Pattye Benson

Community Matters

David Miller

Will 2021 Mark a Sea Change in Local Tredyffrin and Easttown politics?

The 2021 Primary Election is in a few weeks on Tuesday, May 18 but how many know the candidates on the ballot? In the lead up to the primary, campaign signs are dotting the community but for some, the candidate names may be unfamiliar. Locally we are seeing less incumbents seeking reelection.

Tredyffrin Township supervisor Kevin O’Nell (D) and Easttown Township supervisors Marc Heppe (R) and Jim Oram (R) will not seek reelection. The four members of the TE School Board not seeking reelection are Scott Dorsey (I), Tina Whitlow (D), Mary Garrett Itin (D) and Kyle Boyer (D).

With many incumbents not seeking re-election, it means “new” names on the ballot. Over the last several weeks, many of the first-time candidates have reached out and I have had the pleasure to meet and get to know them. My initial reaction to the candidates I met is “wow” and, that our community is lucky to have so many well-qualified residents willing to serve! Thank you!

Below is the list of our local candidates for Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships Board of Supervisors and for the TE School board.

Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors

There are three Tredyffrin Township supervisor positions available – two at-large and one in the middle district. Currently serving middle district supervisor Kevin O’Nell (D) has chosen not to seek reelection. At-large supervisors Murph Wysocki (D) and Matt Holt (D) are seeking re-election. Terms are four years.

Two attorneys, three corporate executives and a member of the Army National Guard will vie for Tredyffrin Township’s three available supervisor seats.

For Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee has announced the following candidates:

  • Supervisor at Large: Murph Wysocki, Attorney *
  • Supervisor at Large: Matt Holt, Attorney *
  • District 2 (Middle): David Miller, Retired executive, president of Chesterbrook Civic Association

* Incumbent

For Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, the Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee has endorsed the following candidates:

  • Supervisor at Large: Sean Sweeney, Corporate executive
  • Supervisor at Large: Jim Zdancewicz, Business executive
  • District 2 (Middle): Nick Sarracino, member of Army National Guard

———————————————————————————–

Easttown Township Board of Supervisors

There are two Easttown Township supervisor positions available – currently serving supervisors Marc Heppe (R) and Jim Oram (R) have chosen not to seek re-election. The Supervisors, who are all elected at large, serve staggered terms of 6 years.

An attorney, a corporate executive, an engineer, and an educator will vie for Easttown Township’s two available supervisor seats.

For Easttown Township Board of Supervisors, the Easttown Township Democratic Committee has endorsed the following candidates:

  • Supervisor at Large: Alex Bosco, Professional Engineer
  • Supervisor at Large: Eric Unger, Attorney

For Easttown Township Board of Supervisors, the Easttown Township Republican Committee has endorsed the following candidates:

  • Supervisor at Large: Alessandra Nicolas, Corporate executive
  • Supervisor at Large: Jay Jennings, Educator

———————————————————————————–

TE School District School Board

The TE School District school board race is going to be interesting as there are no incumbents on the ballot – Scott Dorsey (I), Tina Whitlow (D), Mary Garrett Itin (D) and Kyle Boyer (D) are not seeking reelection. Terms on the school board are four years.

Voting Precincts:

Region 1- Tredyffrin E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, M-1, M-2, M-5, M-6, W-3, W-4,
Region 2- Tredyffrin M-3, M-4, M-7, W-1, W-2, W-5
Region 3- Tredyffrin E-1, Easttown 1-7

The Tredyffrin Township and Easttown Democratic Committees endorsed the following candidates for the office of Tredyffrin-Easttown School Director:

  • Region 1: Dr. Yolanda Allen, Nonprofit executive
  • Region 2: Dr. Robert Singh, Vascular surgeon *
  • Region 3: Susan Audrain, Retired
  • Region 3: MaryAnn Piccioni, Constituent Services Advisor for State Representative

(* Region 2 School board candidate Nancy Coradi (D), Sales & Marketing Specialist is challenging Singh in primary)

The Tredyffrin Township and Easttown Republican Committees endorsed the following candidates for the office of Tredyffrin-Easttown School Director:

  • Region 1: Leslie Elken, Educator
  • Region 2: Deanna Wang, Pharmaceutical consultant
  • Region 3: Rachel Kill, Senior underwriter
  • Region 3: Bill Nolan, Retired cost price analyst

———————————————————————————–

The COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed the functioning of school districts (and school boards), including T/E. Few would question that this past year has been difficult for schools, and for school boards who oversee them. Could this be part of the reason that no incumbents are seeking reelection?

With four seats available on the TE School Board and no incumbents on the ballot, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens. Except for Scott Dorsey who is a registered Independent (although he was elected as a Democrat), the remaining school board directors are all Ds. The nine candidates vying for the four school board seats represent diverse and varied backgrounds.

In recent years, I do not recall a primary election for the school board where there is a challenge for a seat, but we have that this year. The local democratic committee officially endorsed Robert Singh as their candidate for Region 2. However, Nancy Coradi (D) is challenging Singh in the primary election. Here is a case where your vote in the primary election matters. Once the votes are counted, either Singh or Coradi will move onto the general election in November against Republican Deanna Wang.

Contrary to what you may have heard … No compromise reached on planned Valley Forge Middle School fencing!

As we learned at Monday night Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisor meeting there seems to be some cfencing 2onfusion and/or misunderstanding surrounding TE School District’s planned fencing project at Valley Forge Middle School. Some members of the school board have suggested that the issue was settled with the Green Hills homeowners and Chesterbrook Civic Association and compromise reached. We learned at the supervisors meeting, that the township solicitor Vince Donohue (and apparently the supervisors), had heard the same inaccurate rumor.

Other than a statement by TESD President Kris Graham read to a handful of people at the Facilities Meeting on Friday, April 10, 2 PM, there has been no communication whatsoever between the school district and the Valley Forge Middle School neighbors regarding the fencing. But somehow, the school board president’s statement was translated by the school board as an agreement and circulated to the public. Negotiation is a discussion between both parties trying to work on a solution. It doesn’t work when you only have one party at the table.

During the public comment period at the supervisors meeting, Green Hills resident and president of the Chesterbrook Civic Association David Miller, read the following prepared statement which offers historical background. I think its important for people to understand that the VFMS fencing issue is unique and differs from the other TESD fencing projects.

Although the fencing project will probably not be listed on the agenda for the TESD school board meeting, on Monday, April 27 (7:30 PM at Conestoga High School), I strongly urge the Green Hills residents to attend and voice their concerns and opposition.

Good evening my name is David Miller, I am President of the Chesterbrook Civic Association and a resident of Green Hills in Chesterbrook; I’ve lived in the township for over 20 years.

We are here because:

  • The Chesterbrook Civic Association has a legal agreement with the TESD concerning development around VFMS. This agreement was reached and documented with the township’s assistance through the special exception granted by the zoning hearing board when the 4 athletic fields adjacent to VFMS were developed in 2002/3.
  • At the April 10th Facilities Committee meeting we think the TESD presented plans that will violate this agreement. I say we “think” because nothing is in writing and the fact that the VFMS fence was going to be discussed was only added to the agenda 2 hours before the Facilities Committee Meeting which was held at 2:00 on a Friday. So, as you would expect, it was difficult to getting people there at the last minute.
  • We think their plan is to build a fence along the northern border of the original Middle School lot and along Valley forge Road to the border with Green Hills and then along the border with Green Hills to the first residents property line.
  • So why should you care – This is not just a dispute between neighbors. This is issue impacts the entire community. If the TESD builds the fence as we think they are planning, it will negatively impact all of Chesterbrook, cost the township money and is inconsistent with the Chesterbrook master plan.

Let me give you some background:

  • In 2002 the TESD presented a plan to build 5 fields and a parking lot on the RC zoned lot between VFMS and Chesterbrook. This plan had many significant issues and could not be built as presented. But more importantly at this time the township was developing Wilson Park and there was some view that the school district should provide fields for students and the township should provide fields for the sports leagues. From the residents perspective it’s the same kids in different uniforms. After discussion the township formed a committee consisting of members of the township staff, planning commission, school board and residents to work out a plan. Which we did and which was built and documented. The legal agreement between the CCA and TESD, documented during the Zoning Hearing Board’s Public Hearing when the special exception was granted is the result of this process.
  • Let me read some highlights from 2002.
  • We do not know the school board’s view on this agreement, they will not return my calls or emails and have directed their attorney not to work with our attorney. But based on the last Facilities Committee Meeting we do know they moved the fence 600 feet away from the residents after receiving letters from our attorneys. So maybe they are starting to take this seriously.

What are the issues?

  1. The fence will block community access to the playing fields. In 2002 the planning commission required the TESD to add parking to the VFMS lot to accommodate people who would be using the 4 new fields. This fence will block the path from the parking to the fields. People will either have to park on Chesterbrook Boulevard or the township will have to provide alternate sites for the sports teams. How are you going to pay for 4 new multipurpose fields? The TESD has made it very clear we should expect the gates to be locked except when students are going to and from school.
  2. The walking paths will be blocked so residents can’t walk to Gateway, Wilson Park and St. Isaacs. These paths are part of the original Chesterbrook Master Plan. Again, back in 2002 the TESD was required to rebuild the walking path so residents could pass by the school … why would you let them block these paths now? If there isn’t an alternate route for residents to get around VFMS they will walk on school property. The school board has said they will direct the schools to call the police when unauthorized people are on school property, so are they really going to call the police when some resident is walking to Wilson Park or St. Isaacs? Why would we create this issue? Police time is valuable and there is at least one easy fix, just build a short connector path behind the football field between the exiting sidewalk and the existing walking path.
  3. We think their plan calls for a fence to nowhere in the woods. Besides being silly since it will be parallel to an existing fence around the field closest to VF road, so that they are just fencing in the trees, it violates the provision that calls for the woods to be undisturbed.
  4. Finally, we believed the school board’s attorney when he said “the district will be legally bound” and “any material change in that plan we understand we have to come back before this board”… there has to be some integrity a process sanctioned by the Supervisors back in 2002.

So we would like you to tell the TESD to honor their commitment from 2002 and then implement the same process we used last time by creating a group consisting of residents, staff and officials to resolve this quickly and reasonably. We are parents and are not against student safety we just want a plan that makes sense.

Community Matters © 2021 Frontier Theme