Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Kevin Buraks

Zoning Amendment Could be Solution to Saving the Tennis Courts

May 1, 2013
13 Comments

May 1 was the deadline for the School District to submit their variance application to the Township in order to be listed on the Zoning Hearing Board’s May 23 meeting agenda. According to Township Manager Bill Martin, the application was received today. Some of the neighbors of the Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts may think there is nothing to stop the ZHB from awarding the variance, but that may not be the case.

The combined impervious coverage of the tennis courts and the additional parking spaces exceeds the township stormwater requirement. Based on the PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) there appears to be no legal basis for Tredyffrin’s Zoning Hearing Board to grant a variance to the School District.

Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) a zoning hearing board “may grant a variance, provided that all of the following findings are made where relevant in a given case:

  1. That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located.
  2. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable reasonable use of the property.
  3. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
  4. That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare.
  5. That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation in issue.”

According to the MPC, the School District needs to show an economic hardship for ZHB to grant a variance in this matter. However, the additional parking spaces at VFES are optional (not a requirement) for the School District and therefore do not constitute an economic hardship. I have been forced to accept that using the logic that the impervious coverage (of the tennis courts plus the additional parking) is only a ‘little over’ will not satisfy the MPC requirement. There is also the matter of a strict stormwater policy in Tredyffrin, and an important issue that is unlikely sidestepped.

A solution that would save the tennis courts, allow the additional parking spaces and not require a ZHB variance was presented to the School District and Township by John Petersen, a former ZHB member. I was copied on the following email sent to Michelle Kichline, chair of the Board of Supervisors, Kevin Buraks, President of the School Board and the Township and School District solicitors, Vince Donohue and Ken Roos, respectfully.

Here’s a suggestion…

The BoS offers up a zoning amendment that creates an exception for what is counted as impervious coverage: tennis courts, basketball courts, etc. that are available for public use (defined as owned by either the township or school district) that exists on or before the date, the zoning amendment is ratified. A possible permutation is that the first 1K square feet is exempted.

I normally don’t endorse amending the ZO based on specific facts. Like everything, there are always exceptions. For an exception, there must be some solid criteria to support such:

1. The items covered by the exception can never increase

2. Its not de-facto spot zoning because there are any number of places where this applies

3. Not likely to have an adverse impact on storm water (TESD will still have storm water issues to deal with in the parking long construction)

4. There is a strong public policy argument in retaining recreational facilities

I don’t think you will get much, if any push back on this. Is it legal? That’s up to you guys to figure out. In my opinion, this is not objectionable, unlike the recent C-1 amendment. The school district is not just any ordinary landowner.

Baring this, there is no way to keep the courts and build the additional parking. There are no legal grounds to grant a variance.

There’s an old saying that bad facts make bad law. In this case, bad facts sometimes require us to re-visit the law. In 1,000 cases, there may be one time when we should do that. I think this is one of those times. The change is very limited and is in keeping with public policy and finally, no material adverse impacts to storm water. The school district should hot have to choose between courts that have been there for 40+ years and the need to add much needed parking.

John

Although there were follow-up emails sent, to date no one has responded to Mr. Petersen’s suggestion. The four people receiving Petersen’s email (Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos) are all attorneys and therefore presumably understand the standard required by the Municipalities Planning Code for the Zoning Hearing Board to issue a variance. In fact, if memory serves me, Michelle Kichline served on the ZHB before her election to the Board of Supervisors. Considering the legalities of the MPC, why should the School District bother to submit a variance application? If not economic hardship, on what grounds is the School District seeking a variance?

Even if the Township reduces the fees to the School District, there are professional costs (legal, architectural) involved with the ZHB variance application. Why not consider a zoning amendment – the tennis courts are saved and the parking lot is expanded. Looks like a win-win for the Township, the School District and the residents who use the tennis courts!

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Note: I am sending this article to Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos asking them to comment directly to me on (1) the grounds for the ZHB to issue a variance to the School District and (2) the consideration of a zoning amendment. Their responses will be posted on Community Matters.

VFES Tennis Courts: Looking for an explanation from TESD President Kevin Buraks

April 22, 2013
5 Comments

The Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts are on tonight’s agenda of the TESD. Every time you think that this situation has moved forward, it takes a couple of steps backwards. As a result, it is unclear exactly what is going to come out of tonight’s meeting — will the courts stay or will they go?

At the District Facilities Meeting on Friday, April 12, the committee voted to recommend to the school board that the tennis courts be saved. Having attended the Facilities Meeting, I took that to mean that their recommendation would be discussed at the next regular School Board meeting (tonight). I presumed that the Facilities Committee would first make the recommendation; but then it would be up to the full School Board to ‘act’ on that recommendation.

However, at the same time that the Facilities Meeting was going on, a draft tennis court agreement was sent from the District to the Township. We learned of that proposal at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, April 15 from chair Michelle Kichline. Kichline, with concurrence from Township Solicitor Vince Donohue, suggested legal problems with the proposal … specifically, that the District was asking for stormwater relief from the Township, in exchange for the tennis courts. After all the discussion that has taken place on this topic, it is impossible to understand why the School Board cannot accept that a stormwater-tennis court trade is not legally possible. Why would the School District submit such a proporal to the township that included storm water relief? We were led to believe at the Facilities Committee meeting, that the school district was interested in a reasonable settlement of the tennis courts situation. However, the proposed agreement suggests otherwise. Who wrote this draft agreement … the School District Solicitor Ken Roos?

Beyond the legalities of the proposal, I am struggling to understand how this agreement was sent to the township before the School Board reviewed it. How could the School Board review the draft agreement before the Facilities Committee even sent them their recommendation? Did School Board president Kevin Buraks review the tennis court proposal and authorize its release to the Township? Doesn’t proper procedure count for anything? Where’s the sunshine?

The outcome from the Board of Supervisors meeting was the suggestion for the School District and Township solicitors to prepare the tennis court agreement. Donohue and Roos are left to ‘hash’ out the agreement between the two entities at the taxpayer’s expense. Neither TESD nor Tredyffrin Township can afford the legal expense that has now been created by this situation. With all the talks of cuts in the school district, threats of outsourcing, etc. where’s the fiscal responsibility?

But here we are with the tennis courts on tonight’s School Board agenda. The saga continues …

The Saga of the Tennis Courts Continues …

April 11, 2013
1 Comment

The saga of the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School continues. On April 2, representatives from the School Board, Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, staff and the District’s architect held a public meeting to discuss the fate of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School.

Although there was support to save the tennis courts from those residents in attendance, no decision was made at the meeting. The tennis courts are on the Facilities Committee agenda for tomorrow (Friday), 2 PM at the TESD Administration Building. Also included in the agenda packet is the site map for the parking lot expansion and aerial view of the courts.

I remain confused as to why the District wants to demolish the tennis courts. From a logical standpoint, some of the arguments simply do not make sense to me.

  • The tennis courts are not located adjacent to the parking lot and their location does not affect the parking lot expansion plans. To add the 24 parking spaces does not require the demolition of the 2 tennis courts.
  • There has been much back and forth between the School District business manager Art McDonnell and the Township Manager Bill Martin and Township Engineer Steve Burgo in regards to “trading” impervious surface requirement of the parking lot expansion by demolishing the courts. McDonnell claims that there was a prior agreement with former Township Manager Mimi Gleason in regards to this arrangement; Martin and Burgo claim otherwise.
  • In an email to Bill Martin and Art McDonnell (cc Phil Donohue) dated March 20, Burgo states the following:

Township staff including the previous Manager (Ms. Gleason), Engineer (Mr. Burgo), and (Mrs. McPherson), attended meetings with Art McDonnell and TESD consultant staff on these Tennis Courts more than a year ago. In those meetings, the TESD discussed their plans to add a new parking lot at the VFES in the future. I want to be clear that the TESD and their consultants originally asked if they could swap the impervious, but were told by the Township that they couldn’t. Stormwater Management controls are required by the Township Stormwater Ordinance, for all new impervious being constructed onsite. There is no credit or swap if the courts are removed from a stormwater management standpoint, only from a zoning standpoint.

  • On behalf of the District, Art McDonnell has publicly maintained that there was a ‘deal’ in regards to the impervious surface requirement. Yet as evidenced by Burgo’s email, the township has denied any such deal existed. Further, to the point, such a deal would be illegal as the stormwater ordinance makes no provision for such a credit. Therefore, we can only conclude that the School District represented by the business manager Art McDonnell has been less than truthful as to their rationale for demolishing the tennis courts.
  • The construction of the additional parking spaces will require a zoning variance. According to VFES neighbor Matt Morgan, township officials indicated at the April 2 Facilities Committee meeting that they would expedite the process and probably waive the associated fees (if asked).

Besides the impervious surface debate, another rationale for the removal of the tennis courts from the District was their cost to maintain. I have had a number of residents tell me that courts are in excellent condition – although I don’t claim any expertise on tennis courts, the 2 courts at VFES looked in good shape to me.

Another neighbor to the tennis courts, Don Detweiler, has been providing routine maintenance for a number of years. Neither the School District nor the township has expended any dollars on the courts. In an April 1 TE Patch article , local resident Jeff Sacks, a tennis coach, is quoted as offering to pay the maintenance cost. According to Matt Morgan, a local Davis Cup tennis player who lives in the neighborhood and uses the courts, has offered to hold tennis clinics for children and donate the proceeds to maintain the courts.

Beyond the ‘he said, she said’ aspects of this story, that has me shaking my head is the notion that the tennis courts are going to cost money unless they are demolished. According to the District, the cost to seek a variance from the township’s Zoning Hearing Board will be $12K – $14K; $2K in fees and the remainder in architectural fees. However, the supervisors stated at the April 2 public meeting that they would probably waive the fees if asked. And there would not be need for additional architectural services or drawings — the District could apply for a variance based on the current drawings.

Why is there such a rush to take down the tennis courts? Why is the building of the 24 parking spaces contingent on the removal of the courts? It has been verified that there was no such ‘deal’ exists to swap the tennis courts for impervious coverage requirement. There should be a better reason to remove the tennis courts other than the courts are on District property and they School Board has the right to do what they want. It’s true the courts are on District property but the District property is owned by the residents.

Tomorrow is the Facilities Committee meeting. Representing the School Board on Facilities is Pete Motel, Jim Bruce and Liz Mercogliano. According to a April 2 article in the Main Line Media News, Mercogliano is siding with the residents and supports keeping the tennis courts. From the article —

“There is no legitimate reason based on impervious surface, stormwater management, safety (or) sink holes to remove the court,” Mercogliano said in an e-mail. “The parking can be built in same area with no issue as there is more land space.

“The community deserves their right to be heard and look into other means of raising funds for maintenance and possible takeover of the court through the Parks and Recreation board or a similar foundation to raise funds. I am supporting a delay to allow the opportunity for the taxpayer to seek an alternative method to save the courts for the kids.

There will be a recommendation from the Facilities Committee tomorrow. If you are unable to attend the 2 PM meeting, you could send an email to the Board at: schoolboard@tesd.net or to individual Board members. However, I emailed the School Board president Kevin Buraks 8 days ago (in regards to the tennis courts) and to date, have received no response or acknowledgement to my inquiry.

The fate of Valley Forge Elementary School Tennis Courts remains an open issue

April 4, 2013
15 Comments

Tuesday night members of the TE School Board and TESD staff, Tredyffrin Township supervisors and staff met with residents to discuss the fate of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School.

The courts are on District property and by a 1974 agreement were built and maintained by Tredyffrin Township and Parks and Recreation Board (click here for agreement). The agreement allowed for termination, “if at any time the school district determines that the grounds selected for the construction and maintenance of the tennis courts are required for school building purposes.” By a letter dated May 31, 2012 from TESD business manager Art McDonnell to the township, the agreement was terminated because the “District has now determined that the grounds are required for school building purposes. Specifically, the grounds will be used to add a parking area to the Valley Forge Elementary School.” (click here for McDonnell letter).

This is confusing because the tennis courts are behind the school and the parking area and the construction of the additional 24 parking spaces is in the front of the building. Leading up to Tuesday’s meeting, there has been much debate centering around whether the removal of the tennis courts would alleviate stormwater and impervious surface requirements of the parking lot expansion.

Although the current township manager Bill Martin and township engineer Steve Burgo state that there was no ‘deal’ that the school district could trade stormwater requirements for the parking lot by removal of the tennis courts, the District has a different viewpoint. According to their presentation at the meeting, former township manager Mimi Gleason met with Tom Daley, the District architect and Art McDonnell, on May 3, 2012 to review the concept of trading the paving in parking lot for the tennis courts and that the concept was approved. McDonnell presents the meeting information and verbal approval from Gleason to the District Facilities Committee on May 11. At that meeting Daley presented layout options and the preliminary budget was set at $230K. It was at this point that McDonnell sent the letter to the township on May 31 (referenced above).

After testimony from many neighbors in support of the tennis courts, where does the project stand? According to the District, JMC Contractors was awarded the contract for the project – their bid $224,743. The cost to remove the tennis courts is $24K.

According to the District architect, Tom Daley, the costs for additional stormwater mitigation could be $1 Million without a variance if the tennis courts remain. I have a hard time believing that the cost could be so high.

It was suggested that if the District could go to the Zoning Hearing Board and seek a variance, but it is unclear to me on what grounds the approval could be granted. For Zoning Hearing Board, it is my understanding that the District could bring the current drawings/plans without needing the expense of legal or architectural representation at the meeting – a savings of $10-12K. It is also suggested that application fee of $2K could be waived by the Board of Supervisors. If the District wants to seek a variance, they will need to notify the township by Monday. (There’s a legal requirement to notify publicly advertise two weeks in advance of ZHB meeting) Board member and District Facilities Committee member Betsy Fadem has stated that she wants this matter resolved by May 1. The next Facilities Committee meeting is April 12 at 2 PM where the tennis court discussion will continue.

I’m not sure what is magical about May 1, except that the District has a time schedule for getting the parking lot construction done during the summer months when school is closed.

The District has a signed agreement with a contractor, so I am not sure how this is going to play out. Will public pressure cause the District to backtrack and reverse course and save the tennis courts? What are the implications if the District seeks a variance from the Zoning Hearing Board? Although the suggestion is that getting a variance would not be challenging to the District, I was under the impression that there are specific guidelines under which variances are granted, such as economic hardship.

How can TE School Board approve longevity bonuses to retiring administrators equal to as much as 100% of their salary?

April 1, 2013
54 Comments

Tomorrow evening (Tuesday, 7:30 PM, TE School District Administrative office) at a special school board meeting, there will be an opportunity for interested parties to voice their opinion on the Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts, and whether or not to demolish. Tonight Finance Committee will meet at 7 PM, followed by the Budget Workshop II at 7:30 PM at the TE School District Administrative offices. Click here for agenda.

The Budget Workshop II will continue the 2013-14 budget discussion, looking at expenditures and a projection model. I wonder if T/E administrator supplemental retirement bonuses and the potential impact on the budget is part of the discussion. Short answer, I doubt it. When the school board approved the ‘Administrator Compensation Plan’ which was buried in the January consent agenda, it was suggested that the process was “routine” and that any discussion on the bonus and compensation plan was to occur “after” the vote was taken.

Admittedly, in a budget the size of T/E School District, the one-time bonuses paid to the administrators is probably not a big deal – looking at the list below of the administrators and their bonuses, which was included with the School Board’s January agenda materials, the total is around $180K.

Administrators, base salary and one-time bonus, effective July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013:

Adams $130,897 $2,200
Boyle $125,000 $2,087
Capuano $125,000 $2,028
Cataldi $144,000 $2,356
Chipego $163,500 $2,754
Cohle $147,719 $2,486
Demming $143,512 $2,414
Dinkins $152,940 $2,549
Fagan $125,000 $2,080
Gibson $144,000 $2,418
Groppe $125,732 $2,103
Gusick $152,000 $2,513
Hickey $115,481 $1,902
McConnell $176,823 $2,963
Meisinger $151,000 $2,520
Mull $117,283 $1,968
Parker $115,481 $1,849
Phillips $125,000 $2,001
Roy $125,327 $2,063
Tiede $173,070 $2,900
Tobin $155,091 $2,611
Torres $127,003 $2,134
Towle $132,409 $2,225
Whyte $146,676 $2,468
Wills $142,000 $2,190
McDonnell $156,309 $2,623

It is my opinion, that the recently approved compensation plan for the administrators contains something far more costly than $180K one-time bonus, and something that should have been publicly discussed – the ‘Retirement Supplemental Pension’. The newly signed Act 93 Agreement (the Administrator Compensation Plan) of January 29, 2013 to June 30, 2017 supersedes the prior plan that covered 13 years, July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2014.

When the previous administrator compensation plan was signed in 2001, TESD was not facing the dire economic situation and level of cost-cutting measures as is the case in 2013. The District’s multi-million dollar deficit has required the Board to look at making difficult decisions to cut-costs, including outsourcing of support staff, possible demotion of teachers, increase class sizes, etc. We have seen educational programming affected by cost cutting measures — example, the ‘Foreign Language in the Elementary Schools’ (FLES) program is no longer offered nor Latin in the middle school. For the 2013-14 school year, TESD will be the only school district in the state to institute teacher furloughs. All of this to stave off the financial cliff that TESD, like every other school district in Pennsylvania, is facing.

For 13 years the T/E administration compensation plan included longevity incentive bonuses – a so-called ‘Retirement Supplemental Pension’ where administrators receive an additional bonus check when they retire, based on the years they have served as administrators in TESD.

For retiring TESD administrators, you apply the appropriate percentage from the schedule below to the final year’s base salary:

  • at least 5 – but less than 10 years: 45%
  • at least 10 – but less than 15 years: 60%
  • at least 15 – but less than 20 years: 75%
  • at least 20 – but less than 25 years: 90%
  • 25 years or more: 100%

Considering that the former administrator compensation plan covered 13 years (2001-2014), a complete and thorough analysis of the entire agreement, including the ‘Retirement Supplemental Pension’ would have been fiscally responsible. It appears that those individuals affected by the administrator compensation plan are the ones that reviewed the plan and presented it to the Board. The newly signed Administrator Compensation Plan is a 4-year plan covering January 29, 2013 – June 30, 2017. This ‘routine’ consent agenda item contains the same language for the long-term one-time retirement bonus as was contained in the previous plan.

What exactly does the ‘Retirement Supplemental Pension’ mean to the taxpayers of TESD? In researching the 26 administrators named above, how many are in the category that could retire and receive this one-time payment? The District has announced the retirement of Tom Tobin this year as Devon Elementary School principal. If I understand the Retirement Supplement Pension correctly, with 21 years of service as a TESD administration, means that Tobin will receive a one-time payment equal to 90% of his $155K salary or approximately $139,500.

Here’s an interesting example of the Retirement Supplemental Pension … the director of Technology, Robin McConnell, currently has 39 years of service with the District. According to the compensation plan, McConnell will receive a retirement bonus equal to 100% of his salary or $176,823 upon retirement. Many of the 26 administrators have been with the District a long time, which means there could be a number of retirements before the expiration of the new administrator compensation plan in June 2017. It should be clear that the one-time payment of the Retirement Supplemental Pension is in addition to their regular pension.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know too many companies who pay longevity bonuses at this level anymore; unless perhaps you are president or CEO of the company. It seems astounding to me that the School Board can be considering outsourcing of TENIG workers, going after nonprofit companies for property taxes and instituting teacher furloughs in 2013/14 yet no discussion of the removal of the Retirement Supplemental Pension from the administrator compensation plan. Or, if not removed entirely from the plan, what about a decrease in the percentage received? Why no discussion?

Does the School Board know how many administrators could qualify for this retirement bonus by the expiration of the administrator compensation plan in June 2017? Also, according to Dan Waters contract, he too will receive this one-time bonus when he retires. With his years of service in TESD, he will receive his one-time payment at the 100% level of his salary. Considering the state of the economic situation in this school district, it is incredible that this information was deemed unnecessary for public dialogue. So much for all the discussion that the teachers and TENIG employees need to ‘give back’ to the District. Where was the School Board on the administrators ‘giving back’ when they approved the ‘Retirement Supplemental Pension’ as part of the administration compensation plan? Where do these one-time retirement payments appear on the budget? Where does the money come from to pay for the one-time retirement supplement pension bonus?

Remember, there were no changes made to the levels of this one-time payment in the new plan, and the public was not permitted to discuss the issue until after the vote to approve the administrator compensation plan!

This Issue is not only Tennis Courts … It’s accountability from elected officials

March 27, 2013
52 Comments

It is likely that many in our community were not aware of last week’s drama over the planned demolition of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School this past Saturday. Through the efforts of many neighborhood members, the courts received a temporary “stay of execution” to allow for further discussion. However, getting the School Board Directors to call off the bulldozers at the ninth hour did not come easily or without a political tug-of-war between the School District and Tredyffrin Township. In the end, the issue wasn’t about a few neighbors crying foul over the proposed demise of their local tennis courts. From my vantage point, this problem has more to do when elected officials and administrators choose to ignore the voices of the community until the situation borders on explosive.

For those that are unaware of what I’m talking about, here’s the brief overview. Tredyffrin Township, on Tredyffrin Easttown School District property, constructed the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School and until 2009, maintained the two courts. In 2009, the Township decided they no longer wanted to maintain the courts and requested that the School District take over maintenance. However, according to TESD business manager, Art McDonnell, the District has never maintained the tennis courts.

The District’s 2008 parking study concluded the need for additional parking spaces at Valley Forge Elementary School — requiring the expansion of the existing lot. I need to point out that the parking lot and its planned expansion is located in the front of the elementary school whereas the tennis courts are in the back of the property. The expansion of the VFES parking would not include the property where the tennis courts are located.

The obvious question to ask … why demolish the tennis courts if the parking lot expansion is not close to the courts. It was the view of the School Board that they could trade the increased impervious coverage and storm water requirements of the new parking area with the removal of the tennis courts. The Board believed that this approach would reduce the parking lot project costs and save taxpayer money. McDonnell claimed that there was an agreement between the District and the Township in this regard.

Shortly before last week’s School Board meeting, Glenhardie neighbors to Valley Forge Elementary School were notified of Saturday’s planned demolition of the tennis courts. Representing her neighbors, township resident Rosemary Kait appealed to the School Board Directors to delay the demolition pending further discussion. Based on the discussion, it appeared that the demolition was required by the township to meet storm water requirement for the parking lot expansion project. Kait left the School Board meeting and went to the Board of Supervisors meeting, seeking resolution.

As the clock ticked down to Saturday’s ‘Demolition Day’, there was a flurry of activity with phone calls and emails from the residents to the School Board and administration as well as the township manager and Board of Supervisors. What quickly developed was a ‘Tale of Two Cities’ – with Art McDonnell claiming that the Township required the demolition of the tennis courts to meet storm water requirements for the expanded parking lot. Township Manager Bill Martin and Township Engineer Steve Burgo countered McDonnell’s claims, stating that the removal of the tennis courts would not reduce the storm water requirements of the additional parking spaces.

In a press release from the Township, Martin takes issue with the way the District is presenting the situation to the public, and states that the District’s “… statement implies the Township requirements ‘force’ you to remove the courts”. Martin suggests, “The District could have easily gone to the ZHB (Zoning Hearing Board) for zoning relief to impervious coverage limit.”

As McDonnell and Martin issued their statements on behalf of the District and Township respectfully, the residents worked behind the scenes – appealing directly to members of the School Board and the Board of Supervisors. Copied on many of the email exchanges, I learned that these tennis courts are regularly used, not just by neighbors but by children in PTO sponsored after-school tennis programs. I also learned that the tennis courts are currently in very good condition; but not because the courts are maintained by either the District or the Township. For several years, at no cost to the Township or District the neighbors have actually maintained the tennis courts.

Believing that there had to be a better solution than demolition, (like a ZHB variance), all the residents were simply asking for delay for further discussion. Although some have suggested that the proposed demolition of the tennis courts is not political, you cannot escape the fact that the president of the School Board Kevin Buraks (D) and chair of the Board of Supervisors Michelle Kichline (R) are completing their first terms and now seek re-election to the School Board and BOS, respectfully. Clearly caught in the midst of this tug-of-war and finger-pointing, the residents planned a 7 AM ‘Save our Tennis Courts” rally.

Supportive of the residents, I planned to attend their early morning rally. Acutely aware that the School District owns the property and therefore has the right to demolish the tennis courts, I believed that further discussion could produce an acceptable alternative to bulldozing. Very late on Friday night, School Board president Kevin Buraks notified the neighbors of the Board’s decision to delay the demolition, pending further discussion. The next monthly TESD meeting is Monday, April 22.

Bottom line … in my opinion, much of the drama over the demolition of the tennis courts and the ninth hour decision to delay could have been avoided. How? Residents deserve better communication and accountability from elected officials. I am troubled by (1) the lack of adequate notification of the District to VFES neighbors of the demolition; (2) misrepresentation or confusion of the related facts (I suggest that you read the conflicting Township press release and the School District’s response) and (3) the overall feeling from residents of unresponsiveness from the School Board and administration.

Normally, I do not comment on Ray Hoffman’s column in Main Line Media News, but I take issue with his characterization of the threatened tennis court demolition. In this week’s column, Hoffman says, “… the recent flak from neighbors over the scheduled demolition of the two tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School is Shakespearean at its best, “much ado about nothing,” or an inventive modification of the NIMBY “law” at its worst.”

Mr. Hoffman, I could not disagree more … the proposed tennis court demolition is about much more than about ‘nothing’. It is about accountability and transparency from our elected officials. It is about the public’s trust for fairness from our government. It is about those elected to serve listening to our concerns and working with us for acceptable solutions. Poor accountability erodes our trust.

TENIG President Mary Minicozzi delivers statement of pride and commitment to TE School Board

March 19, 2013
57 Comments

At the T/E School Board meeting last night, the public comment section offered several interesting remarks from TESD residents. Representing her Brookmead neighborhood, Rosemary Kait expressed disappointment to the Board for the lack of notification that the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School will be razed on Saturday, March 23. According to Kait, adjacent neighbors were received very late notification of the demolition plans via an email from TESD Business Manager Art McDonnell yesterday. Although Kait, stated that following her comments to the School Board, she was headed to Board of Supervisors meeting last night, it is doubtful that the process will be stopped.

According to TE Patch, the School District states that there are two reasons for the demolition — “… the township will no longer maintain the courts, and the permeable ground that will replace the courts will offset new parking spaces at the school.” Apparently, the removal of the tennis courts was part of the District’s 2008 parking study. I was at the School Board meeting, so if someone has further information from BOS meeting, please update.

Tredyffrin resident Scott Dorsey had a couple of questions for the School Board. He stated that as a minister he was associated with various nonprofits and asked about the letter that the District is sending out to tax-exempt organizations. Dorsey wanted to understand what kind of documentation would be required by the organizations. School Board member Betsy Fadem reiterated that there are 300 tax-exempt property owners in Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships and that the questionnaire is to determine whether these organizations still qualify for that status or should they be paying property taxes.

Although the possible tax savings according to Fadem was again stated as $1.6 million in Tredyffrin and $920,000 in Easttown, those numbers seem very high to me. I understand that the District has financial needs, but what is the price tag for goodwill of nonprofits? Even if a nonprofit qualifies for exemption under the District’s rubric, just fulfilling the requirements of the questionnaire is certain to cause a degree of angst (and possible legal expense) to nonprofits. As someone directly associated with one of the nonprofits on the list, I know firsthand the level of anxiety the Board’s actions have caused.

The second question that Mr. Dorsey had for the School Board had to do with consent agenda process. He wanted to understand how an item could be removed from a consent agenda. Board president Kevin Buraks explained that it is generally unnecessary to hold discussion on consent agenda items but if a Board member wants to hold discussion, they can ask for the item to be removed from the consent agenda (and it will then be removed). Alternatively, a Board member may also vote against or abstain with respect to the consent agenda without having asked it to be removed.

Although Dorsey did not say why he was asking the question, it should be noted that at the February School Board meeting, Board members Anne Crowley and Rich Brake voted against the consent agenda, stating transparency issues because there was no discussion on the administrator pay increase included in the consent agenda. As an aside, Scott Dorsey is challenging Rich Brake for TESD Region II.

The most poignant and powerful statement came from Mary Minicozzi, the new TENIG president. Beyond the words that she read, was the passion for TESD as she expressed her commitment, and the commitment of all TENIG employees to the children of this District. A paycheck doesn’t buy that level of devotion … the dedication of Minicozzi to and her fellow TENIG members is not easily replaced. Most of TENIG don’t just work in the District, this is their home — most are taxpayers, many with children in the School District. How do you balance any perceived cost savings from outsourcing against the pride, commitment and dedication of TENIG employees? Here is Mary Minicozzi’s statement from last night:

TESD School Board Meeting, March 18, 2013
Mary Minicozzi, TENIG President
Statement

My name is Mary Minicozzi and I am the new TENIG President. I am a taxpayer and a parent of 3 children that graduated from Conestoga High School. I would like to speak today regarding outsourcing the TENIG Employees.

TENIG employees consist of custodians, maintenance, secretaries, cafeteria and security staff. There are more than 150 TENIG employees and all of us will be fired when you outsource our jobs. Our families, our children and our livelihoods will all be adversely affected by your decision. Please take a moment and think about the 100’s of people your decision will hurt. And nearly all of these people, like me, have lived in T/E their entire lives and their kids live here, their parents live here and all of us contribute to make this community the great place it is.

Outsourcing for the T/E Schools is flat out dangerous. How can you justify bringing strangers into our schools to watch over our children, support our teachers and advocate for parents. While we are trying to secure the outside of our buildings, with security cameras and ballistic film on our windows, we are considering putting strangers inside our schools.

The students lives are worth much, much more than that. Actually a child’s safety and a parent’s piece of mind are priceless. It is a fact that outside corporation’s highest priority is making money. They are not in the business of protecting our precious children. Please reconsider this dangerous method of cutting cost.

I would like to end with an experience I had several years ago when I was an elementary school secretary.

We had a fire in our Art classroom. The fire alarm went off. The Art teacher called me to tell me the kiln was on fire. I made an announcement to evacuate the building. I called 911 and notified the custodian who immediately went to the Art classroom to put out the fire.

After calling 911, I called Dr. Waters. Within 3 minutes, maintenance workers from the District were at the school. There was no principal in the building at the time of the fire. I was responsible until administration arrived at the school. My utmost priority was keeping your children safe. Maintenance workers surrounded the building checking every area in the school to make sure all children were safely out of the building.

I never left the building! I stayed by the phone and answered every parent phone call. Parents were so concerned and I was there for them to let them know their children were safe.

As you can tell by the story I just told: It was the Custodian, The Maintenance Worker and the Secretary (ALL TENIG EMPLOYEES) who alongside our teachers ensured all your children were safe.

Do you think this same scenario would have occurred if these positions were outsourced? We are a critical piece to this wonderful school District. I am so very proud of that, my colleagues are proud of that and parents and community members talk with pride about T/E schools.

Are you prepared to look into our parents eyes and say, I promise you, I guarantee you safety will be exactly the same after you outsource TENIG.

In the past 3 years, TENIG has worked to help the District save money (even though that savings was the paid out to other employees in bonuses and pay raises. We have sacrificed to keep our jobs and keep our schools secure. Despite the sacrifices we have made in support of our fantastic district, we are now being threatened with being fired.

I hope that each school board member will seriously do their due diligence and consider the hundreds and hundreds of families that will be affected by your decisions.

Thank You.

 

Rising healthcare costs … the explanation for outsourcing strategies?

March 17, 2013
36 Comments

Economic times and tight school budgets have school districts scrambling to find ways to cut costs, and the ‘outsourcing’ chopping block continues as a major target. Proclaiming cost-savings for cash strapped schools is the driver behind school district outsourcing decisions – and there appears to be an outside company available for virtually every classified service.

There’s nothing wrong with researching the outsourcing idea; otherwise how will the School Board know if they are getting the best services at the best prices. That said, I do object that the notification letter from the District was mailed to TENIG without any mention at a School Board meeting. It struck me odd that the president of the teachers union rather than the president of the School Board disclosed this information. Don’t misunderstand, I am grateful that TEEA president Laura Whittaker brought the public up to speed on the outsourcing process. But I don’t think it should be her job to keep ‘us’ in the loop. It’s important that the public be in the loop during the Board’s ‘discovery’ process as it relates to the outsourcing bids, but also to important that the Board list to resident input on the topic.

The fact is that all the school districts are in a tough situation and that some form of outsourcing has become an avenue for some districts to save money. Over in Pennsbury School District, members of their support staff, PESPA (Pennsbury Educational Support Professional Association) have taken their cause to the community. With prominently displayed yellow lawn signs, PESPA are delivering strong words to their School Board, ‘STOP Pennsbury from Outsourcing’. Well-organized, the union is fighting back through a website dedicated to outsourcing, www.pennsburystudentcare.org which includes an online petition with over 1200 signatures.

According Bucks Local News, Pennsbury’s business manager Dan Rogers (equivalent to our Art McDonnell) is claiming that they could save about $21 million over the next 5 years by outsourcing custodial services, maintenance workers, paraprofessionals, IT support technicians and instructional aides. An additional $4 million could be added through the sale of buses and equipment. PESPA represents about 600 support staff members – they continue to work under the terms of their old contract, which expired in 2011. Fascinating to note that the chief negotiator for the Pennsbury school board is Jeffrey Sultanik (remember he was the negotiator for T/E School Board with our teachers union).

Sultanik is quoted at a School Board meeting saying, “ …the only way the Board would not consider subcontracting is if the union is willing to make significant salary and benefit concessions.”

Bucks County’s Quakertown School District support staff, Quakertown Education Support Professionals Association (QESPA) fighting back against the privatizing threat of 100 custodians and cafeteria workers. Armed with 1,500 signed petitions from community residents, QUESPA members want their Board to know that taxpayers do not the high quality of services provided to the children to be given away to an outside private company that will bring strangers into the schools. QUESPA’s current contract expires the end of June but Board is underway in their solicitation of proposals from private outside vendors – believing that it could help save money on food and retirement benefits.

In southern Chester County, the driving force behind Brandywine Heights Area School Board’s decision to authorize an RFP to outsource paraprofessionals is the Affordable Health Act that will take effect in 2014. Currently, in the Brandywine Heights district, the paraprofessionals work 6 days a week, 30 hours a week and are considered part-time. However, under the Affordable Health Act, all workers who work 30 hours or more are eligible for benefits.

Kennett Consolidated School District (KCSD) is slightly ahead of TESD in the process. Having already sent RFPs out for outsourcing custodial staff, they are now reviewing the bid received from Servicemaster, a worldwide provider of custodial services. According to data provided, outsourcing of custodial services would save KCSD approximately $400K in 2014, with higher projected savings in years ahead. KCSD is set to make a decision this month on privatizing custodial services and are planning a similar review of outsourcing proposals of instructional and teaching assistant staff in the next few months.

I thank Keith Knauss, School Board director for Unionville Chadds Ford School District (UCFSD) for supplying the following background information for discussion:

” … As background, in 2009-10 TE had 312 full-time support personnel and 78 part-time support personnel. That’s the most recent year available from PA Department of Education.

Those 312 full time support personnel are entitled to salary and benefits defined in the current TENIG contract.
http://www.tesd.net/cms/lib/PA01001259/Centricity/Domain/42/TENIG09july.pdf

Let’s examine the district’s cost to employ a hypothetical 10 month, 190 day, 8 hour per day, Clerk Typist for this year and next.

2012-13 2013-14
Salary $31,981 $33,410 $21.04 to $21.98 per hr (4.5%)
FICA @7.62% $1,218 $1,273 7.62% half reimbursed by the state
PSERS $1,976 $2,835 12.36% to 16.97% half reimbursed by the state
Healthcare $18,700 $20,196 est. family coverage, 8% inflation
Holidays, Sick Leave $3,703 $3,868 10 paid holidays, 10 sick days, 2 personal days
Total $57,579 $61,582
% incr 7.0%

There are two factors that might lead school directors to investigate outsourcing.

First, the cost increase from this year to next is estimated to be 7%. This a problem when the district’s revenue is constrained by the Act 1 Index that is estimated to be 2.2% next year.

Second, the cost of benefits is far higher than in the private sector. The PSERS retirement plan and associated cost has been under discussion several times in this blog. What hasn’t been discussed is the cost of healthcare. According to the Kaiser Foundation, the national average family plan costs $15,745. The employer pays $11,429, the employee pays $4,316. This is compared to TESD where the family plan is estimated to be $19,000. The TESD pays $18,700, the support staff employee pays $300. The district’s cost of healthcare for support employees is estimated to be $7,000 above the national average.
http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2012/8345.pdf

As always, I try to be thorough and accurate. I have purposely not advocated for any solution or made any determination as to what is fair. Constructive criticism is welcome….”

Thank you Keith for this information. Accepting that the District’s ‘hands are tied’ re PSERS costs (at least for the short-term), clearly the focus needs to be redirected towards healthcare costs, where the opportunity for change does exist. I have been vocal in my support of TENIG, but as was the case with the teacher contract negotiations, healthcare costs are negatively affecting the budget bottom line. The teachers provided healthcare concessions in their latest contract and I am hopeful that given the opportunity, the TENIG members may do likewise.

Democrats and Republicans Finalize Slate of Tredyffrin Supervisor and T/E School Director Candidates

March 10, 2013
13 Comments

For candidates for the T/E School Board and the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors, Tuesday, March 12 is the last day to circulate and file nomination petitions at Chester County Voter Services for Pennsylvania’s May 21, 2013 Primary Election.

T/E School Director candidates must file a petition signed by at least 10 qualified voters of the school district for the political party with which the petition will be filed. Generally, school board candidates cross-file. To cross-file in a primary election (that is, to run on both parties), a registered Democrat or Republican must circulate a proper petition for the other party. The petition must contain signatures as previously mentioned. If elected on both party ballots in the May primary, a candidate will appear on both party ballots in the general election in November.

The candidates for the May 21, 2013 Primary Election are as follows:

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

  • Tredyffrin, East – Region 1: Pete Connors
  • Tredyffrin, West – Region 2: Rich Brake **

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

  • Tredyffrin, East – Region 1: Kevin Buraks **
  • Tredyffrin, West – Region 2: Scott Dorsey

In addition to the Region 1 and Region 2 seats in Tredyffrin Township, Easttown Township, Region 3 has two school director seats up for election. I have not confirmed whether incumbent Democrat Anne Crowley will seek a second term or Republican Betsy Fadem will seek a fourth term as School Board Directors from Region 3. I will update the Region 3, Easttown Township candidates for the T/E School Board when confirmed.

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

  • Supervisor at Large: Michelle Kichline **
  • Supervisor at Large: Trip Lukens
  • District 2 Middle:: EJ Richter ** (a)

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

  • Supervisor at Large: Murph Wysocki
  • Supervisor at Large: Mark Freed
  • District 2 Middle: Laurie Elliott

** Incumbent

(a) Currently serving as a Tredyffrin Township At-Large supervisor, Evelyn Richter will seek re-election; not as an At-Large candidate but as a candidate in the Middle, District 2 race. The current Middle, District 2 supervisor Phil Donahue has decided not to seek a second term.

In a review of the slate of candidates, there are some familiar names and some not so familiar names among the list. Republicans Michelle Kichline and Evelyn Richter are seeking re-election to the Board of Supervisors and Democrat Kevin Buraks and Republican Rich Brake to the T/E School Board. Another couple of recognizable names on the list …Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee have endorsed former candidates, attorney Murph Wysocki for an At-Large Board of Supervisors seat and pastor/administrator Scott Dorsey for the School Board in Region 2.

Also familiar is the current chair of Tredyffrin Township Planning Commission, Republican Trip Lukens, endorsed by the local Republican Committee as an At-Large supervisor candidate. If you recall, Tredyffrin Planning Commissioner Tory Snyder, a Democratic candidate in the last election, lost by a handful of votes to Republican incumbent Paul Olson, for the District 1 East supervisor seat. For those that regularly attend or watch Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meetings, you may have seen Laurie Elliott at the microphone. A Glenhardie area resident, Elliott has been involved in the Trout Creek Overlay District and the Richter property development project, and now seeks to represent residents as a Middle, District 2 supervisor.

Unfamiliar names on the list (at least to me) are At-Large Board of Supervisor candidate, Democrat Mark Freed and Tredyffrin, East – Region 1 School Director candidate Republican Pete Connors. A quick Google search indicates Mark Freed is an attorney and shareholder at Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer, Toddy, PC in Philadelphia. Freed concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental and toxic tort law and litigation. Republican Pete Connors of Wayne is the founder and President of Remcon Plastics, Inc. a plastics manufacturer in the custom molding, material handling and safety products industries headquartered in Reading, PA.

As I have done in the past, I will be posting the resumes and/or bios of the supervisor and school board candidates, at some point. I should point out, that there’s still time if you are interested in having your name on the May Primary ballot — remember, it only takes 10 signatures to run for the School Board. Click here for a link to Chester County Voter Services for information.

Outsourcing ‘Chopping Block’: A real possibility for custodians, secretaries, maintenance workers, kitchen staff, security personnel, aids and paraeducators in T/E

March 6, 2013
46 Comments

In my last blog post, I indicated there would be a follow-up post on TENIG and discussion of outsourcing. TENIG President Dave Fillippo delivered an emotional statement at Monday night’s TESD Budget Workshop on the eve of his TESD retirement this Friday. His statement, in its entirety, follows this post.

Much troubles me about the idea of outsourcing of the non-instructional employees of the District, especially at this time. Excluding the District’s administrators and teachers, TENIG members are the secretaries, custodians, maintenance workers, kitchen staff and security personnel. Although aides and paraeducators are not members of TENIG, their jobs are also on the outsourcing ‘chopping block’ as budget impact items under consideration.

The Budget Workshop presentation only included two budget impact items for the Board to consider – (1) the outsourcing of TENIG staff and (2) the outsourcing of aides and paraeducators. The Board has given the required 120-day written notice of their intention to issue an RFP to seek outsourcing bids for TENIG and the aides and paraeducators.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, we know that the Board has increased the District budget for safety. They approved $250K for ‘district security enhancements’ and hired former Tredyffrin Township police chief Andy Chambers as a security expert, in an effort to make the school buildings more secure and to protect the students and staff. From a security standpoint, how then can it possibly make sense to dismiss long-serving members of the T/E school district community in lieu of strangers that do not know our schools or our children?

Those employees whose jobs are under consideration for outsourcing, are highly trained, dedicated and caring professionals with roots in our community; the majority live in the T/E School District. These are the people who the community knows and trusts. How could it make sense to replace them with high turnover, sub-standard inexperienced workers? There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of workers (and probably the productivity) will diminish with the largest percentage of new workers coming from outside the District. Should outsourcing occur, the District will not only lose local, dedicated employees, but we also lose the community pride and spirit that comes with people working in the schools that ‘they’ attended, and that their children attended.

In these tight budget times, the custodians, secretaries, maintenance workers, kitchen staff and aides all become a target for outsourcing. By privatizing the jobs, the District hands over important public service jobs to huge, private corporations who pay their employees lower wages. When private companies take over, they do away with as many full-time positions as they can and hire part-time workers at the lowest wages possible, so that do not have to offer basic health care benefits.

Outsourcing is not non-profit. Outsourcing companies only exist for one reason – to make money. The profit margin is key to the success of outsourcing companies and they will always act in their own self-interest. As a result, our students, their parents and our community will come ‘second’ to the financial driver of outsourcing companies … profit. Saving the District money may be the endgame of outsourcing, but with that decision should be the acceptance that our children are nothing more than a “commodity for profit” to an outsourcing company.

The budget of Tredyffrin Easttown School District should not be balanced on the backs of the lowest paid public service employees. It is remarkable to me that the Board could bury administrator raises in a consent agenda and then just a few weeks later notify TENIG members of the impending outsourcing RFP. As I said in an earlier post, “Where’s the fairness?”

Beyond this discussion of outsourcing, something else occurred on Monday night that troubled me. At the end of the meeting, there was opportunity for resident comment. It was at this point that Dave Fillippo delivered his emotional statement (see below). As President of TENIG, Dave was speaking out on behalf of the union against outsourcing of the members’ jobs. However, his statement was also his “swansong’, his good-bye to the Board and to the staff. Having served the District for 32 years, Dave retires this Friday – as a result, his words delivered with emotion and pride for a community and a career that he loves. Upon finishing his statement, I found it incredulous that Board President Kevin Buraks offered no words of appreciation or thank you for a “job well done’ to Mr. Fillippo. Sure, for those 32 years, Dave was ‘doing his job’ for the District, but does that make him any less deserving of gratitude for doing it. Acknowledging years of service is important, not only to the one retiring but also to show that the Board and administration cares about its staff.

I know I am on my soapbox on this one, but saying thank you to people and letting them know that they are appreciated is important. If we do not acknowledge our thanks, I think we lose a human moment, a human connection. So, in what I hope was an oversight on Mr. Buraks and the School Board’s part, I want to wish Dave Fillippo all the best as he begins a new chapter in his life. And to thank Dave for his 32 years of dedicated service to the Tredyffrin Easttown School District and for the contributions he made to the community. Thank You!

Dave Fillippo’s statement read at the TESD Budget Workshop, March 4, 2013

Community and friends, Dr. Waters, Sue Tiede, members of the Board, principals, teachers and colleagues that have made my career here at TE so special. My association with this school district started at kindergarten at Paoli Elementary School through graduation at Conestoga, and eventually employment in the maintenance department in 1980. I have never lived a day of my 60-plus years outside of residence in Tredyffrin Township. TE is my home and always will be.

I have loved working here in the community, no regrets, even though I was mocked at times, by friends and contractors who made millions while I, in comparison worked for a meager hourly wage. Today, I have a deep concern that in the future, others like myself, that are gifted with a servants heart will not be able to earn a sustainable wage here, in our community.

For the last two years, I have listened to the “Success and Sustainability” speeches here from the Board. A campaign destined in part on devaluing the employees of TENIG. Knowing that indeed the members of TENIG in fact are much of the reason for this District’s success and sustainability.

TENIG harbors a wonderful culture that provides security and safety to our children, maintenance of our schools and communities infrastructure, far beyond that of any contract service. TENIG offers the District workers who are members of the community, who have a stake in the community. ‘True Community’ one may say.

My vision of TENIG is one of servant leadership, employees who have a stake in the growth of our community, who are approachable, willing to make sacrifices as we have done, time and time again. Question is why then would you [the Board] want to turn the services overs to profiteers? Knowing that TENIG has always been responsible and yielding to the financial circumstances of the times. Are we to be the scapegoats to remedy the mistakes of previous Board decisions? TENIG is not at fault here. We have been here doing our job and wish to continue to do so.

Our custodians have conceded more than anyone, with the wavering of wage increases for 2 years, and taking a 10 percent wage cut. Secretaries work an unpaid lunch while sitting at their desks, often coming in early, clocking in at their scheduled tie, clocking out at quitting time, only to return back to work to finish their day; unpaid for the extra hours. Yielding to the workload that has evolved with the condensing of assigned duties. Yet, I seldom hear them complain, they are here for the kids, our teachers and community.

Our food service cooks, preparers, servers and cashiers provide quality lunches to our students and staff at affordable prices and in fact pay for their own operation and show a profit. Maintenance has answered every emergency in a timely fashion, once again to provide safety to our students and residents, even with the disruption of moving from our original facility, then to ESC, to scattered closets and storage spaces, and now to the old transportation garage. We did not allow the constant changes to break our commitment and spirit of service.

TENIG is here to serve its community; we offer outstanding in-house service, with responsibility to the children, parents, and taxpayers of Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships. You will not find this dedication in a for-profit contract service.

In retirement, as of this coming Friday, I will not be going anywhere. I intend to be a vital part of the negotiations with the Board and community along with new TENIG President Mary Minicozzi, Vice President John Brooks, Treasurer Gwen Durante and Secretary Jen Doyle. TENIG has an excellent leadership staff here that is sensitive to the needs and concerns of our District and is eager to share our ideas with those members of the School Board assigned to the negotiations.

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme