Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Easttown Township

Easttown Supervisors are Setting the ‘Bar’

July 2, 2010
Comments

My recent experience at Easttown’s special meeting re the Hawkins property and subsequent post has found its way east on the main line.

In discussing the attitude of some Lower Merion commissioners, which at times places politics and special interest ‘first’ and their residents ‘last’ in the list of priorities, blogger Carla compared Easttown’s civility to Lower Merion’s elected officials in her recent post, ‘If Only Lower Merion Thought of Residents FIRST Once in a While’. (Here’s a link to Carla’s post).

Why should appropriate behavior at a township meeting, such as the recent special meeting at Easttown, be heralded as unique and special? Lately, we have witnessed less than desirable decorum from some elected officials up and down the main line. Doesn’t matter if it’s Lower Merion, Radnor or Tredyffrin Townships . . . civility and appropriate decorum is slipping away, replaced with a combative atmosphere.

Rather than a unique situation, Easttown’s civil discourse this week should be the norm, why has the ‘bar’ of local government now been set so seemingly low?

How do we encourage change of attitude in our leaders? How do we raise the bar of expectation? I know it’s possible . . . I saw it this week in Easttown!

Civil Discourse Between Agnes Irwin School Supporters and Easttown Residents . . . Township Supervisors Listen and the Vote Goes in Favor of the Community Voice

June 30, 2010
52 Comments

Civil Discourse is the formal exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a societal problem. It is intended to involve all citizens in the making of the decision, persuade others (through valid information and logic), and clarify what course of action would be most effective in solving the societal problem.

Last night the auditorium of Beaumont Elementary School was standing room only for Easttown Township’s special meeting . . . by my calculations, 250 Easttown residents and Agnes Irwin School (AIS) supporters packed in to the room. After brief remarks from the township supervisors, there was a 20-minute overview of the revised Agnes Irwin School’s proposed playing field plans for the Hawkins Farm. Agnes Irwin head of school, Dr. Mary Seppala spoke about the school and the students, followed by AIS attorney Ross Weiss who explained the contents of the revised playing field plans. Mr. Weiss presented AIS’s new proposed plan; attempting to answer many of the previous concerns of the Hawkins Farm neighbors and other Easttown residents.

A cornerstone of the new proposal was a ‘give-back’ of 58 acres (of the 108 acres) to Easttown. Other new plan components included the creation of $500K fund for the township, whose yearly interest was intended for maintenance of the 58 acres; complete public use of playing fields and tennis courts and a walking trail throughout the property with exercise stations. Mr. Weiss patiently promoted the merits of this new plan and his hope that the supervisors would allow the plan to move to the planning commission.

The supervisors asked Mr. Weiss several general questions and then opened the discussion to the residents for their comments, questions and remarks. The next two hours of this special meeting were remarkable. One after another of the residents spoke with passion and conviction on the proposed playing fields, Although the majority who spoke were in opposition of the proposed playing fields, there was a minority of Easttown residents who spoke in favor of the proposed plans; many of these supporters with daughters at AIS. The residents frequently clarified their remarks, explaining that the issue was not about AIS. Rather the issue was about changing zoning ordinances to allow a multi-sports complex construction in a residential district. Their concerns remained unchanged as from previous meetings – traffic, safety issues, noise, associated expenses to the township and the potential lowering of property values.

Following the resident’s comments, the supervisors agreed to make a decision on proposed playing field plans. The supervisors had three choices; (1) to remain silent and do nothing; (2) vote against AIS proposed plan or (3) vote to move the AIS proposal on to township Planning Commission and Chester County Planning Commission. The supervisors asked for a 5-minute break to deliberate and then with a few remarks, once again in a unanimous vote, made the decision to vote against the proposed plan. In their remarks, several supervisors cited receiving 328 emails and letters from residents and all but 10 were opposing the proposed plan.

Although I was pleased for the many residents who had passionately fought against the playing fields, I received an unexpected bonus from attending this lengthy meeting. I left the meeting with a sense that both sides had presented their cases with civility and respect for the other side and that I had witnessed local government at its best.

Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of the American Republic, considered political discourse to be the heart of democracy. Jefferson noted, “Differences of opinion lead to inquiry, and inquiry to truth.” According to Webster’s dictionary, the concept discourse has two major meanings: (a) formal communication of thoughts about a serious subject through words (spoken or written) and (b) rationality or the ability to reason.

Civil discourse is our ability to have conversation about topics about which we disagree, and our ability to listen to each others’ perspectives. Political discourse is a method of decision-making in a democracy; last night’s special meeting represented local government and civil discourse at its best! I applaud the Agnes Irwin School supporters and the Easttown residents for their thoughtful civil discourse, but above all, Easttown Township’s elected officials receive a standing ovation from my vantage point!

Fireworks May Be Coming Early to Easttown Township . . . the Battle Lines are Drawn for Agnes Irwin vs. the Hawkins Property Neighbors . . . Tuesday, June 29, 8 PM, Beaumont Elementary School

June 24, 2010
10 Comments

With the unanimous vote of defeat by the supervisors, I assumed that AIS would look elsewhere for their playing fields. The acquisition of more land for playing fields has apparently been part of the school’s long-range plan. While AIS has explored other properties in the area, they have not proven sufficient for the school’s needs. We now understand that the girl’s school from Rosemont does not take ‘no’ lightly and has orchestrated a campaign to change the minds of Easttown’s supervisors and residents.

Taking a different approach in selling this project to the community, AIS has now developed a new proposal scheduled for presentation at a special meeting on Tuesday, June 28, 8 PM at Beaumont Elementary School. In the new proposal, AIS is offering to donate 50 acres (of 108 acres) to the township as open space. In addition, the new plan includes a reduction from the school’s original proposal by one playing field and two tennis courts and a reduction to the proposed paved parking spaces. Mounting a major PR campaign designed to promote the playing fields in Berwyn, the school has marketed the land development project to current AIS families, alumnae and friends through letters and a newly designed, “Hawkins Property Information Center” website.

Rather than sitting on the sidelines, the neighbors to the proposed playing fields are organizing their own campaign to fight back. In a show of solidarity, the Hawkins property neighbors have created their own website, Protect Easttown: Working to Keep Easttown Residential Saying NO to Zoning Changes. The neighbors who oppose the proposed playing fields want to clarify that the issue is not about AIS but rather the issue is about changing the zoning ordinances. A zoning change would permit AIS’s planned multi-sports complex in a residential district, forever altering the character and integrity of Easttown Township.

I have had several emails from Easttown residents in regards to the Hawkins property but none of the communication supports the proposed AIS plan. One individual who wrote to me explained that they purchased their home next to the Hawkins property because they were told the Hawkins farm property would not be developed; as it was protected under a conservation easement. Since purchasing their home, the proposed playing fields project has developed and these owners are now faced with the possibility of living next door to a sports complex rather than the quiet, peaceful protected property that they thought would be their neighbor.

With the battle lines drawn for Tuesday’s special meeting, I decided to drive to Hawkins Farm today and see the location of the proposed playing fields. I admit that looking at the acres of bucolic fields and mature landscaping; it was hard to visualize soccer and softball fields, a turf field, tennis courts, running track, gatehouse with restrooms and a parking lot. As I stood in the shadows of Mrs. Hawkins historic stone house and barn, watching the ducks on the pond, I am challenged to believe that this proposed AIS plan would have met with her approval.

To the neighbors of the Hawkins Farm, you have my best wishes for Tuesday night.

____________________________

Additional posts on Agnes Irwin School’s proposed playing fields in Easttown Township:

https://pattyebenson.org/2010/06/03/brandywine-conservancy-easement-on-hawkins-property-cannot-be-undone/

https://pattyebenson.org/2010/06/02/agnes-irwin-school-purchase-of-berwyn-property-for-playing-fields-remains-an-open-issue/

https://pattyebenson.org/2010/03/08/what-does-a-sprawling-berwyn-estate-a-hollywood-related-socialite-a-private-girls-school-and-a-planning-commission-have-in-common/

Public Pension News Out of Harrisburg Today

June 15, 2010
5 Comments

Following up on the discussion from last night’s school board meeting, there was some interesting news out of Harrisburg today. The House lawmakers made a first stab at addressing the impending public pension crisis by voting to reduce pension benefits for future state and school district employees.

The House passed an amendment that, among other things, would raise the standard retirement age to 65 for both the Public School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS) and the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS). The retirement ages now are 62 and 60, respectively. It also extends the vesting period to be eligible for a pension from five years to 10 years. If I understand the components of the amendment correctly, it would offer the taxpayers short-term relief but also incorporate long-term reform.

The size of pensions for people who are hired in the future would be cut by one-fifth, unless the employees agree to have more money taken out of their paychecks. Retirees would no longer be able to withdraw their own contributions, plus interest, in a lump-sum cash payment upon retirement.

All the proposed changes would affect new employees only. The bill would have no effect on pension benefits for 200,000 current and retired state employees and 500,000 members of PSERS or change the format of both systems’ defined benefit pension plan, under which a retiree collects a percentage of his or her salary based on a formula that weighs age, years of employment and their own contributions. If enacted, the new pension rules would take effect January 1 for new state employees; July 2, 2011, for new school employees and December 1, 2011, for lawmakers who take office after the fall election.

The underlying bill — which could get a vote on final passage in the House as early as tomorrow — would add to the long-term cost of the pension systems by restructuring them financially but reduce the projected size of crippling payments due into both systems in two years. Should it pass, the bill would gradually limit the amount of a single year’s increase in costs to governments and school districts (taxpayers) to eventually reach no more than 4.5 percent of payroll.

It is my understanding that the prospects of passage in the House appear positive (given its wide support by both political parties). A positive vote will send it on to the state Senate.

Ray Clarke Provides Notes from TESD School Board Meeting & Budget Approval Process

June 15, 2010
14 Comments

My friend, Ray Clarke once again has not let us down with his detailed notes and commentary from the TESD School Board meeting. Posting the agenda from last night’s meeting, I noted its 101 pages so I have a feeling that last night was long and tedious. Which makes me all the more grateful that Ray attended, took notes and then provides us with his thoughtful remarks. Thanks Ray!

I was particularly interested to know that PSERS was discussed at the meeting. The large white elephant in the room, we’d all like to hope that PSERS goes away or somehow just self-corrects but we know that’s just wishful thinking. PA House Appropriations Chair Dwight Evan’s proposed legislation addresses PSERS, but appears to be a delay tactic where the major liability to the taxpayers remains. But I suppose one could say his bill is better than nothing . . . which is where we currently are on the subject.

At the end of Ray’s notes he asks for State House candidates Drucker and Kampf to weigh in, but my experience says that will be doubtful. Unfortunately, my discussions with politicians anymore seem to be laced with an ‘it’s off the record’ remark . . . but maybe these candidates will surprise us!

Read over Ray’s comments from the meeting and please provide your thoughts. Any other readers attend the meeting, if so, please weigh in with your comments.

The School Board passed:

  • The 2010/11 budget with a 2.9% property tax increase, as developed and communicated over the past six months
  • Issuance of $23.6 million of bonds at “record low interest rates” – but which will still cost $36.7 million to repay over the next 15 years. Part will be used to advance refund existing bonds, which will save $170,000 next year and have a total net present value savings of $377,000 over the next dozen years. Note that the savings are front-loaded, extra costs come in the out years (see later, re PSERS……)
  • A bid to demolish the ESC, leading to a total project cost of $450,000 – about half the working estimates, which is very good news. The work to take place at the end of the calendar year.
  • Modifications to the K-6 class sizing practice that will save three teaching positions next year and more later, while remaining in accordance with current staffing policy. The implementation enabled by more recent resignations than expected.
  • A bid for printing services to replace the print shop currently housed in the ESC. Important to note that the budget strategy to save $84,000 did not explicitly articulate the $52,000 cost for the outsourced services, although apparently that cost is included in the budget. There was an agonizing 15 minute discussion while the Board and Administration talked all around this without facing up to it.

Interesting update about PSERS: PA House Appropriations Chair Dwight Evans has introduced a bill to implement a Rendell plan to delay the increase in employer (= taxpayer) contributions to teacher and state employee pension plans. Basically this limits the rate of increase of contributions via “collars” on the percentage of payroll that the taxpayer would have to contribute. Here’s an analysis:
http://www.paindependent.com/todays_news/detail/alternate-state-pension-plan-would-cost-8-billion
From some of the numbers floated, I guess this would provide TESD with at least a $5 million annual expense saving (vs the current forecast) in the problem years coming up.

But of course, the liabilities are still out there, so, to quote another website:
http://www.pennsylvaniavotes.org/forum/forums/p/149/300.aspx#300:
“An actuarial note attached to the bill by PERC (the PA Public Employee Retirement Commission) estimates that the higher costs in later year will far outweigh the contribution reductions in earlier years – to the tune of an astonishing $52 billion over 30 years. That is an additional $52 billion that taxpayers – through higher state and school property taxes – will have to fork over to pay off the pension obligations, and this assumes an 8% annual return on investment.”

This bill is being compared to refinancing a mortgage, which is not a bad analogy. Continuing with that: the plan does of course completely fail to address the fact that the principal (the public sector pension liability) vastly exceeds the market value (= pensions valued at private sector levels). Not a thought being given to writing down that liability!

For how long will voters put up with the union stranglehold on the legislature? At some point the economic pain will become overwhelming. What do our current and would-be representatives think about this?

Adoption of Tredyffrin Easttown School District’s 2010-11 Budget Set for Tomorrow Night

June 13, 2010
2 Comments

Tomorrow night, Monday, June 14, the school board will deliver the 2010-11 budget for final approval. The meeting is scheduled for 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School – here is the meeting agenda (word of warning – the agenda is 101 pages so suggest reviewing it online rather than printing!). I don’t think that there are any anticipated surprises to the budget. The school board has done a great job of keeping the public informed during this tedious budget process; I’m sure that there will be a collective sigh of relief from school board member after tomorrow night’s budget vote. I have a conflict with another board meeting tomorrow, but I hope that many residents will attend, and then share their thoughts.

Knowing that tomorrow was closing a chapter on the school district budget, I was interested in an Associated Press education article that was picked up in various newspapers this weekend. The article is about teacher tenure reform and how the Colorado legislature has made a rather bold statement against the teacher union in their state. Colorado is changing the way their teachers retain their jobs; using annual reviews and student performance statistics to make tenure decisions. In case you did not see the article, an excerpt is below.

In bold move, Colorado alters teacher tenure rules

By COLLEEN SLEVIN, Associated Press Writer Colleen Slevin

DENVER – Colorado is changing the rules for how teachers earn and keep the sweeping job protections known as tenure, long considered a political sacred cow around the country. Many education reform advocates consider tenure to be one of the biggest obstacles to improving America’s schools because it makes removing mediocre or even incompetent teachers difficult. Teacher unions, meanwhile, have steadfastly defended tenure for decades.

Colorado’s legislature changed tenure rules despite opposition from the state’s largest teacher’s union, a longtime ally of majority Democrats. Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, signed the bill into law last month. After the bill survived a filibuster attempt and passed a key House vote, Democratic Rep. Nancy Todd, a 25-year teacher who opposed the measure, broke into tears. “I don’t question your motives,” an emotional Todd said to the bill’s proponents. “But I do want you to hear my heart because my heart is speaking for over 40,000 teachers in the state of Colorado who have been given the message that it is all up to them.”

While other states have tried to modify tenure, Colorado’s law was the boldest education reform in recent memory, according to Kate Walsh, the president of the Washington-based National Council on Teacher Quality, which promotes changing the way teachers are recruited and retained, including holding tenured teachers accountable with annual reviews. The new law requires teachers to be evaluated annually, with at least half of their rating based on whether their students progressed during the school year. Beginning teachers will have to show they’ve boosted student achievement for three straight years to earn tenure.

Teachers could lose tenure if their students don’t show progress for two consecutive years. That won’t be a possibility until 2015, however, because lawmakers slowed down the process under political pressure from the teachers’ union. Teachers can appeal dismissal all the way to the state Supreme Court, and school districts have the burden of proving why they should be terminated.

Under the old system, teachers simply had to work for three years to gain tenure, the typical wait around the country.

Every state but Wisconsin has some form of tenure. The protections were intended to protect teachers from being fired because of their politics, religion or other arbitrary reasons. On average, school districts across the country dismiss 2.1 percent of teachers annually, generally for bad conduct rather than performance.

Colorado’s measure is a tribute to the tenacity of freshman Democratic state Sen. Michael Johnston, a former Teach for America teacher, principal and Obama education adviser. The 35-year-old Harvard- and Yale-trained lawyer was appointed to represent a largely minority Denver district that has seen an influx of more white residents because of redevelopment of the city’s former airport. He successfully fought changes to the bill that would have eased expectations for teachers with traditionally low performing students.

Although various states have responded to the lure of federal money by moving to tie teacher evaluations to student performance, no other state specifically changed its tenure laws as Colorado did.

Many teachers and some education experts argue that tenure reform is unnecessary. Margaret Bobb, an earth science teacher at Denver’s East High School, said bad teachers are often quietly coached out of their jobs by administrators, avoiding the protracted tenure dismissal process. She contends tenure is still needed to prevent good teachers from being dismissed for running afoul of administrators and to prevent experienced — and more expensive — teachers from being let go by cash-strapped districts.

“Education is not just you and your class. It’s not an individual activity. If you’re doing your best, it’s a system you’re a part of,” Bobb said.

Brandywine Conservancy Easement on Hawkins Property Cannot be ‘Undone’

June 3, 2010
16 Comments

I continue to receive interesting information on the Agnes Irwin’s proposed land development plan in of playing fields on the Hawkins property in Berwyn. As I have previously explained, Berwyn neighbors to the Hawkins property have received anonymous emails and letters from supporters of Irwin’s proposed playing fields. Some of the communication makes claims of other possible buyers, including the Tredyffrin Easttown School District. Much discussion has circled around the Brandywine Conservancy easement and the suggestion by some that the conservancy easement could be broken to allow for other usage of the land.

This may help to set the record straight. I have received a copy of a letter dated March 22, 2010 from Sherri Evans-Stanton, Director of Brandywine Conservancy to the Board of Supervisors, Easttown Township. In reading the letter, there should be no misunderstanding on the issue of the easement protection of the Hawkins property – see excerpt below:

A conservation easement is a restrictive covenant voluntarily placed on land which allows a legally qualified conservation organization (in this case, the Brandywine Conservancy) to enforce it. Conservation easements usually run with the land in perpetuity, as does the Hawkins easement. For many years, conservation easements have been recognized and enforced by the Pennsylvania courts as valid property restrictions, and the Pennsylvania legislature codified these legal principles in 2001 in the Pennsylvania Conservation and Preservation Easements Act (Act 29 of 2001).

The Brandywine Conservancy has over forty years of experience upholding and defending the conservation easements it holds and will continue to do so. It is simply not true (as we have been hearing) that the easement can simply be ignored or “undone” and a housing development, large or small, built on the property.

On the subject of Tredyffrin Easttown School District’s interest in the Hawkins property, I received some new information. I was told that this information is widely known; however it was news to me. Apparently the T/E School Board passed on buying the Hawkins property because they did not want to challenge the open space easements. (In order to build a school would have required the School Board to challenge the conservancy easement). I had previously suggested that the current school budget situation would not have been financially possible at this time. Apparently I stand corrected. I have been told that the School Board could afford to purchase the Hawkins property as the District has a AAA bond rating, but it was determined that the land was not suitable for a school (due to the restrictions associated with the property).

If the T/E School District did not think that T/E could change the easements on the Hawkins property, . . . how is that Agnes Irwin School thinks it has any better chance? Also, remember that our School Board has the ability to condemn property for government need whereas Agnes Irwin’s does not enjoy that same ability.

Over 150,000 Teachers Nationwide Without Jobs . . . Will this influence school district budgets and teacher contract negotiations?

May 20, 2010
31 Comments

Here’s an interesting article in the New York Times about the state of teaching and shortage of jobs. School district budget cuts nationwide have created a historic surplus of more than 150,000 teachers in the job market. Going forward, as school districts engage in teacher contract negotiations, this may create a different situation for the teacher unions. Will the supply and demand of available teachers influence TESD decisions?

Teachers Facing Weakest Market in Years

By WINNIE HU

Published: May 19, 2010

PELHAM, NY – In the month since Pelham Memorial High School in Westchester County advertised seven teaching jobs, it has been flooded with 3,010 applications from candidates as far away as California. The Port Washington District on Long Island is sorting through 3,620 applications for eight positions — the largest pool the superintendent has seen in his 41-year career.

Even hard-to-fill specialties are no longer so hard to fill. Jericho, N.Y., has 963 people to choose from for five spots in special education, more than twice as many as in past years. In Connecticut, chemistry and physics jobs in Hartford that normally attract no more than 5 candidates have 110 and 51, respectively.

The recession seems to have penetrated a profession long seen as recession-proof. Superintendents, education professors and people seeking work say teachers are facing the worst job market since the Great Depression. Amid state and local budget cuts, cash-poor urban districts like New York City and Los Angeles, which used to hire thousands of young people every spring, have taken down the help-wanted signs.

Even upscale suburban districts are preparing for huge levels of layoffs. School officials and union leaders estimate than more than 150,000 teachers nationwide could lose their jobs next year, far more than any other time, including the last major financial crisis of the 1970s.

At the University of Pennsylvania, most of the 90 aspiring teachers who graduated last weekend are jobless. Many had counted on offers from the Philadelphia public schools but had their interviews canceled this month after the district announced a hiring freeze.

“We’re trying to encourage everyone to hold on,” said Kathy Schultz, an education professor at Penn. “But that’s very difficult because students have taken out loans and want to be assured of a job.”

If there is an upside to the shortage of teaching jobs, it is that schools now have their pick of candidates. Teach for America, which places graduates from some of the nation’s top colleges in poor schools, has seen applications increase by nearly a third this year to 46,000 — for 4,500 slots. From Ivy League colleges alone, there are 1,688 would-be teachers.

Proposed 2010-11 School District Budget . . . Ray Clarke’s Comments on School Board Meeting

May 11, 2010
10 Comments

Last night was TESD School Board meeting with discussion of the proposed 2010-11 district budget as the major agenda item. I was attending a DuPortail House Board meeting and as always, I thank my friend Ray Clarke for attending the School Board meeting and then for sharing his notes with us. For Ray and any other who attended – I am curious what was the resident turnout like last night? Staff, teachers, parents in attendance? Many comments from the audience members?

It looks like the unfunded pension program (PSERS) problem is looming ever closer on the horizon . . . wonder if there is time before the Primary next week to have a statement from the local candidates on their proposed solution to the problem? If not before the Primary Election, I do think that we need to have public dialogue before the November General Election and know where the candidates stand on this important economic issue facing the Commonwealth.

Update from the School Board meeting budget discussion

First, a quick appreciation for District Business Manager Art McDonnell. His presentation tonight was very clear. He always seems to be on top of the details, and the budget process has chewed through a lot of those details.

The proposed budget passed with one change: removal of the $80,000 of revenue estimate for the Activity Fee. The consensus being that there is not enough time to sort through and socialize all the details for the upcoming year, but that such a fee should be considered for 2011/12. The lost $80,000 will come from the fund balance.

Board members Brake and Bookstaber proposed amendments that would slightly lower the non-contract compensation increase (to 2%) and the property tax increase (to 2.5%), but received no other votes. I’m not sure that I buy the arguments against the former, but I can see how the $7 million deficit for 2011/12 would weigh on the decision to tax at the Act 1 index. That shows how important it was for the Board to vote not to apply for exceptions back in January, forcing the expense reductions.

The good news is that Moodys affirmed the district’s AAA rating, even considering the dire financial outlook for 2011/12 and especially beyond. Now seems to be a good time to borrow what we can to assure funding to keep the facilities going, while the District tries to figure out how to offset the remaining contracted salary increases and benefits entitlements. Beyond that, hopefully new contracts will reflect the community’s own compensation experience and ability to pay. The notion of above-inflation compounded annual salary level and tenure increases is – to use a word popularized at the meeting – unsustainable.

Those actions will not address the retirement plan problem, though – a net $6 million contribution increase in 2012/13 and another $3 million on top of that in 2013/14 – by which time the fund balance would be wiped out, even with inflation-linked tax increases.

This leads to one of the most critical questions for our prospective state representatives: what – specifically – would you propose to address the unfunded pension liability? What changes in benefits? What changes in contributions, employer and employee? What aid to school districts, and from what source? Let’s hear from them.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme