He has lost the respect of many former supporters, and should seriously consider taking his own advice : put politics aside “for the sake of the community” and stop putting in jeopardy one of our township’s… ACTUAL cherished qualities… -our strong sense of community – REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL AFFILIATION. “

William Penn Held a Vision for Good Government . . . How Does Tredyffrin Measure Up 300 Years Later?

April 27, 2010
9 Comments

What did William Penn see as necessary for good government and good leaders three-hundred years ago? In Preface to The Frame of the Government of the Province of Pennsylvania in America, 1682, William Penn wrote,

” . . . Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad; if it be ill, they will cure it. But, if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn.

I know some say, let us have good laws, and no matter for the men that execute them: but let them consider, that though good laws do well, good men do better: for good laws may want good men, and be abolished or evaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws nor suffer ill one . . .”

I wonder if Penn would think his vision for good government and good leadership has been recognized in Tredyffrin?

Main Line Sububan Life’s take on BOS Meeting . . . “Tensions Mount in Tredyffrin”

April 22, 2010
21 Comments

Once again to clarify my position. Although I was disappointed by the Board of Supervisors decision in May 2008 that would not permit the Trust from accepting the estimated $50,000 in-kind offer from Pitcairn Properties, the Trust’s Board of Directors accepted their decision. The reasoned decision by the supervisors was based on the fact that Pitcairn at that time was in land development negotiations with the township. (Albeit, I was not aware of their project). During this time, Judy DiFilippo was a Trust board member and a sitting supervisor and the concern was that a perceived pay-to-play might exist if the Trust were permitted to accept Pitcairn’s offer. This based on the fact that Judy was both a Trust board member and a supervisor.

I only offered Pitcairn as an example at the supervisors meeting to ask why the same pay-to-play perception would not exist with the solicitation of Comcast by supervisors Kampf, Lamina and Olson (understanding that Comcast is currently negotiating their 15-year franchise contract with the township). As has been stated by others, I agree that the Pitcairn decision by the Board of Supervisors in 2008 was the correct decision, . . . I just wanted to understand why are the same rules were not applied in 2010 with the solicitation of companies doing business with the township (Comcast)?

Blair Meadowcroft attended the Board of Supervisors Meeting on Monday night and below is an excerpt of her article that deals with the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive. For the full article, click here.

Tensions Mount in Tredyffrin

By Blair Meadowcroft

Tension mounted at the Monday-night Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors meeting after Pattye Benson, president of the Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust, stepped up to the microphone during the public-comment part of the meeting. Her comments were brought up just after the end of the first quarter as well as the March 31 deadline for collection of the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighter Fund Drive.

Benson explained how after budget cuts were made to the Tredyffrin Township fire companies, three of the seven supervisors worked on fund-raising for the Firefighter Fund Drive, resulting in a check for $23,200 that was presented to the fire companies.

After waiting for the Fund Drive to be complete, Benson questioned the supervisors’ fund-raising, stating, “I voiced my concern about the solicitation by supervisors to companies that could be doing business with the township, and I cited a specific example from May 2008 and the Pitcairn Company.”

Benson went on to explain how in 2008 a sizable in-kind donation, a gift valued at as much at $50,000, had been offered to the Trust by a vice president for Pitcairn Properties. But the Trust later learned it could not accept the offer.

“The idea was that there could be a ‘pay to play’ perception because of a final review of the land-development project between the township and Pitcairn,” said Benson. “Warren Kampf was chair at the time and he was absolute that I could not accept this offer because this company was doing business with the township. I knew nothing about Pitcairn’s planning-commission review yet I could not accept the offer.”

That conflict of interest, as understood by Benson, is similar to the Firefighter Fund Drive in that supervisors were doing the fund-raising for the fire companies.

“The very same people who told me I couldn’t accept the offer from Pitcairn were out soliciting money,” said Benson. “The way I see it is the only difference between the Pitcairn/Trust situation and the fire-company solicitation is that one was an in-kind offer and the other was a monetary contribution; both could be perceived as benefiting the township.”

Throughout explaining the situations, similarities and her confusion, Benson made the point to explain that three of the current board members, Michelle Kichline, Evelyn Richter and Phil Donahue, were not on the board when the Fund Drive began. But she did want the other board members to explain why the Pitcairn and fire-company situations were handled differently.

“These are the same supervisors but different rules,” said Benson. “I would have liked to have been able to accept the $50,000 from Pitcairn like you were able to accept money for the fire companies. This is not about the money that was raised. It is about the process that they used to raise the money, the source of the donations and the encouragement donors may have felt in responding to the solicitation.”

In response, Kampf explained how at the time of the Pitcairn offer, township solicitor Thomas Hogan gave the advice that it not be accepted because serving Supervisor Judy DiFilippo was on the board of the Trust, making it a conflict of interest.

“The difference as I see it between the situations is that we are supervisors who are free as individuals and who are allowed to accept charitable donations,” said Kampf. “I do not surrender my rights as a private citizen. When I see a problem that I can help with, I will. We went out, asked for help and were able to raise close to $25,000. And people were free to refuse to donate. There were some who refused and that is fine; we wouldn’t hold that against them.”

The discussion continued to go back and forth between a select few of the board members, Benson and a few residents. While Benson stated she was “just trying to understand why the rules are different,” the board members responding asked what her motives were.

“For you to stand up here and insinuate that this was a bad thing makes me question your motivation behind bringing this up now,” said Chairman Bob Lamina. “The timing is just interesting. We are supervisors but we’re also individuals. We made some calls and exceeded our fund-raising goal. I’m disappointed in you, Pattye. This was a win-win for the fire companies that one individual here today tried to diminish.”

While the issue was not solved, the fund-raising and budgeting question shifted after Berwyn Fire Company Capt. Eamon Brazunas approached the microphone.

“On behalf of the three fire companies, the funds raised did cover most of the budget shortfall, but we still believe the cut was a mistake,” said Brazunas. “We are, however, happy that the cut will be restored in the 2011 budget.”

Supervisor John DiBuona-venturo went on to add that the fire companies’ expectation is that funding will start back at the 2009 levels. While Lamina and Kampf agreed that a funding solution needs to be found for the fire companies, and that the board is likely to restore the funding, it was stated that no public commitment has been made.

“We feel the amount of money we were able to raise shows that if we work together with the fire companies that we will be able to do great things,” said Lamina. “We are working to re-engage the fire-company task force and plan to meet in May to discuss funding as well as other task-force issues.”

YouTube Moments from Tredyffrin’s BOS Meeting of 4/19

April 21, 2010
51 Comments

I have received many emails and calls regarding Monday night’s Board of Supervisors meeting. Like many of you, I too am dismayed by the attitude and behavior of some of our elected officials. Contrary to Mr. Lamina’s remarks on Monday night, I believe that when you are elected to serve a community, . . . you are elected to serve all the people, not just those that are of your own party affiliation. Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent or a member of the party of ‘purple’ — your job as an elected official is to serve all of us. It is unfortunate that does not seem to be the case with some of those currently elected to serve this township. As I stated on Monday night and here on Community Matters, I sent 2 emails to the Board of Supervisors last week inquiring about an official update on the fire company funding and received no response. Had there been the courtesy of a response to my questions by Chairman Lamina, it would not have been necessary to publically repeat the questions that I detailed in the email.

In review of the meeting on Monday night and Lamina’s claim of disappointment in me . . . I think, no Mr. Lamina, I am disappointed in you. At one point you reference being on the ‘bully pulpit’. On that we would agree. I know now what it is like to be at the hands of a bully. I was your target, as was Carol Clarke. As the chairman of the supervisors, does being a bully make you feel good, . . . are you are a better person for it, . . . is this your idea of leadership? Maybe disappointed is not the right word, maybe I should just say that I feel sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can not allow other people to have opinions, to offer solutions or ideas unless they are in agreement with you.

For those of you who did not see the Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday night, my husband Jeff kindly created video clips for YouTube.

BOS Meeting 4/19/10 Part I: Pattye Benson\’s Statement

BOS Meeting 4/19/10 Part II: Response to Pattye Benson\’s Statement from Lamina, Kampf, & Olson

BOS Meeting 4/20/10 Part III: Carol Clarke\’s remarks w/response from Bob Lamina

BOS Meeting 4/19/10 Party IV: Dariel Jamieson

As an amusing aside, I was just notified that Jeff’s YouTube video selections from Monday’s BOS meeting have now been picked up by Reality TV on Twitter — guess these local government moments will be shared throughout cyberspace. This is probably meaningless to those like Mr. Lamina who diminish the merits of ‘Benson’s Blog’ as he calls it. I say Community does Matter — here’s hoping that there’s enough of us in this community that agree.

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme