Main Line Media News Archives - Page 2 of 3

Main Line Media News

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.

No Oscars but Locals Receive Awards for their ‘Antithesis of Outstanding Performances’

March 2, 2013

10 Comments

Last weekend, Los Angeles played host to the glitterati of the film world for Oscar night, the world’s greatest wrap party. The evening was filled with the glamorous fashions, long-winded acceptance speeches and first-time host Seth MacFarlane, his controversial humor making for an interesting choice for Hollywood’s most prestigious awards show.

From the moment that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences announces its annual award nominations, the campaign season for a little golden man kicks into high gear, with movie studios spending large amounts of money in an attempt to influence Academy voters. For moviegoers, armed with personal award predictions of who will take home Hollywood’s biggest prize, the red-carpet evening always entertains.

Ray Hoffman noted the glitz and glamour of Hollywood’s big night in Main Line Suburban Life today by presenting a few local “performance awards” of his own. In lieu of a golden statuette, Hoffman presented ‘Razzy’ trophies to deserving locals for their “antithesis of outstanding performance”.

Banter’s Razzy winners include –

The Tredyffrin Township BOS for ‘Worst Performance by a Community Board’ for its long-standing stonewalling of the sidewalk issue at St. Davids Golf Club;
The T/E Board of School Directors for ‘Worst Case of Communicating with the Public’ in the matter of hiring of former Tredyffrin Police Chief Andy Chambers as special school safety consultant;
Former Easttown Township Manager Mike Brown for ‘Worst Performance in a Short Subject’, his term of office lasted only 13 months;
Easttown Township BOS for ‘Worst Use of a Worn Excuse for Termination of a Manager’ in the matter of Brown’s firing so that he could “pursue other opportunities”; and
Regency Center for ‘Worst Application of Pedestrian Walkways in a Shopping Center Parking Lot’ at Gateway Shopping Center.

Looking back over the last 12 months, I think Hoffman may have missed some deserving Razzy winners. Here are some personal additions:

Former Tredyffrin Township Manager, Planning Commission and BOS for ‘Worst Zoning Amendment Change for a Specific Developer’ in the matter of a C-1 zoning amendment change so developer Ed Morris can build an assisted living facility on the old Jimmy Duffy’s catering site in Daylesford;
T/E Board of School Directors for ‘Worst Board Participation in Teacher Contract Negotiations’ for not having a seat at the contract negotiation table;
Tredyffrin Township Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro for ‘Worst Attack of a Private Citizen by an Elected Official using Township Resources’ for the matter of using official township letterhead and the township website for a personal tirade against a resident;
Tredyffrin Township BOS for ‘Worst Communication Website Policy’ which permits individual township supervisors to use the public’s township website for personal reasons; and
Tredyffrin Township BOS for ‘Worst Police Department Study Not Used’ in the matter of spending $49K for a boilerplate consulting study and then not following the consultant’s advice and hiring additional police officers.

NRA Statement: “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”

December 21, 2012

82 Comments

In advance of today’s statement, The National Rifle Association stated that the organization would offer “meaningful contributions to help make sure that this never happens again.” In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy, I was hopeful that the NRA would nudge national laws toward making it hard to gain access to some semi-automatic weapons, such as the one used last week. I was hopeful that the horror of Sandy Hook Elementary might trigger a change in the NRA’s policy toward gun control.

Unfortunately, the olive branch of compromise was not what the NRA had in mind. The NRA broke their week-long silence with a statement read by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre that calls for guns at every school in America. While the President is calling on Congress to act on gun control legislation, LaPierre believes that the only effective way to protect our schoolchildren is with “properly trained armed good guys”.

Echoing the sentiments of some Community Matters commentators, LaPierre said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” adding, “Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?” Others have argued on Community Matters, that rather than banning guns, the government should be arming teachers and administrators in schools so that they can defend students in the event of another school shooting.

LaPierre’s words scoffed at the notion that banning semi-automatic weapons or enacting gun control laws could stop school violence. Instead, he cast blame for gun violence in schools on the violence of video games and movies.

The NRA statement did nothing to address the problem of the availability of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Although the weapons used by the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary were legal, one-third or more of gun sales remain unregulated in the secondary market, which includes not only the gun show loophole but also private sales between individuals. NRA … why not address establishing a system of comprehensive background checks for gun purchasers?

The spirits of the twenty children killed last week will haunt us all this holiday season. It is unbelievable that the NRA’s response to the Sandy Hill tragedy is to arm more Americans. According to the NRA, the most effective way to protect against another horror like last week’s school shooting is … more guns.

The NRA’s failure to consider any meaningful gun regulations is offensive and is no way to honor the memories of the twenty-eight lives lost last week.

————————————————————————————-

A couple of related gun and school safety items:

Alan Thomas, Main Line Media News, spoke with Tredyffrin’s Police Superintendent Tony Giaimo on the procedure for turning in a gun to the police department, read ‘Turning in a gun, how it’s done” for details. According to Giaimo, to date for 2012, there have been 6 guns turned in, none of which were assault weapons.

In response to the Sandy Hook tragedy, the T/E School District has scheduled a ‘Community Meeting on School Safety’ for Wednesday, January 9, 2013, 7 PM at the Valley Forge Middle School auditorium. The meeting will feature a panel of experienced safety experts including representatives from the Tredyffrin and Easttown police departments, District building architects and representatives from the District Safety Committee.

Tredyffrin Township Website Policy — Vote TONIGHT!

November 19, 2012

15 Comments

Although the agenda for tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting does not include the policy for the use of the township website by supervisors — the policy will be presented and voted upon tonight by the supervisors. In response to my inquiry to Michelle Kichline, I received an email from Vince Donohue, township solicitor, stating that the agenda will be revised to include a vote on the policy.

It was my understanding that the Sunshine Law required the township to notify the public at least 24 hrs. in advance of a vote. I asked this question of the solicitor and his response was,“The Board intends to adopt a policy by resolution, which does not require any advertisement. “

How much will the public’s opinion matter with regards to the township website — shouldn’t we have a copy of the resolution in advance to review? For those that are just tuning in, the communication policy is a result of John DiBuonaventuro’s use of the township letterhead, township website and township resources for his September 5 letter to the citizens.

As a result of DiBuonaventuro’s letter and personal attack on me and Community Matters (in addition to traditional news sources, including Main Line Media News), my attorney, Sam Stretton, sent a letter to the members of the Board of Supervisors on October 25. Vince Donohue responded to Stretton on November 8 where he detailed the new township policy would include.

According to Donohue’s letter, the communications on the Township website would pertain to Township issues. He also states that the it would be clear about the source of the communication, whether it was from the entire board, a subset of supervisors or an individual supervisor. Donohue writes, “ … The purpose of the policy is not, however, to restrict any Supervisor’s ability to communicate with Township residents on matters each deems appropriate.” If this language is contained in the communication policy, it is problematic. There is nothing to keep any supervisor from using the government website (or any other township social media tool, i.e. twitter, Facebook, etc.) as their own personal ‘bully pulpit’ whenever the mood strikes.

What’s to keep a supervisor from labeling their communication to the citizen as ‘township business’ and then the website becomes theirs to use. Who has the oversight on what constitutes ‘township business’? Read DiBuonaventuro’s letter again — especially where he speaks of my 2009 supervisor race. Yes, I ran for the Board of Supervisors in 2009, three years ago — what in the world constitutes that as ‘township business’ in 2012? So … will this new ‘communication’ policy protect the rights of DiBuonaventuro (and the other 6 supervisors) to use the government website whenever feeling threatened by the local news media, Community Matters or the township citizens. If an individual supervisor is permitted to the use of the government website for whatever he/she feels is township business, how about next year, when three of the supervisors are up for re-election — what keeps them from the use of the website as a campaign platform? If you think the suggestion ridiculous, remember DiBuonaventuro used the government website a personal attack on a private citizen, including a thee-year old political campaign!

We learned in Richard Llgenfritz, Main Line Media article of November 8, ‘Majority of Tredyffrin supervisors may not have approved DiBuonaventuro’s letter posted to website’, that several of DiBuonaventuro’s fellow supervisors had not seen nor approved his letter on the township website. I have subsequently heard that at least a couple of the supervisors would not have approved the letter, had then seen it in advance. So … will the communication policy of the township prohibit something similar in the future? Or will the policy force supervisors to ‘act alone’ without needing the ‘team’ behind them. From my vantage point, I hope that this communication policy contains strict guidelines and oversight or what’s the point?

Re Personal Letter on Government Website — Did Tredyffrin Supervisor DiBuonaventuro receive approval from his fellow supervisors?

November 8, 2012

16 Comments

Did John DiBuonaventuro actually have approval from fellow supervisors before using government resources and government letterhead to post his personal letter of September 5 on the government’s website? The answer to that question is not entirely clear, and the answer also depends on whom you ask.

As the resident targeted in DiBuonaventuro’s diatribe to the citizens of Tredyffrin Township, I was very interested to read the Main Line Media News article, “Majority of Supervisors may not have approved DiBuonaventuro letter posted to website”. In the article, Rich Llgenfritz explains that the newspaper filed an open records request with Tredyffrin Township asking for all information pertaining to DiBuonaventuro’s letter on the township website. However, it is interesting that MLMN only received one record; an email from DiBuonaventuro to Patricia Hoffman, executive secretary for Tredyffrin Township.

I am grateful to Llgenfritz and Main Line Media News for their continued interest in this matter. If you have followed Community Matters since DiBuonaventuro’s September 5 letter to the citizens appeared on the Tredyffrin Township website, you have read the September 7 email from former Township Manager Mimi Gleason to me. Following the email, there was a conference call on September 14 from Gleason and Police Superintendent Tony Giaimo, with no stated purpose except to continue to harass. (Click here for Community Matters post of September 18 which includes my personal statement and video of the September 17 Board of Supervisors meeting) As a result of DiBuonaventuro’s letter, Gleason’s email and telephone call, I sought legal counsel with attorney Sam Stretton.

One of several troubling unanswered questions in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s personal use of the township website, is did he act alone? Or, … was there discussion (approval) from the other members of the Board of Supervisors. In her response to my question on this matter, Gleason stated the following in her email dated September 7:

“ … In answer to your question, it is unusual to post a statement from an individual Supervisor, but given the inaccurate and derogatory statements and innuendo publicly made about John DiBuonaventuro, I decided to approve the posting of the letter on the Township website. In this case, he was the subject of baseless public speculation simply because he is a Tredyffrin Supervisor. The circumstances justified the use of the website to publicly defend him, carrying with it the implicit endorsement of the Township to the accuracy of his statements. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the Township Solicitor agreed that it was appropriate for the letter to go on the website.”

Gleason’s email states that the use of the government’s website by DiBuonaventuro carried with it the “implicit endorsement of the Township”. She further states that the Chairman [Kichline] and the Township Solicitor [Vince Donohue] agreed the letter was appropriate for the website. But did Kichline really see the actual letter? During the conference call with Gleason and Giaimo, Gleason maintained that Kichline had seen the actual letter. I argued with Gleason that she was incorrect … that Kichline had personally told me that she did not see the actual letter but that she gave her OK to DiBuonaventuro verbally for the letter on the website, as long as the solicitor Vince Donohue had read and approved it.

Subsequent to DiBuonaventuro’s letter going on the website, there has been no public statement from the other 6 supervisors on this matter, except by Kichline who said that the Board would work on a website policy. Why the silence from the other supervisors? Privately, some of the supervisors have told citizens that they never saw the letter and some have stated that they would not have approved of the letter on the government’s website. Why don’t the supervisors own these opinions in public? If I was being accused of harming the First Amendment rights of a citizen (especially one that I was elected to serve) and had not approved (or even seen) the letter in the first place, I certainly would not remain silent. Are these other supervisors afraid of doing what’s right or are they perhaps afraid of retaliation from DiBuonaventuro … or, the political party they all represent? Where’s the independent thought?

Going back to Llgenfritz’s MLMN article – the only piece of communication that was provided through the Open Records request, in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s letter on the website, is the following brief email from DiBuonaventuro to Pat Hoffman, executive secretary for the township:

“Pat, this is a confidential email. This letter has been approved by Michelle and Vince. Please put it on the township letterhead and make three copies for Kristen [Mayock], Michelle and I to review when we get in this morning. We will give you distribution directions once a final review is done. Thanks and see you around 8 or when you get in. JD. [John DiBuonaventuro]

This email clearly states that the Michelle Kichline, BOS chair approved the letter, but did she? If Kichline approved DiBuonaventuro’s letter, then that would mean that she lied to me. And I don’t believe that she lied. So which is it?

Another interesting thing to note on this email is that there was a private meeting of 3 supervisors – DiBuonaventuro, Kristen Mayock and Kichline. Why was Mayock involved but none of the other supervisors? As chair of the BOS, I understand the rationale behind Kichline attending the meeting but it is unclear if she actually attended or not. Mayock and Kichline are the two attorneys on the Board – was that the reason behind their request to attend this meeting? And it should also be noted that DiBuonaventuro states in this email, that he has approval from the solicitor Vince Donohue for the letter on the website. Everyone seems to be in agreement that Donohue saw and approved the letter – DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Gleason all state that Donohue approved the letter. Interesting that this short email is all that is contained in the files in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s letter. Just interesting.

Last Friday I posted the letter (click here to read) that my attorney Sam Stetton sent to members of the Board of Supervisors in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s personal letter on government letterhead on the government website. As follow-up to my posting Stretton’s letter, Llgenfriz had a phone interview with Vince Donohue, the township solicitor. It was alarming to me to see Donohue discuss the legal situation between myself and the township in the local newspaper. He furthered stated that he had sent a response to Stretton and that it would be up to me whether or not I made it public.

At last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, strangely there were three of the seven supervisors missing. I do not think I have ever been to a BOS meeting where two supervisors were missing, let alone three! Missing supervisors were Phil Donohue (stated reason for the absence was still recovering from surgery), Chair Michelle Kichline and Vice Chair John DiBuonaventuro — the stated reason for their absence was ‘personal’.

Supervisor Mike Heaberg read a statement in regards to the website policy which suggested that there would be a policy presented at the November 19 Board of Supervisors meeting. It was unclear whether or not the public would be permitted input into the website policy. Public input could prove important when you read the response from the township solicitor Vince Donohue to my attorney Sam Stretton below:

November 2, 2012

Samuel C. Stretton, Esquire
301 South High Street
PO Box 3231
West Chester, PA 19381
Re: Tredyffrin Township

The Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors is in receipt of your letter dated October 25, 2012.

As an initial observation, I read Supervisor DiBuonaventuro’s letter as a reaction in his official capacity as a Supervisor to Ms. Benson’s blog entries regarding, primarily, Township issues. This Board does not quash public discussion about Township matters. To the contrary, this Board’s emphasis on transparency and encouragement of public input is evident in all of the initiatives it undertakes. As to Ms. Benson specifically, I would point out that she actively continues to maintain her blog and participates during the public input portion of the agenda at virtually every Township meeting without censure or objection. Accordingly, neither the contents of the letter nor its posting on the Township website constitute an attempt to suppress, or a breach of, Ms. Benson’s First Amendment rights.

Second, it is important to note that the Board of Supervisors, as an entity, never endorsed nor rejected Supervisor DiBuonaventuro’s letter that was posted on the website. Accordingly, the Board believes that the issue involving the letter is one between Ms. Benson and Mr. DiBuonaventuro as an individual supervisor.

Nonetheless, this incident has highlighted the need for a policy governing use of the Township website and other Township-managed social media outlets as a means of communication by the Board and by each Supervisor (or group thereof). All seven members of the Board are entirely supportive of the initiative to enact such a policy, which has been under way since mid-September. It was discussed at the last meeting of the Board by chair Kichline.

The primary purposes of the policy will be threefold. First, it will document what the Supervisors already practice: that communications on the Township website, letterhead or other Township-managed social media outlets shall pertain to Township issues. Second, the policy will ensure that the reader is clear about the source of the communication – i.e., whether the source is an individual Supervisor, the Board as an entity, a subset of Supervisors, etc. Third, the policy will delegate certain communication responsibilities to certain senior Township staff, depending on the nature of the content of the communication (Township Manager, Superintendent of Police, etc.). This policy will cover not only the website, but also Township letterhead and other Township-sponsored social media outlets. The purpose of the policy is not, however, to restrict any Supervisor’s ability to communicate with Township residents on matters each deems appropriate.

Crafting the right policy is not a task to be rushed. The Board is diligently pursuing the finalization of this policy, but intends to be thoughtful in this ongoing process to ensure that the resulting policy addresses existing needs and avoids unintended consequences. The Board intends to complete this process soon and updates will be provided at each Board meeting until it is enacted.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss. Thank you,

Very Truly Yours,

Vince T. Donohue
Lamb McErlane, PC

Several things are interesting to note in Donohue’s response. He speaks of the transparency of the Board of Supervisors. Based on the issue of DiBuonaventuro’s letter alone, I’d suggest that this Board if far from transparent. Clearly, we still don’t know who saw the letter or who approved it. Donohue states that the Board never endorsed nor rejected DiBuonaventuro’s letter on the website, yet Mimi Gleason’s email to me clearly stated that the use of the township website for DiBuonaventuro’s letter, “carried with it the implicit endorsement of the Township”.

Donohue is saying one thing, Gleason is saying another, and I would suggest thirdly, that by using the government letterhead, which has all members of the Board of Supervisors listed looks like compliance to me. Obviously, if during the last 2 months, any of the other six supervisors had chosen to ‘distance’ themselves from DiBuonaventuro and the letter, that would be different … the problem is that they all “stood by their man”.

Nowhere in the letter does Donohue address the intimidation tactics used in DiBuonaventuro’s letter or Gleason’s email and phone calls towards me. Donohue however suggests that the Board believes this is a personal matter between DiBuonaventuro and me – two problems with that logic. First, DiBuonaventuro does not limit his personal attacks to just me, he also goes after the First Amendment rights of the press, specifically Main Line Media News. Second, if Donohue and the other supervisors view this as some kind of personal matter that DiBuonaventuro has with me and Community Matters, what business does a personal matter have on government letterhead and government website. How can Donohue claim the contents of DiBuonaventuro’s letter is Township business when the tirade includes my 2009 supervisor race?

Now look at what Donohue claims the township website policy will include –

Document the communications on the Township website, letterhead, social media outlets that pertain to Township issues.
Ensure that the reader is clear about the source of the communication – whether an individual supervisor, the entire board or some subset
Delegate certain communication to Township Manager, Police Superintendent, etc.

Then you have this sentence in Donohue’s letter, “ … The purpose of the policy is not, however, to restrict any Supervisor’s ability to communicate with Township residents on matters each deems appropriate.” The way I read it, is DiBuonaventuro (or any other supervisor) gets carte blanche to continue to use government website as their personal ‘bully pulpit’ whenever the mood strikes. Looks like to me, that if you are a supervisor all you need do is label your communication to the public ‘Township business’ and the website is yours to use. I guess the policy needs to protect the rights of DiBuonaventuro to use government resources whenever he feels threatened by the local news media or Community Matters. As a citizen of Tredyffrin Township, I certainly will not find this website acceptable if approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Tredyffrin’s Solicitor Vince Donohue claims that government does not seek to suppress public comment … Really?

November 4, 2012

42 Comments

The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act requires all public agencies to take all official actions and conduct all deliberations leading up to official actions at public meetings. According to 65 Pa.C.S.A. § 708(a); Sunshine Act, Section 8(a), there are certain discussions that can take place in an executive session where the public is excluded. At the onset of every Board of Supervisors meeting, Michelle Kichline, in her capacity as chair, makes a statement that the Board met prior to the meeting in executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. Under the provisions of the PA Sunshine Act, those township matters pertaining to personnel or legal matters are not discussed publicly In fact, if during the ‘New Matters – Citizens’ section of the Board of Supervisors meeting, a resident asks a question that falls into the legal or personnel category, either a Board member of the township solicitor quickly points out that they cannot respond to the question. Over years of attending supervisors meeting, I can attest that the solicitor does not permit the supervisors to respond to citizen questions that fall into personnel or legal areas.

Understanding the provisions of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, it was surprising to read that Tredyffrin Township’s solicitor Vince Donohue had a public response on a legal matter in Main Line Media News article, ”Community Matters blogger Pattye Benson calls for Tredyffrin Township to adopt policy regarding the use of its website” written by Richard Llgenfritz.

If you recall Llgenfritz wrote the story, “Tredyffrin zoning hearing board member not guilty after police are a no-show at her trial” in late August. His article, in addition to TE Patch, Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily Local articles, blog posts on Chester County Ramblings and telephone and email inquiries from residents, were the reasons that I conducted my mini-research investigation.

As part of my research on the police matter, I spoke with Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors chair Michelle Kichline, Chester County District Attorney Tom Hogan, Tredyffrin Police Superintendent Tony Giaimo and District Judge Tom Tartaglio. For the results of my research and corresponding comments in post, “Community Matters closes the chapter on police investigation but Tredyffrin supervisor opens a new one”, click here.

Because of the newspaper articles, blog posts and related public comments on the police situation, Tredyffrin Township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro decided to write and post a personal letter dated September 5, 2012 on the township website, using township resources and township letterhead. Although the use of government resources by an elected official is surprising, it was the fact that the other six supervisors, the township manager and the township solicitor sanctioned the behavior of DiBuonaventuro that underscored the importance for a township website policy.

This past Friday, I posted the letter from my attorney Samuel Stretton on Community Matters. Stretton’s letter was sent to the seven members of Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors. I learned in Llgenfritz MLMN article, that Stretton’s letter was forwarded to the township solicitor Vince Donohue. No surprise as this was a legal matter and as the township solicitor, he clearly needed to be involved. However, because this is a ‘legal matter’ (remember the PA Sunshine Act and that legal and personnel matters in the township are not publicly discussed but held for executive session discussion), I was amazed that Donohue discusses Stretton’s letter with Llgenfritz. Gosh, I would think that Donohue should not be talking about sending a response to Stretton – isn’t this a legal matter? And then to further throw out there that it would be up to me whether I make the letter public or not? To my knowledge, Stretton has not received a letter and I certainly have not seen any letter from Donohue. (I will assume that Donohue’s response is ‘in the mail’). So, I am struggling to understand this – the supervisors are not permitted to discuss legal matters in public but it is OK for the township solicitor to discuss legal matters? Shouldn’t the more appropriate response from Donohue to Llgenfritz have been, “… this is a legal matter, and I am not at liberty to discuss”.

However, Donohue does not stop there in his comments to the newspaper, he goes on to address some of the issues that others and I have raised – i.e. First Amendment rights. According to Donohue,

“This township has no interest what so ever in suppressing anybody’s first amendment rights and in fact does not. All you need to do is take a look at our five six-hour public meetings that we’ve had in the last few years. All you need to do is look at the Trout Creek overlay ordinance process where we involved no fewer than 30 members of the public on working groups and commissions held six or seven public hearings even for those members of the community that didn’t like the outcome I think it’s hard to argue with the openness and the fact that the township encourages and invites public input. I think this township’s actions belie any claim that it seeks to suppress public comment positive or otherwise about township matters.”

All I can say is, wow. Donohue approved DiBuonaventuro’s letter going on the township letterhead on the township website. I suggest that he needs to go back and read it and then come up with a more convincing argument as to how his letter is not an attempt to silence those who dare to disagree. DiBuonaventuro writes in his September 5 letter, “What is more important for community to realize from this example is the disturbing trend that has developed with most of the internet elements of legitimate newspapers and the tabloid formatted blogs like “Community Matters”. Public discussion of important community matters is a ‘disturbing trend’ — whether public discussion is over the backyard fence, in the aisle of the Paoli Acme or on the Internet, it is our First Amendment right; open debate and commentary exists under the US Constitution.

In fact, before I contacted Sam Stretton, I sent DiBuonaventuro’s letter to several attorneys and journalists; individuals who do not live in the area and would not know any of the people involved. Not one person responded that they thought the actions of our government in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s letter were OK. In addition, I should add that many people used adjectives like ‘chilling’ in describing DiBuonaventuro’s attempt to suppress public discussion.

It is interesting that Donohue would point to the many meetings held over the Trout Creek ordinance (for the record, there were 7 public hearings), as somehow public comment at supervisors meetings was the same thing as DiBuonaventuro’s use of public resources, public letterhead and public website. Certainly, there were many meetings over Trout Creek, but I wonder how many of the Glenhardie residents feel that their voices were actually heard during the process? Donohue makes no mention of Trisha Larkin and her neighbors in the Daylesford neighborhood. Like the Glenhardie residents, how many of the Daylesford folks think that their voices made a difference to the outcome. The Daylesford neighbors, in addition to many residents throughout the township, were overwhelmingly opposed to the C-1 zoning change. However, as we all saw, their voices did not matter. Yet Donohue claims that the township “encourages and invites public input” … maybe that’s true if you happen to be developer Ed Morris or his attorney Denise Yarnoff, who now have the green light to build an assisted living facility on 1 acre on Lancaster Ave.

As a resident of Tredyffrin Township, this is all so very disheartening, including Donohue’s response to Main Line Media News. I am amazed that it is OK for the township solicitor to discuss a legal matter of a private citizen with the newspaper — to talk about a township response that he has sent to my attorney, Sam Stretton, that I have not even seen. Wow.

It’s like some of the rules in Tredyffrin Township only exist when they benefit our elected officials, not the citizens.

Community Matters Closes the Chapter on Police Investigation but Tredyffrin Supervisor Opens a New Chapter

September 6, 2012

44 Comments

Is it time to close the chapter on the Police Department investigation?

When I first read about two police officers not showing up at a criminal hearing in Tredyffrin, I admit I had many questions, which only increased as I learned more of the people and circumstances surrounding the situation. The case may have gone by unnoticed were it not for the fact that the individual arrested in this case was Suzy Pratowski, a township Zoning Hearing Board member and socially linked to a township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro. In the last few days, we learned that Pratowski had an arrest in June 2010, charged with DUI and child endangerment. For the record, the child endangerment charge was dropped and although she plead guilty to the DUI.

Many of us had questions about this case, including why was the Pratowski case was moved from Judge Sondergaard’s (D) court to Judge Tartaglio’s (R) court. Pratowski, until May of 2012 served as a local GOP committeewoman and the change of courts suggested political motives. Why was this case continued from July to August … the continuance making it more difficult to understand why the two police officers did not show at the August hearing. Without the police officers in attendance at the August 21 hearing, the Judge decided a ‘not guilty’ decision for Pratowski, case closed. Why and how could this have happened?

In trying to come up with some answers, I did not set out to do my own investigation. However, after the last three days, I am feeling like a cross between a freshman law clerk and a Lt. Colombo. In the course of 72 hours, I have had extended phone conversations with Chester County District Attorney Tom Hogan and Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors Chair Michelle Kichline and thorough discussions with District Court Judge Tom Tartaglio and Tredyffrin Police Superintendent Andy Giaimo. Previously, I have shared my discussion with Hogan on Community Matters.

My next conversation occurred with Ms. Kichline. I learned that in addition to a review of the internal police investigation by the District Attorney’s office, she had personally conducted her own review. Like many of us, Kichline questioned how it could happen that township police officers did not show up for a hearing, etc. Although certainly not pleased with the situation, Kichline (like Hogan) was satisfied that the ‘clerical error’ or more correctly, the human error rested solely with the two police officers. Appreciating that there was a perception in the public, me included, that there must be more to this story, Kichline suggested that if I had further questions or needed information regarding how the police receive court notifications, that Police Chief Supt. Giaimo would be happy to discuss it.

Police Chief Supt. Giaimo generously changed his schedule to meet with me yesterday. Before going to the police department, I went to the District Court to ask for copies of any public documents surrounding this case. In the process of explaining my request to the clerk, Judge Tartaglio thought he heard my voice, and came to the front lobby to talk with me. Having read some of the misinformation in comments on Community Matters, Judge Tartaglio truly wanted me to understand the facts from the District Court side. An unexpected opportunity for me, I found Tartaglio open and honest in his responses. We had a lengthy 30 min conversation and I received copies of public documents in the three Pratowski cases (two criminal and one non-criminal). I will highlight some of the misconceptions that some of us may have had surrounding the case.

First off, the Pratowski hearing was originally scheduled for Judge Sondergaard’s court. At the request of Judge Sondergaard, the case was transferred out of her court (not at the request of Pratowski). Stated reason for the transfer by Sondergaard – she knows the plaintiff. As a point of clarification, when a Judge requests the transfer of a case, the request is sent to the County and they decide the disposition of the hearing. It is not a given that cases are transferred between Sondergaard and Tartaglio although because of geography, the county generally tries to keep the cases convenient for those involved.

Next point, how does the Police Department receive notifications of hearings from the District Court? Each day, either a Tredyffrin police officer or a Police Department employee, physically comes to the District Court and picks up the communications. Notifications are not mailed to the Police Department. (I will explain the Police Department handling of the District Court mail shortly).

Much discussion on Community Matters stemmed from what happened on the August 21 court date. Who was at the hearing and who was not at Pratowski’s hearing. There were six people expected to be at the hearing, the two police officers (Allen Dori and Dan McFadden) Pratowski and her attorney, Vince DiFabio, Pratowski’s ex-husband Jay Ciccarone and a witness. The ‘witness’ was something new I learned from Judge Tartaglio … the witness was a neighbor of Ciccarone who saw Pratowski pull the flowers from Ciccarone’s property and gave a statement to the police. To this point, I was not aware of a witness. Ciccarone was claiming $200 in damages for the landscaping, which is why he would have needed to attend the hearing. Pratowski, DiFabio and the witness (I have his name but don’t feel it’s necessary to name him) showed up but Ciccarone, Dori and McFadden did not show-up. I later learned from Supt. Giaimo that criminal cases are typically scheduled for Fridays – this hearing was a Tuesday, which caused some confusion for the police officers, and apparently also for Ciccarone.

Judge Tartaglio showed me the courtroom and a typical schedule for hearings – yesterday there were 7 or 8 cases all scheduled for 9 AM. He explained that everyone scheduled for that time shows up at the same time, some cases are very quick, such as granting a continuance, and they can go quickly through the list. Sometimes people don’t show up and cases are dismissed. In the Pratowski hearing, why wasn’t the case dismissed rather than a not guilty verdict. Judge Tartaglio explained that it was his prerogative to make that decision. We discussed that the plaintiff was paying her attorney to attend this hearing and the witness had to take time off from work to attend, was it fair that they should have to go through this again. There was no evidence presented in the case because the prosecution did not attend — Judge Tartaglio stands behind his decision of ‘not guilty’.

I asked about why didn’t someone call the police department and Judge Tartaglio’s response was that typically it is the police officers who call in to the court when they are running late, explaining that they are delayed due an emergency, etc. and the Judge is willing to wait, when required.

My overall takeaway from my visit to the District Court and discussion with Judge Tartaglio – an organized, well-managed office with a Judge that is forthcoming, honest and committed to doing a good job. He wanted me to mention that if he had an emergency, the two police officers he would want helping would be Dori and McFadden! I want to publicly thank Judge Tartaglio for his time and willingness to explain the court procedure. I think he believed that if I understood the process, I could explain it correctly on Community Matters.

Leaving the District Court, I went to the Tredyffrin Township Police Department to meet with Police Supt. Tony Giaimo. I described my previous conversations with DA Hogan, BOS chair Kichline and District Judge Tartaglio, and that all roads came back to the police department. I offered that as a result of this particular situation, there is a negative perception of the Police Department by some, and that many residesnts are concerned that we do not have the full story. Supt. Giaimo understood my concerns and was completely open and willing to explain the process, including what went wrong and how the process has been corrected. Again, I will offer the highlights of our hour discussion. First off, has this situation ever occurred where a police officer(s) did not show up a public hearing? Since becoming police chief nine months ago, the answer is no. Before that point, I did not think it fair to expect Supt. Giaimo to know when or how often something similar had occurred. It is important to note that it had not previously happened under his watch. Giaimo did offer that there could be a situation where a police officer was unavailable to attend due to an emergency, etc. and that a replacement may have to go. Fair enough, he further stated that had he known that the police officers were not going to the Pratowski hearing, he himself would have attended.

Were the police officers notified of the August 21 hearing date? Yes, the hearing continuance was received by the Police Department, the information correctly entered at the front office and the original notifications put in the police officers box. Here was a problem, at least one of the officers had a full mailbox and the notice was buried in the paperwork. I asked and was told, that the internal Police Department does not have a computerized master calendar. I suggested to Supt. Giaimo that perhaps the system needed to change and automate.

The police officers do not have BlackBerrys (or anything similar), they transfer the hearing notifications into their daily planners. According to Giaimo, unfortunately, neither police officer had the August 21 date in their daily planners. I told him that it would be a lot easier to believe this human error, if it was one rookie cop involved rather than two seasoned career police officers, he agreed.

On to the investigation and review by the Police Department – I learned that the department has an Internal Affairs Officer who conducted the investigation. The report was reviewed by the District Attorney’s office and by BOS Chair Kichline. Because of his association with Pratowski, BOS supervisor John DiBuonaventuro was interviewed; an entire page of questions were asked. The investigation concluded that the supervisor was not involved.

Something that Supt. Giaimo volunteered which I found interesting … Giaimo’s immediate thought when he found out that the police officers had missed the Pratowski hearing was that the Police Department would re-file the case. However, he quickly learned that due to Judge Tartaglio’s ‘not guilty’ verdict rather than a dismissal, the Pratowski case was closed and the option to re-file the case was no longer available.

Bottom line, not one but two police officers failed to show for this August 21 hearing, the day following their attendance at the Board of Supervisors meeting marking their promotions. Unfortunately, that is what happened, so were the officers reprimanded. Yes, Supt. Giaimo explained that both received written reprimands and the permanent personnel files of the two police officers contain this information. This was an important turning point for me … there is no way that I think that these two officers were influenced by a third-party not to show up at this hearing. It would not be worth the price tag of a permanent blemish on their records to ‘help out’ or ‘do a favor’ .

Where does the Police Department go from here? I told Supt. Giaimo that this unfortunate situation is more than just about two police officers making a mistake … it becomes a dark cloud for the Police Department. He fully appreciates the seriousness of the situation and the public perception – if I was a betting person, I am about 100% positive that this situation will never occur again. I asked what changes have been implemented internally to the system to lessen the chances of a repeat performance. Supt. Giaimo responded that he immediately added additional safeguards to the process. Prior to the August 21 hearing, there were three steps in the process – (1) Log in of all District Court notices by Police Department personnel, (2) Clerk then enters notices in Share Point and (3) Paper copy of notices put in to appropriate officer’s mailboxes. Two additional steps are now in place – (4) Hearing notices are read out loud daily at the beginning of each shift change and (5) Police Department supervisors review daily the time schedules of all their officers. The additional steps should guarantee that this type of situation does not occur again.

In closing, I am completely satisfied that this was a case, unfortunately of human error; — a situation complicated by the fact that the individual involved was a public official (a member of the Zoning Hearing Board) and that there were two officers involved versus one. In the end, it was a mistake and I know one that will not be repeated.

I am grateful to Supt. Tony Giaimo, District Judge Tom Tartaglio, BOS chair Michelle Kichline and District Attorney Tom Hogan for their candor, openness and honesty. Each of them supported my effort to find answers and understood the importance of the public’s right to know the facts. Answers to the questions were provided with the complete understanding and support that the information would be shared on Community Matters.

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

I hope that all who read the above narrative, come away with a positive feeling about these four individuals (Tom Hogan, Michelle Kichline, Tom Tartaglio and Tony Giaimo) and the parts of our local government that they represent – I believe that these individuals respect the citizens of Tredyffrin and are trying to do ‘what’s right’ by us.

Unfortunately, as I was completing this exhaustive summary, I was told of an open letter to the citizens, penned by BOS supervisor John DiBuonaventuro. Apparently, DiBuonaventuro does not support Main Line Media News, Community Matters or the civil rights of citizens to express their opinions on this topic. Below is the last paragraph of DiBuonaventuro’s letter, click here for the full text. The tag line for Community Matters is “Your Voice Matters, Join the Conversation” and I stand behind it … we, as the community do matter and your voice does count!

“I strongly believe in “freedom of speech,” but not in “freedom of defamation.” I believe the “Community Matters” blog began with good intent, but it has, for whatever personal reasons and misguidance, mestastasized into a channel of direct personal attacks on individuals in public service and/or its entities. Almost all who have participated in those unsubstantiated allegations, criticisms, and false accusations remain cowardly anonymous. I also question if they would have the fortitude and stamina to engage in a one-on-one campaign for elected office let alone serve in a position with little or not pay, full responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens they serve, and which appears to offer nothing more than continuous ridicule in return.

I have closed the chapter on the police investigation but it looks like Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro has opened a new chapter. I am saddened that supervisor DiBuonaventuro has taken such a negative view of me, Community Matters and of those citizens who comment on Community Matters, whether anonymously or not. For the record, I was the one who clarified the perception that readers could have from the Main Line Media News story due to the associated photo of DiBuonaventuro and Pratowski. I explained on Community Matters that the unnamed male was not DiBuonaventuro but according to the police report, an attorney from Haverford. Carla Zambelli of Chester County Ramblings has posted the DiBuonaventuro’s letter and asks the question, is the letter a “threat”? Read it and you be the judge. In my world, community and our voice does matter!

UPDATE: DA Tom Hogan Weighs In … Is it a Get Out of Jail Free Card for Tredyffrin Official? You be the Judge!

September 3, 2012

75 Comments

9-3-12 UPDATE: District Attorney Tom Hogan Weighs In (See end of post)

There was a troubling news article in last week’s Main Line Media News about one of Tredyffrin Township’s Zoning Hearing Board members, Suzy Pratowski. TE Patch, the Daily Local and, then a couple of days ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer, picked up the story.

There are several reasons why I think this story caught people’s attention, me included. The initial newspaper headline, ‘Zoning hearing board member not guilty after police are a no-show at her trial’, causing some of us a double take. Zoning hearing board member? Trial? MIA police officers? What was all of this about? Since when do township police officers not show up at trials? I cannot believe that this is a regular occurrence … I wonder when the last time was that a police officer did not show up for a scheduled hearing?

Remembering back a few years ago, I decided to fight a traffic violation in Tredyffrin and showed up at my scheduled time at Judge Blackburn’s courtroom. The traffic officer who had written my citation arrived on time for the hearing with his 6 in. thick codebook ready to defend his case against me. Although I was well prepared, (albeit sans an attorney), the police officer’s testimony prevailed – I lost the case and paid my fine. The point is, my hearing was for a routine traffic violation and the officer involved showed up. From the newspaper articles, Pratowski’s case is far from routine, and she isn’t just ‘Joe Citizen’ … Suzy Pratowski is a supervisor-appointed member of Tredyffrin’s Zoning Hearing Board.

For those that have not followed the case, Pratowski was arrested in Chesterbrook on May 28, charged on two counts, public drunkenness and disorderly conduct, and issued citations. The situation involved a domestic altercation between Pratowski and her former husband, Jay Ciccarone. I have read the police reports and the account in the newspaper is accurate with one clarification. When Pratowski arrived to pick up her children at Ciccarone’s house, she was not driving but rather a passenger in a car driven by an unnamed male, a designated driver. Ciccarone was unwilling to turn the two boys over to Pratowski, citing their custody agreement, which requires that Ms. Pratowski not drink alcohol 10 hours before driving and picking up the children. The police officer determined that Pratowski had been drinking and therefore the children should remain with Ciccarone.

A photo accompanying the Main Line Media newspaper article showed Ms. Pratowski with township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro at a 2011 Devereux charity event. In reading the article, in conjunction with the accompanying photo, it is possible that a reader could conclude that DiBuonaventuro was the unnamed male driver on May 28. However, that assumption would be wrong … the police report names a Haverford attorney as the driver, not supervisor DiBuonaventuro. Pratowski left Ciccarone’s home without the children however, returned later that night on her bicycle and police were again called. With a PBT (preliminary breath test) reading of .18, the officer cited Pratowski with public drunkenness, disorderly conduct and returned her home in a police car.

Two years earlier, in June 2010, during a vehicle stop, Pratowski was charged with DUI, having received a PBT reading of .127. Pratowski’s two children were in the vehicle at the time and although initially charged with child endangerment, that charge was later dropped. Pratowski pleaded guilty to the DUI. In reading the police report from 2010, I noted that situation also involved Pratowski’s former husband Jay Ciccarone. Concerned for his children’s wellbeing, it was Ciccarone who called the police which ultimately resulted in Pratowski’s DUI arrest. The recent May 2012 incident was Pratowski’s second involving alcohol — a second offense that could have had grave consequences for Pratowski legally.

Although the charges against Pratowski were significant, it remains a real mystery as to why the police officers involved were no-shows at her hearing. Not just one police officer but two officers failed to show up. How is this possible? According to the Main Line Media News article, “Tredyffrin police Lt. Taro Landis said the officer who was supposed to show up in court that day was on another call at the time.” The police department explained the absent police officer as an ‘oversight’. Considering this was a second offense for this defendant, I do question why the police officer would have another call at the time. No mention as to why the other police officer was also MIA for the hearing.

In the Philadelphia Inquirer follow-up article, Tredyffrin Police Chief Tony Giaimo cited a ‘clerical error’ on the part of the officers as to the reason they did not show up at Pratowski’s trial. He further stated that the officers were disciplined but offered no details. OK, I’m confused … if it was a clerical error, why would the police officers need to be disciplined? And where exactly did the clerical error occur; within the police department, the District Court … the police officer’s Blackberry schedule?

It needs to be stated that the police officers involved in Pratowski’s May 28 arrest were not rookie cops. Allen Dori, is a 10-yr. veteran in the Tredyffrin police department and Daniel McFadden, a 20-year veteran and a certified crime scene investigator. Coincidentally just a couple of days before the Main Line Media story first appeared on August 24, both Dori and McFadden were promoted at the August 20 Board of Supervisors meeting. Police officer Dori was promoted from patrol officer to corporal and McFadden promoted from patrol officer to detective. Based on their experience and background, these two police officers do not strike me as individuals who would miss an important hearing because of a clerical error!

So let me understand this correctly, if there is a clerical error and the arresting police officer (or in this case, two police officers) does not show up at the hearing, the case is simply dismissed. Does this mean that the records of the case are expunged? When a clerical error occurs, am I to understand that there is no such thing as the rescheduling of the hearing. Magically, the problem is solved and the defendant receives a ‘pass’. Wow … amazing! Based on the remarks that Police Chief Giaimo gave to the Philadelphia Inquirer, it appears that the matter is closed, but should it be? .

In addition to process questions surrounding this incident, we are left with the open issue about Pratowski’s suitability to serve on the township’s Zoning Hearing Board. Appeals for relief from decisions of the Zoning Officer and/or requirements in the zoning Ordinance are handled by the ZHB. Unlike other boards and commissions in the township, the ZHB is a quasi-judicial body whose decisions are not subject to the approval of the supervisors. I am thinking that Pratowski’s guilty verdict for DUI in June 2010 should have warranted her dismissal from the ZHB. For those of you wondering what the grounds are for removal from the ZHB, the following is from the PA Municipal Planning Code that governs the ZHB in our municipality:

Article IX – Zoning Hearing Board and other Administrative Proceedings

Section 905. Removal of Members. Any board member may be removed for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office or for other just cause by a majority vote of the governing body which appointed the member, taken after the member has received 15 days’ advance notice of the intent to take such a vote. A hearing shall be held in connection with the vote if the member shall request it in writing.

Reading the section titled ‘Removal of Members’, it would appear that Pratowski should be removed from the ZHB. Pratowski occupies the seat on the Zoning Hearing Board once held by John Petersen. As a former ZHB member, a supervisor and an attorney, I asked him for his comments —

I was very sad to hear about Suzy’s troubles. I’ve known her to be a good person and I sincerely hope that she gets to a point, for the benefit of her and her children, where portions of her life are not being played out in the paper. In most cases, this would be a private matter. Back in 2005 when I was appointed to fill vacancy on the BOS, I left the ZHB and had recommended Suzy to take my place. I was happy to do so then as she was qualified and has done a good job. However, as a former member of the governing body and the ZHB, I also have to consider the consequences of actions that place confidence in our public institutions at risk. Serving is a privilege, not a right. Given the history here, I have to wonder why Suzy was not removed from the ZHB back in 2010. These latest incidents only serve to add to growing list of questions concerning the integrity of our local government. It’s even worse when there is no confidence in the police, who at various times, holds, albeit brief, a decisive role in a person’s individual freedom. Between township staff, elected officials, certain boards and appointees or the dealings of those appointees and the police, nothing appears to be working correctly in Tredyffrin Township. I actually fear our government and police as they don’t act in the citizens’ best interest.

As to the “clerical error”, as a lawyer, I find that to be hard to believe. It’s a rather generic answer – one that the Inquirer should have followed up on with this simple question: “What was the error?” The workings between the district courts, the County and the various police departments are actually quite efficient. If this was a clerical error, then it was an error that was of the same proportion of that single bullet on that fateful day on November 22, 1963. There would have had to have been errors in Judge Sondergaard’s office as well as the administration in the police department and other people. Did other Tredyffrin Police manage to show up that day for other cases, or the day prior or after? Why this case? Why this person? When was the last time this sort of thing happened? Maybe it’s a common practice? But for Suzy’s private issues and the fact that she is a public official did this one come to light? Again, it’s about the appearance of impropriety.

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but I think it is fair game for DA Tom Hogan to make an inquiry here. As I see it, a full and open investigation is the only way the matter can get cleared up. We’ve already had a major scandal with former chief Chambers. And not too long before Chambers, chief Harkness was dismissed amidst a cloud of allegations the subject of which are/were part of a confidentiality agreement. Between that, alleged civil rights violations and other things – it’s not been a good time for the police or the government as a whole.

For longer than I care to remember, too many bad acts. In many ways, we’ve not progressed beyond Harry Marrone. Too many questions. This really goes to the honor and integrity of people. What I’ve been seeing lately is a lot of inaction and indecisiveness from township leadership. Again I ask – when is it going to stop? When are the adults going to take charge? When can people have confidence that their government and police will treat all people fairly and equally instead of calling person’s political affiliations out as just being a “Data point?” Anybody else, with these players involved, and I doubt seriously that there would be a “Clerical error.” And when they don’t treat people fairly and equally, will those same governmental actors ever be held accountable? Candidly, I was not a fan of Giamo’s promotion – given the recent history. Has nothing to do with Tony as a person or his qualifications. It has everything to do with the integrity of the institution and the confidence that public has in that institution. Sometimes, you just have to bring people in from the outside. I believe had we had truly shaken things up, there would not have been a “Clerical error.” One simply cannot look past the fact that Suzy was at a time, a TTRC member, dating a supervisor and of course, is a member of the ZHB. Anybody who cites those factors as being irrelevant is simply being willfully naïve. I lost my political mentor John Waldeyer in 2005. He was a good man and a great steward of good and honorable political values. He always said to me that the most important thing in politics and service is to be identified with good government. Everything else takes care of itself. A lot of people forgot those words. I’ve never forgotten them. John would be absolutely ashamed of what we see today. And if he were around today, we would not see the crap we’ve seen for the last 7 years. People around here have long forgotten what good government is. No government is perfect, but it can still be good nevertheless. John exercised discipline. John was an adult.

Finally, a personal plea to Suzy – if you have not done so, offer up your resignation. Doing so would mark the first time in a very long time a public official did the right thing in the face of adversity.

Do Tredyffrin Township residents really need another St. Davids sidewalk saga or a ‘big check’ moment — remember the fire funding spectacle with cameras rolling? As Carla Zambelli, fellow blogger and friend, wrote on Chester County Ramblings in her post , “enough Tredyffrin. enough” … “Tredyffrin needs to get its house in order and stop sounding and acting like a Shakespearian tragedy meets a made for TV movie on Lifetime.” Carla does have a way with words, just wish in this case, she wasn’t right.

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

9-3-12 UPDATE: District Attorney Tom Hogan Weighs In

I sent an email to District Attorney Tom Hogan, asking if this situation constitutes an investigation by his office. The DA called and we had a lengthy discussion on this matter. It is with his permission that I can offer this update. According to the Hogan, there has been an investigation and review. Police Chief Tony Giaimo conducted an internal department investigation and then asked for an outside review from the District Attorney’s office on the ‘clerical error’ matter. According to the internal police report, there were scheduling issues and the two police officers were not notified of Suzy Pratowski’s hearing date. The DA also reported that Pratowski’s former husband Jay Cicarrone was also not notified of the hearing date. Pratowski and her attorney were the only ones to receive notification.

Hogan also offered that because of township supervisor John DiBuonaventuro’s relationship with Pratowski (and questions concerning his possible involvement), the police as part of the investigation interviewed DiBuonaventuro. The police department determined that DiBuonaventuro was not involved in the situation. The internal investigation determined that a clerical error as the reason that the two officers missed the hearing. The District Attorney’s office reviewed the police department findings and was satisfied by the report.

I asked the DA how often does a clerical error occur that police officers miss a scheduled hearing. Although Hogan said that it does happen, he did say it was not common in Tredyffrin Township. I let our District Attorney know that many of us were troubled by the appearance of this situation. For the record, the District Attorney’s office has no jurisdiction over Pratowski’s continued membership on Tredyffrin’s Zoning Hearing Board – the appointment and removal of ZHB members is a Board of Supervisors matter.

There was discussion of the ‘not guilty’ verdict for Pratowsk, given that the two police officers and Cicarrone did not attend the hearing. I will defer the legal explanation of the judicial process to John Petersen, who also spoke with Tom Hogan. Here are John’s comments:

I had an opportunity to speak to DA Tom Hogan on the matter. Normally, jeopardy does not attach in a case like this until the first witness is sworn – when the trier of fact (the judge in this case) has begun his journey of fact finding. This is all about protecting a defendant’s 5th amendment rights to due process, and specifically, a defendant’s right to not be tried more than once for the same crime. In this case, the judge had 3 options (really only two legitimate options in my opinion). The first is to find the defendant not guilty and close the case. This would NOT have been appropriate in my opinion because the prosecution was not present due to what has been regarded as an honest clerical error. How could a judge weigh facts that were not presented? The big problem with this option – jeopardy attaches. To review, in this case, not only did the police not show up, but the judge took the one choice that assured this matter went away forever.

The other two options were to 1 – dismiss without prejudice – giving leave to the police to re file the charges or 2 – to simply continue the trial. It seems to me the one that was most prudent in this case was to simply order a continuance. That would have remediated the clerical error and it would not have resulted in any constitutionally protected rights of the defendant being violated. Dismissing the case would have required the police to re-file charges – which would have resulted in additional time and expense.

Apparently, Judge Rita Arnold, another DJ, successfully quashed a citation against her son. In her case, she was suspended for 30 days. She’s back on the bench. As for her son, he gets off scot free. If you are thinking it pays to have connections you are right. I have been told there is a strong likelihood of a memo going out to DJ’s that gives better guidance on when it’s appropriate to make a determination on guilt vs. a dismissal vs. a continuance. It’s a bit concerning that guidance has to be given on this. Shouldn’t judges know better? The DJ system is broken and this reinforces my opinion that DJ’s need to be lawyers. This often surprises folks that DJ’s don’t need to be lawyers.

My conclusion on this – we’ll likely never know what really happened here. I have to ask whether a regular, non-connected person would be as lucky? The answer is absolutely not. Justice was not served here. And yet again, a connected person caught breaks that non-connected people don’t get. I am left with no other conclusion that this particular defendant was helped by many people with influence. How and why do I conclude that? Because there are no facts to suggest otherwise.

I have no faith in any aspect of our local government, it’s people and it’s ability to do the right thing.

Jimmy Duffy Redevelopment Project … Does the End Justify the Means?

May 15, 2012

17 Comments

This is a follow-up to an earlier post, Jimmy Duffy’s Redevelopment Plan Requires Zoning Change … Is There Community Support?

Last week’s town hall meeting included an update on the redevelopment project from developer Ed Morris, who was accompanied by Capital Health Group, LLC representative Gerard Farrell and their attorney Denise Yarnoff of Riley Riper Hollin & Colagreco. In addition to members of the Daylesford Neighborhood Association (DNA) was Mimi Gleason, township manager and Matt Bauman, township zoning officer, 3 supervisors (JD DiBuonaventuro, Michelle Kichline and Kristen Mayock) and 3 Planning Commissioners (Bob O’Leary, Tory Synder and Trip Lukens).

Perhaps the intentions of the meeting were good but overall, I found the meeting less than satisfactory as an audience member. Having attended the 2 planning commission meetings (September, October 2011), 2012 January Board of Supervisors meeting and developer-DNA public meeting this past February (where this project was discussed), I expected that this latest meeting would give local residents an opportunity to really be ‘heard’ by those representing our government, in addition to an update from the developer. I did not leave the meeting feel that mission was accomplished.

The discussion surrounding the Jimmy Duffy project is confusing … on one hand, there has been no formal land development plan presented to the township by Capital Health. (Currently, the C-1 and R-1 zoning of the Duffy property does not allow for an assisted living facility.) Yet, on the other hand, based on the number of meetings and input from planning commissioners, supervisors and township staff, suggests that this project has advanced beyond a vague, casual stage.

Eagle Bank owns the Jimmy Duffy property and with the current economic climate, I’m guessing may be willing to sell it for a significantly reduced price. However, a developer probably would not want to purchase the property unless there was a degree of assurance that the deal would go through so … he/she would be looking for ‘buy-in’ to the project from the community and the local government; hence the visits to and discussions with, the planning commissioners.

However, here’s the ‘dicey’ part for me and what I do not understand. Although Ed Morris has made concessions in his latest draft drawings of his project (one less floor, more trees, etc) he still has the problem that the current zoning does not permit this usage of the property. Current zoning only permits assisted living in the Industrial Overlay district and that has a 10 acre minimum requirement. As I understand township zoning, an applicant would need to take his land development plan to the Zoning Hearing Board and seek a variance to build the project on the 2-acre Duffy site. But rather than taking the variance route, the discussion has evolved to Ed Morris writing an amendment to the current C-1 zoning ordinance to include assisted living as an acceptable use. Although I have been told that it is a normal, and acceptable practice, for a developer to draft zoning ordinance language, it certainly appears odd and rather self-serving to me. But I certainly do not claim to be a zoning or planning expert!

Former township supervisor and Zoning Hearing Board member John Petersen weighs in with his opinion on the Jimmy Duffy redevelopment project. He has submitted the following op-ed article, ‘Why the contemplated development at the old Duffy Catering site is a bad idea’ to Main Line Media News for publication:

Why the contemplated development at the old Duffy’s Catering site is a bad idea

This critique has nothing to do with the project’s underlying merits. It may very well be that an assisted living use may be a good idea on the 2 acre site in spite of the fact that such a use is currently only permitted on a 10+ acre parcels. Rather, this critique has to do with the process and procedure surrounding the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors (BOS) and Planning Commission’s (PC) apparently affinity to abandon established process and procedures in favor of fast-tracking said project on said site. To fast track the development, the BOS and PC are considering the drastic step of adding assisted living as an approved use in the C1 zoning district. There are 3 basic and simple reasons why the BOS and PC are yet again, showing an astonishing lack of judgment.

1. The project developer, already has a remedy that has not been exhausted
The developer has not applied for a variance from the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB). A zoning variance allows for a use or condition that exists outside the current zoning regulations. If the ZHB were to grant a variance, a wholesale change to zoning would not be required. The benefit is that the change applies only the specific parcel and can be tailored to only apply to current owner. When asked about a variance, developer’s counsel replied “That would take too long.” I used to sit on the BOS and the ZHB and I don’t recall “Taking too long” as being a bona-fide reason to abandon procedure. It’s also been reported that the township’s zoning officer kept “deferring” to applicant’s counsel. That is highly irregular. In effect, applicant’s counsel is dictating and driving procedure, and in this case, changing it for the benefit of the developer. It is certainly to the developer’s benefit to have the zoning changed since that would obviate the need to seek a variance. As one supervisor pointed out at the town hall meeting “It’s not the BOS’s job to seek out projects.” Yet, that is exactly what is happening here. At the very least, this project sought out this BOS and PC. Regardless of how they found each other, the BOS and PC seem ready, willing and able to give this specific developer, this specific project and this specific parcel of land special treatment. This sets a dangerous precedent.

2. The BOS just committed to spend $100K on a review of its ZO
Some would point out that grant money makes the net cost only $30K. However, those grants are not guaranteed. The only thing that is guaranteed is the $100K consulting appropriation. Only when and if the revised zoning, based on the consultant’s recommendations are approved, do the grants have the potential to be realized. Once the BOS committed to having the ZO reviewed, a moratorium on zoning changes should have been established. What if this contemplated new use in C1 is deemed to be a less than optimal use? It appears foolish to tweak something that is about to undergo a comprehensive and expensive review.

3. The process and procedure (or lack thereof) sets a precedent for future developers and projects
The BOS and PC might as well put a large for sale sign on the township. Consider the next developer who seeks to develop a C1 parcel or perhaps a residential or industrial parcel with a use that is not contemplated under the ZO. What are the BOS and PC going to say then? No? That developer may have a very good case to take to court. Zoning must be non-prejudicial. It must be a-political. Zoning represents 50-100 year decisions. These are long term in nature. The costs of making wrong decisions are high. We are already dealing with storm water problems in the township that are due, in part, to bad planning. Good planning begins with a vision that is independent of any specific project. The goal is to have consistent and compatible uses that meet the divergent needs of residents and businesses (retail, commercial and sometimes industrial). You don’t begin with specific projects and let the model shake out from there. We have a zoning map that will now undergo review based on the results of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Process. At the same time, a new use will be added to C1. And very likely, there will be another parcel in the township that this developer or another developer will seek to develop for another non-permitted use? Based on this precedent, the BOS will be obliged to say yes because the BOS cannot and has not offered a single articulable rational basis for this decision. And let’s not forget that there are no plans in front of the PC. How can this possibly be contemplated now? How is this not favoritism – the problem encountered with spot-zoning?

Conclusion
The 3 aforementioned reasons make it clear that the contemplated actions of the BOS and PC are not in the best interest of this community because the actions represent a departure from established procedures. The actions do not represent what could be considered best-practices insofar as zoning and land use procedure is concerned. Any developer should first submit plans to the PC and where necessary, seek a variance. As a record proceeding, citizens have an opportunity to be present and heard. If that variance is granted, the citizens at least have legal recourse to have such a decision reviewed by the Court. If the variance is denied, then the developer can then seek to have the use added. In that event, the BOS and PC have the benefit of the ZHB proceedings to make a better, more informed decision.

In a civilized society, the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means – especially in the case when there are the means to do things the right way – within the framework of existing policies and procedures.

John V. Petersen
Paoli, PA

Community Matters … A Year in Review (Part 2)

December 31, 2011

7 Comments

It was interesting to read through my Community Matters posts of 2011 and the hundreds of comments but choosing which ones to include in my ‘Year in Review’ was difficult.

Certain topics, including the school district and the primary and general election, were much discussed. For a second year in a row, the sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club saw much attention on Community Matters. Land development and the struggles between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for ‘control’ over future projects will be interesting to watch in 2012.

Absent a crystal ball, my guess is that the T/E School District’s upcoming teacher contract negotiations and the State House 157 race will lead discussions in 2012. I am hopeful that our local economy will move forward in a positive way — maybe the new year will see a tenant for Genuardi’s in Chesterbrook. I have heard that a high-end gym may be in the offering. And Nudy’s will soon be filling the empty Jake’s space in Paoli Village Shoppes.

Below are my picks for the most interesting Community Matters posts of 2011, in chronological order. Here’s wishing you a wonderful 2012 … may we all enjoy good health and happiness in the new year!

1. Should Teachers Be Consulted in School Budget Discussion? January 14, 2011

Do School Board, administration, parents and taxpayers give adequate attention to the opinions of the teachers during budget discussions. As TESD teacher negotiations are to begin shortly, this Community Matters post and its comments are timely to read again.

2. Another Store Closing in Tredyffrin . . . A Suggestion for a Business Task Force February 3, 2011

Eleven months ago, I proposed a “township business task force … a volunteer group of local retired executives, small business owners, and corporate representatives. The group would meet monthly with a mission to spearhead ways to improve existing relationships and provide assistance and a resource for township businesses. This important support group for the business community could provide regular updates and suggestions to the Board of Supervisors.” We know that my suggestion was approved by the BOS, an advisory group set up but . . . nearly a year later, where does it stand? There have been a few stores and restaurants open (Big Lots, Mealey’s, McKenzie’s) but closings and empty stores are everywhere … Genuardi’s, Syms, Jake’s).

3. Looking at Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, is the ‘Handwriting on the Wall’ for T/E? February 22, 2011

A comparative analysis between Unionville-Chadds Ford and T/E School Districts encouraged 62 comments. Both of these school districts are top performing and enjoy similar academic performances. The teacher contract negotiation process in UCF was lengthy and time-consuming – teachers worked for over a year without a contract as both sides battled over the benefit package (specifically health care). Even an independent arbitrator was challenged over the UCF teacher contract process. Is this the handwriting on the wall for T/E?

4. Labor Dispute Between TEEA Teacher Union & T/E School District . . . Claiming Unfair Labor Practices re Online Course Programming March 11, 2011

Another very heated school district debate on Community Matters was the dispute over online E-learning in T/E. The teacher’s union took the stance that the school district was offering courses online to students that could be taught by teachers. They claimed that the work of instruction and assessing students taking online courses is no different from work performed by teachers in the classroom. The school district argued that the E-learning courses fall outside the scope of teacher bargaining.

5. Berwyn Banter . . . Ray Hoffman’s Remarks on Homosexuality Evoke Strong Response from Local Residents April 2, 2011

Ray Hoffman’s Banter column in the Main Line Media news of March 24, 2011 evoked strong response from many residents. In his column, he had referenced his moral outrage over the Catholic Church and priests involved in the child sex scandal. In my opinion, Hoffman stepped ‘over the line’ when he suggested in his column that pedophilia and homosexuality are synonymous; and “the work of evil incarnate and therefore unforgivable”. Although one can describe pedophiles that prey on innocent children as evil and their behavior unforgivable, how could Hoffman impose that same standard in his description of homosexuals? To grow up gay in America, faced with intolerance and persecution can prove an enormous challenge for today’s youth, which made Hoffman’s words all the more painful to read.

6. The Use of Community Matters on Campaign Ad without Permission . . . Illegal or just Disrespectful? May 11, 2011

The use of anonymous comments from Community Matters on political campaign literature without my permission was a very difficult time for me – and in hindsight, I came very close to closing down Community Matters as a result. I had discussions with several attorneys over the matter and quickly arrived at the conclusion that the use of Community Matters by the TTDEMS (without my permission) was not illegal. However, were their actions unethical and disrespectful? These same people had supported me the year before as “one of their own” supervisor candidates – I just could not understand how some of them could disrespect and hurt me in this way. What’s the saying … all’s fair in politics?

7. Unofficial Results from Chester County Indicate Duffy Won by 40 Votes in Tredyffrin’s Special Election . . . Reports of Malfunctioning Voting Machines Add a Twist May 18, 2011

This was one for the history books. Molly Duffy was declared the winner in the special election by 40 votes. Reports of malfunctioning voting machines turned out to be correct. A hand-count of the election ballots a week later found 61 uncounted ballots; as a result Mike Heaberg was named supervisor to fill the vacancy left by Warren Kampf.

8. What’s the meaning of ‘Good Government’? Does it Mean Something Different in Tredyffrin? June 21, 2011

The Board of Supervisors continues delay tactics over the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk land development project. The supervisors decided that rather than honoring their vote of a few months earlier to leave the land development authority in the hands of the Planning Commission, they presented a new township land development process giving the supervisors more oversight. The issue should not be about sidewalks at St. Davids Golf Club but rather a 6-year old signed land development contract between the club and the township and why it is not enforced.

9. America’s Best High Schools But Where is Conestoga High School? July 23, 2011

It was very surprising to learn that Conestoga High School was missing from Newsweek’s list of best high schools in America. Regardless of whether you give any credence to school rankings, what did it say that every other public high school in the area was on the list but not Conestoga. We learned subsequently that someone in the TESD administration had ‘dropped the ball’ and somehow the paperwork was not returned by the deadline. Although I am still not clear exactly what happened, I am fairly confident that this same mistake will not occur again.

10. Tea Party Agenda by State Rep Warren Kampf; so claims Former State Rep Paul Drucker August 27, 2011

In an op-ed article in Main Line Media News, former State Rep Paul Drucker had some harsh words for some of the choices made by current State Rep Warren Kampf. Drucker accused Kampf of following a ‘tea party agenda’ and pointed out the state’s education cuts, the lack of taxing on Marcellus Shale drilling and the state’s decreased funding of social services. I questioned the timing of the editorial and asked Drucker if he was considering a re-match against Kampf for the 157 district in 2012. At the time I did not receive a definitive answer … wonder if the idea remains a possibility?

11. Light Bulbs . . . Who’s Responsible? Township staff or PECO? October 12, 2011

This was became the starting point for light bulbs in Tredyffrin. I discovered the problem with light bulbs in Chesterbrook has existed for 27 years since the light poles were installed. I did a more ‘scientific’ count and found that there were 37 lights out between Duportail Rd.and Chesterbrook Blvd. I know that the township staff, supervisors and PECO have now held meetings over the matter. I regularly receive emails from residents who report that they are seeing ‘cherry-picker’ trucks with light bulbs being replaced. I am hopeful that supervisor Richter will give a light bulb update at the next BOS meeting – plus here’s hoping for an update on the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalks too.

12. Why Must the Campaign Season be ‘Politics as Usual’ . . . Please, Can it be the Truth? October 26, 2011

One of the most highly commented posts (100+ comments) this was a discussion about the negative ads of election season. Republican and Democratic parties both lowered their bars to slinging mud against each other. The line became so blurred; it was hard to tell the truths from the lies. False and misleading information about school board and supervisor candidates was delivered regularly and had many of us questioning the disappearance of honesty and decency in politics.

13. Election Day 2011 is over . . . Looks like much will remain the same! November 9, 2011

The General Election results showed that all incumbents in the supervisor and school board races won. It should be noted that in the east, it was a very close race between incumbent Paul Olson (R) and Tory Snyder (D). In a nail-biter, Tory lost the race by only 13 votes, returning Olson to the Board of Supervisors for another term. I am not sure but he may have the distinction of having being the longest-serving supervisor. Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors will continue as an all-Republican board. Kristen Mayock’s election to the Board adds a third woman and it has been a while since we had that dynamic. In an upset. Jeremy Blackburn (R) was unseated by Analisa Sondergaard (D) as District Judge. Unlike Judge Blackburn, Sondergaard is an attorney who will now fill the seat as District Judge.

14. Police Chief Andy Chambers Tenders Resignation While on Suspension December 20, 2011

The township has a cloak of mystery and drama as the year ends. We learned of an anonymous letter sent to the township supervisors which contained two allegations against Police Chief Andy Chambers. The first allegation, which the Chief admitted was true, involved him allowing his 16-year old son to drive a township police car. While driving the car, the kid was involved in an accident but Chambers took full responsibility for costs of its repair. The supervisors suspended Chambers for (1) allowing his son to drive the police cruiser and (2) his failure to tell the supervisors. While on suspension, the Chief decided to retire on December 30 after 30 years of service. The second allegation contained in the anonymous letter suggested that Chambers had used township time to work on personal business. There was no mention of this allegation by the supervisors so it is not clear whether or not it was investigated or whether or not the allegation is true. The public was not told the reasons for Police Chief Harkness’ departure from the Police Department, so my guess is there will be no further information on Police Chief Chambers.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters