Pattye Benson

Community Matters

PA State House 157

Candidate Ken Buckwalter Uses Social Media Tool, Watching Phoenixville, to Respond to Kampf’s Recent Campaign Mailer

May 14, 2010
2 Comments

Don’t know if you are aware, but Republican State House candidate Ken Buckwalter is a citizen journalist with a blog, Watching Phoenixville. Buckwalter started the blog several years ago, long before deciding to run for the State House 157. This week his opponent Warren Kampf sent out a campaign mailer that contained several quotes attributed to Buckwalter, and unfortunately for Buckwalter may have been taken out of context, and lead the voter to misunderstanding. With this type of 11th hour campaign strategy, it can be difficult for the targeted person to respond.

I can speak from personal experience about last-minute campaign tactics. Aside from my election, many of you will recall a ‘comparison’ campaign mailer which targeted Eamon Brazunas that was received by voters very close to November’s Election Day; a situation that can make it nearly impossible for a candidate to recover. In Buckwalter’s case, I don’t know he has sufficient time to mail a response mailer to the voters prior to Tuesday’s Primary. However, Buckwalter is using his own social media tool, Watching Phoenixville, to correct Kampf’s misinformation. Further details and explanation can be found on Buckwalter’s campaign website, www.BuckwalterForPA.com (For the record, Buckwalter did not ask nor suggest that I add this post to Community Matters.)

Below is Buckwalter’s current posting on Watching Phoenixville:

Response to a Warren Kampf Attack Mailer

I just received a mailer from my opponent, Warren Kampf, attacking a post I wrote August 4th 2008. I stand by what I wrote in Alcoholic Drink Tax & Maybe a City Charter.

Warren’s mailer took the following from my post: “Maybe it is time for Phoenixville to look into a drink tax what with the many, many taverns, pubs and bars opening up in our downtown.”

Warren then states “Two times – in 2010 and in 2008 – (Ken) supported a new “drink tax” in Phoenixville – a tax that would hurt the revitalization of his community.”

Unfortunately, Warren couldn’t be more deceptive in his attack as he left out the rest of what I wrote.

“This would provide the consistent funding source needed to continue to revitalize and promote the downtown with the possibility of providing some property tax relief for our residents. At least those who enjoy our downtown but don’t live here, would help contribute financially to the added expenses of sustaining our growth.”

Warren also failed to inform that Phoenixville property owners were about to be put on the hook to the tune of $625,000 for 5 years if Council passed funding for the services of the CDC. The amount would equate to almost a 10% tax increase before the budget even got underway for 2009.

It should be noted that the funding did pass that August but was cut in half for the 2010 budget.

Click to read post: Alcoholic Drink Tax & Maybe a City Charter.

Contested Republican Primary for PA State House 157 . . . Does Campaign Finance Report Indicate Kampf & Buckwalter as Fiscally Responsible? You be the judge –

May 13, 2010
27 Comments

We are in the countdown for the Pennsylvania Primary Election, Tuesday, May 18. Locally, there is a contested Republican race for the PA State House 157, currently held by incumbent Democrat Paul Drucker. Ken Buckwalter and Warren Kampf were both recommended by the Chester County Republican Party in March and will appear on Tuesday’s ballot. The outcome of the Primary will determine whether Buckwalter or Kampf is on the General Election ballot in November and opposing Drucker.

There’s been much said and written about small business owner and Phoenixville Borough councilman Buckwalter vs. attorney and Tredyffrin Township supervisor Kampf. Each of the candidates has sent several targeted campaign mailers to registered Republicans in the 157 district. Yesterday, Republican residents received a Kampf campaign mailer which focused on Buckwalter’s voting record on the ‘pour tax’ and also the sewer tax.

Did you know that Pennsylvania is only of only 11 states that do not protect their citizens, elections and government from the destructive impact of unlimited campaign contributions? In fact, in March of this year, Senator Jane Earll (R-49) and Senator Jay Costa (D-43) introduced Senate Bill 1269 which would amend the Pennsylvania Election Code to set campaign contribution limits per election, including in-kind contributions. The finance reform legislation would place limits on campaign contributions and prohibit the use of campaign funds for personal uses. There are important reasons that voters value fiscal responsibility in their elected officials. Managing public money is a matter of public trust, and a charge that should not be taken lightly.

When introducing his campaign reform bill, Senator Costa commented that “It is vitally important that Pennsylvania renew the process of reforming our campaign finance laws by placing reasonable restrictions on political contributions and expenditures that are overwhelmingly supported by the public.” An important campaign component for State House 157 Republican candidates Buckwalter and Kampf is their promise of fiscal responsibility and discipline in Harrisburg. With a contested primary, I thought it would be interesting to look at how each of these candidates has fiscally managed their campaigns leading up to Tuesday’s Primary. Campaign finance reporting is public information and I have copies of the latest reports for Buckwalter and Kampf. Each of the candidates filings are ‘as of May 5, 2010′; Buckwalter electronically filed online and Kampf’s paper-filed.

Comparing the campaign finance report indicates that total expenditures, debts and obligations as of May 5 for Kampf ($43,541.18) vs. Buckwalter ($10,458.69). These numbers indicate that Kampf is outspending Buckwalter approximately 4-1. I then looked at how much money each candidate had raised. As of May 5, total campaign contributions for Kampf ($58,448.49) vs. Buckwalter ($13,202.72).

I next compared the candidate’s contributors – did either Kampf or Buckwalter receive $1,000 or more from individuals or companies? Buckwalter – no; actually Buckwalter received no individual contribution greater than $500. Those contributing $1,000 or more to Kampf’s campaign include Paul Olson ($3,500); C.T. Alexander ($1,000); James McErlane, Lamb McErlane Law Firm ($5,000); White & Williams Law Firm ($2,000); Aqua America ($1,000) among others.

How did these 2 candidates spend their money? Statement of expenditures, Schedule III of the Campaign Finance Report indicates the expenses for Kampf and Buckwalter. Excluding campaign mailers, printing and postage, I looked at all individual campaign expenses of over $500 for each candidate. The only individual expenses by Buckwalter over $500 was $1,500 on consulting services on two different dates, total of $3,000. Kampf’s individual expenses exceeding $500 included computer ($630.66); consulting ($3,700); website ($5,550); photocopier ($530); catering ($1,000).

I think that this is an interesting statistical analysis which indicates fundraising and spending patterns of both Republican candidates seeking the PA State Representative position. It is important that our elected officials are fiscally responsible; have these candidates succeeded in that mission during Primary season? If you are a Republican, you be the judge and cast your vote on Tuesday accordingly.

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

May 11, 2010
10 Comments

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

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

Update from the School Board meeting budget discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lamina Can Play in his Sandbox by Himself

May 8, 2010
7 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tredyffrin Republican Committee Race Heats Up in W-2 Precinct

April 28, 2010
17 Comments

The upcoming Primary Election will present an interesting phenomenon in Tredyffrin’s W-2 voting precinct. This is the voting district for State Rep Paul Drucker, Supervisor and State Rep candidate Warren Kampf, and Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro — interestingly, my part of the Great Valley is also included in the W-2 precinct.

Tredyffrin has 17 different precincts and I believe that W-2 is the only district that will have a contested primary election for a committee seat (either Republican or Democrat). If my math is correct, there are 2 positions in each precinct; 17 districts x 2 positions = 34 positions. There are 34 Republicans and 34 Democrats committee positions in Tredyffrin. Sixty-four total committee positions from both political parties; and the only precinct contested is my W-2 precinct. The W-2 Republican committee race will feature supervisors Kampf (current W-2 Rep committeeman), DiBuonaventuro and attorney Bill Lynch running against each other in the primary. Yes, the only contested committee race in Tredyffrin and it will feature 2 supervisors against each other. In addition to running for the local committee seat, Supervisor Kampf is also on the ballot for the Republican State House opposing fellow Republican Ken Buckwalter of Phoenixville. Democrat Paul Drucker is the current State House Representative and will be on the primary ballot unopposed.

This week, registered Republicans in the W-2 precinct received the following campaign letter from supervisor DiBuonaventuro. Anteresting battle is brewing in this section of the township . . . I’m thinking that Primary Day in W-2 could provide a Kodak moment or two when I go to vote.

Dear ____________,

Thank you for all of your support these last two years. It has been an honor to serve as your Supervisor, representing the Western District of Tredyffrin and providing the support and constituent services our citizens need.

I am writing to let you know I am a candidate for Republican Committeeman in our voting precinct, W-2. This position, along with Committeewoman Jean Sauer, represents registered Republicans in Tredyffrin Township who vote at Delaware Valley Friends School on East Central Avenue in Paoli.

On May 18th, I am running to challenge appointed Committeeman Warren Kampf. Kampf, who recently moved to the district, is also a Township Supervisor and is also running to be the Republican Candidate for State Representative. There is a third person on the ballot who is also challenging Kampf for committeeman.

The position of Committeeman for W-2 will have significant impact for not only the residents of Berwyn, Paoli, and Malvern, but for all of Tredyffrin as we elect four Supervisors next year. The committeeman post is for two years and will have a direct role as to which Republicans are candidates for Township Supervisor and School Board in 2011.

Over the last two years as your Supervisor, I have represented the interests of all of our citizens in the Western District and throughout Tredyffrin. We delivered results together. They include the demanding Turnpike negotiations that directly impacted our Summerhill neighbors and others, the Paoli Train Station and Town Center Plan, and the storm water management issue in Valley Hills. These are just a few of the major challenges we effectively managed as a team.

Many issues and future challenges remain. This is the reason I need your vote on May 18th.Let’s make sure to the extent we can, that candidates endorsed to run for the Board of Supervisors and the School Board are both qualified and that they always put our interests first.

Thank you for your consideration and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing you on Primary Election Day, May 18th, if not before.

With appreciation, I am

John DiBuonaventuro

Western District Supervisor

Former Township Supervisor Trish Kreek Disappointed in Supervisors Behavior

April 28, 2010
31 Comments

Former township supervisor Trish Kreek speaks out about the behavior of some of our supervisors in the following Letter to the Editor which appears in this week’s Main Line Suburban Life newspaper. In her narrative on good government, Trish suggests remedial training for those supervisors that do not understand their responsibilities and duties. Thank you Mrs. Kreek for your words!

Ex-supervisor disappointed in some board members

To the Editor:

The manner in which government conducts its business tells you something about its attitude toward its citizens. Tredyffrin Township has always prided itself on its professionalism in the handling of its affairs, particularly its public face. I feel compelled to express my deep disappointment with the behavior of some board members, particularly as it pertains to their interaction with members of the public during public meetings.

Supervisors run for office under party banners. When elected they take an oath of office to serve all the citizens of their township, not just members of their own political persuasion. The board has a Public Comment period to allow citizens to bring their thoughts and concerns to the board’s attention. They expect the boards to respectfully listen and be treated with courtesy during their comments, whether you agree with their remarks or not. Comments concerning the speaker’s political party or motives are inappropriate. The supervisors work for the citizens, not the other way around.

Government has rules and regulations concerning the conduct of official business. Many of these procedures are formally adopted and voted into law. As such they are not arbitrary and board members cannot accept or reject them at will (sidewalk issue, Jan. 25, 2010). Board members have recently given the impression that they have the power and authority to change these laws and procedures to suite their desired outcomes at will. Not so!

Tredyffrin’s board needs to recapture the professionalism that once defined our local government. If this board does not understand its responsibilities and duties, may I suggest remedial training is available? The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) offers classes in supervisor duties and demeanor.

Trish G. Kreek
Former Supervisor
Tredyffrin Township
Wayne

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

April 27, 2010
9 Comments

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

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

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

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

Tredyffrin Officials Inconsistent in Ethics Decisions . . . Today’s Op-Ed in the Daily Local!

April 26, 2010
28 Comments

Tredyffrin officials inconsistent in ethics decisions . . . yes, doesn’t that newspaper headline say it all? The editorial appearing in today’s Daily Local newspaper offers its reader their ‘take’ on Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting. For the newspaper to have reviewed the Pitcairn vs supervisors solicitation situation, and then to state, ” . . . after a review of both situations, we think she’s [Benson] right. . . ” — was just the vindication I need! Thank you Daily Local for this editorial and for really getting ‘it’! Below is the complete editorial:

Daily Local Opinion

Tredyffrin officials inconsistent in ethics decisions

Published: Monday, April 26, 2010

Do township supervisors’ fundraising efforts in Tredyffrin constitute an unethical conflict of interest for the township — and more to the point, do they do so in the same way that those supervisors decided, some time ago, an “in-kind” gift worth $50,000 would have for the Historic Preservation Trust?

Pattye Benson, the president of the trust, thinks that if the donation offered to her nonprofit organization was unethical, donations for firefighters — especially from companies and individuals that do business with the township — were too.

And after a review of both situations, we think she’s right. If it would indeed have been unethical for the trust to accept the gift, it was unethical for the supervisors to solicit donations — at the very least, donations from businesses, which they did.

Situation 1: In 2008, Pitcairn, a company in a final review of negotiations with the township for a land-development deal, offered the trust an in-kind gift (that is, a donation of goods or services rather than cash).

Benson didn’t know a thing about the deal. But Judy DiFilippo, a board member on the trust, did: she was also a township supervisor. The township, concerned that it would look like Pitcairn was getting the development deal in return for the gift, told Benson she had to turn it down, which she did.

Situation 2: The supervisors were not able to find the funds to budget the normal contribution to the fire companies that serve the township. To attempt to cover the costs, Supervisors Bob Lamina, Warren Kampf and Paul Olson personally solicited cash donations — including from Comcast, which is currently negotiating a contract with the township. They collected $23,200 total.

These are the facts available, and the situations are parallel. Were the donations themselves, both offered and collected, in fact unethical, creating a pay-to-play situation? We’re not sure. Any gift could create that appearance; should, then, businesses never donate to locally beneficial causes?

This seems absurd, suggesting that the potential conflicts of interest should be transparently discussed, but not that they should be universally turned down. And in fact, in this instance, the active solicitation by the supervisors creates much more of a “pay-to-play” aura than the offer which originated with Pitcairn.

The supervisors have claimed that they were acting as private citizens. But in that guise, why didn’t DiFilippo count as a private citizen when Pitcairn offered its donation? And more to the point, are the supervisors seriously suggesting that the companies that do business with the township somehow, on some level, forgot who the supervisors were — something they’re at great pains to establish firmly during elections?

We’re not suggesting it’s bad to collect money for fire companies. We think the donations in question might not be unethical, in both cases. We are pointing out that it is, in fact, inconsistent for the township supervisors to act out of concern for appearances in one instance, while actively creating that appearance in another. The large size of the gift offered by Pitcairn and the fact that fire companies are, for most people, more emotionally charged organizations than historic trusts do not make the situations different at base.

We also think it added insult to injury when Chairman Bob Lamina told Benson, “I’m disappointed in you, Pattye. This was a win-win for the fire companies that one individual here today tried to diminish,” and questioned her motives for challenging the fundraiser. Yes, she might very well be personally miffed. But that doesn’t make her wrong — and in that situation, we might be miffed too.

Daily Local Runs Article on BOS Meeting

April 26, 2010
Comments

I picked up yesterday’s Sunday Daily Local newspaper and was surprised to see that they too were running the story from last week’s Board of Supervisors Meeting. Blair Meadowcroft’s article from the Main Line Suburban Life appears in the Daily Local newspaper in a slightly different version with a new headline.

It has now been a week and I’m still fielding phone calls and emails from people, wanting more details about the Pitcairn Properties offer and an explanation of the difference between that offer and the solicitation of Comcast. As I explained at the supervisors meeting, I believe that conceptually the Pitcairn offer is the same as the supervisor’s solicitation of Comcast and can offer the residents no further explanation.

Although the Trust board members were left with no choice but to accept the Board of Supervisors decision on Pitcarin in 2008; I have to admit several Trust supporters have suggested that the BOS decision might have been different if the public had been made aware of the offer at the time. However, for the Trust, it is not about going backwards — we accepted and understand that we can not go back to 2008 and recover that offer from Tony Noce, of Pitcarin. It is about 2010 and about the process and decisions of our Board of Supervisors.

From my vantage point, questions remain unanswered by the supervisors responsible for the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive. Other than bringing public awareness of supervisors Kampf, Lamina and Olson solicitation of companies doing business in the township or under contract negotiations (such as Comcast) what more can be done?

Tredyffrin official responds to question about fund drive

By BLAIR MEADOWCROFT, Special to the Local News

TREDYFFRIN — Tension mounted at a township supervisors meeting after Pattye Benson, president of the Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust, spoke about funding for firefighters.

Her comments came just after the end of the first quarter and the March 31 deadline for collection of the Tredyffrin Supervisors Holiday Firefighter Fund Drive.

Benson said that after budget cuts to township fire companies, three of the seven supervisors worked on the fund drive, which netted $23,200 for the fire companies.

“I voiced my concern about the solicitation by supervisors to companies that could be doing business with the township, and I cited a specific example from May 2008 and the Pitcairn Co,” Benson said.

Benson explained how in 2008 a vice president for Pitcairn Properties had offered an in-kind donation worth as much as $50,000 to the trust. But the trust later learned it could not accept it.

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

That conflict of interest, Benson said, is similar to the fund drive in that supervisors were doing fundraising for fire companies.

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

Kampf said township Solicitor Thomas Hogan had advised that the donation could not be accepted because Supervisor Judy DiFilippo was on the trust’s board, thereby creating a conflict of interest.

“The difference as I see it between the situations is that we are supervisors who are free as individuals and who are allowed to accept charitable donations,” said Kampf.

“I do not surrender my rights as a private citizen. When I see a problem that I can help with, I will. We went out, asked for help and were able to raise close to $25,000. And people were free to refuse to donate. There were some who refused, and that is fine; we wouldn’t hold that against them.”

Long Week Since Monday Night’s Board of Supervisors Meeting . . . Where do we stand?

April 23, 2010
1 Comment

Since the Board of Supervisors Meeting on Monday, many of you have weighed in with your views and thoughts . . .

  • Over 100 comments have been added to Community Matters during the last 3 days;
  • YouTube moments created from supervisors meeting;
  • Front page coverage of “Tensions Mount in Tredyffrin” in Main Line Suburban Life;
  • Ethics violation lawsuit against supervisors Kampf, Lamina and Olson discussed; any method of Home Rule Charter removal of elected officials for ethics violation would be deemed unconstitutional by State of Pennsylvania

In the review of the 100+ comments, I offer the following quotes from readers on the subject of Monday night’s Board of Supervisors Meeting:

From Mt. Pleasant Supporter, ” . . . Shame on you Lamina/Kampf/Olson. You are a disgrace to the position of Supervisor. You have crossed the line once again. I am not a fan of lawsuits, but I hope you all get removed. . . “

From John Peteresen, ” . . . The donation form makes clear that when started, the fund raising campaign was an officially sanctioned Township effort – much like Tredyffrin 300.The second smoking gun is Comcast. Comcast is actively negotiating its Tredyffrin cable franchise. There is no question that an air of pay to play is present here. . . “

From Neighboring Friend, ” . . . Little men with something to hide respond to polite, fact-based comments and questions with anger, defensiveness, and personal attacks. You should be ashamed of yourselves. . . “

From Papadick58, ” . . . As a life long Republican and a right-wing conservative I am ashamed of the actions and comments by the BOS to Pattye’s statement, but not at all surprised by their tactics. . . “

From Tredyffrin Voter, ” . . . Everyone in the room and everyone who watched on TV heard Mr. Kampf give these facts in a very civil manner, including Ms. Benson who was at the meeting.

From Jim Albright, ” . . . Warren Kampf has the audacity to justify the clearly political and self-serving cardboard check moment as (and I’m paraphrasing) the sort of feel-good moment that might take place during a New England town meeting. He must think we’re really stupid. . . “

From Roger, ” . . . Bob [Lamina] is using his position as a bully pulpit. His behavior hurts the image of those Republicans, me being one, who engage in civilized discourse with all parties. I always fail to understand how these individuals think they can treat people like this. Quite frankly it’s disgusting. . . “

From Disgruntled TTRC Member, ” . . . At some point, the insanity has to stop. The overriding issues have centered on loyalty to Tredyffrin’s “favorite son”. The issues have been brewing for some time. I for one will not be working for Warren on primary day. . . “

From Confused, ” . . . I watched the meeting on television ‘live’ and feel that the comments on this blog are way off base. I saw no disrespect by any of the supervisor’s of any of the residents in their comments. . . “

From the West, ” . . . my biggest question remains: why don’t the fire companies do this themselves? why don’t they hire a professional fundraiser instead of trying to do it themselves? . . .”

From Disillusioned in Tredyffrin, ” . . . It really bothers me that there are residents in the township who feel it is the Fire Departments job to Fund Raise (which btw, they do fund raise). Personally, & in my opinion I think it ludicrous that they are expected to fund raise at all. . . “

From A Friend of Pattye’s, ” . . . Appalling though it was, after watching the meeting I was even more discouraged about the prospects for fair and open government than ever. If anyone thinks this board of supervisors gives a hoot about anything beside their own party- driven agenda, you’re kidding yourself. . . “

From Sarah, ” . . . If you want to do business, you join the Chamber of Commerce, you join the Paoli Business associations….all those things are to promote your business. It’s the fact, however, when an elected official is associated with the request for the money — it’s all bad….regardless of the outcome. . . “

From Township Reader, ” . . . HOW does Bob Lamina asking Comcast, Saul Ewing, Lamb McErlane (or whatever firm Mr. Hogan serves) not only SMACK of pay to play, it validates it. WHY is the judgment of the supervisors so dysfunctional? Why are the moral compasses not working? It is always going to be “because we said so” as the reason for about everything they do that is challenged by the public? . . . ”

One of the comments that represents how many of us are feeling based on Monday’s Board of Supervisors Meeting was provided by CJ of the Main Line. I support CJ’s position that the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive should not be a party line issue. ‘It is an ethics issue. It is a personal agenda issue. It is a priorities issue’. Here is his/her comment in its entirety:

From CJ of the Main Line, What does any of this banter back and forth about who supports who and what party line is involved?

The bottom line here is nothing short of this:
The Supervisors decided to cut money from the fire companies that they expected. The fire companies were not happy. At the same meeting, the supervisors voted to keep the fire works. The dollar value was about the same. Fire Company & Residents put pressure on the supervisors with a very compelling show of support and petition.

Backed up to the wall, three supervisors took it upon themselves to go out and directly solicit money to cover the difference. They did it without telling other supervisors or the fire companies. In a brave showing, Warren Kampf made a surprise public display of a check representing the dollar value of anticipated pledges to support this band-aid cause.

The solicitations were done on paper that had supervisors names, the township managers name, township logo and the township’s address on it. This is not how the fire companies run their fund drives. It is not an ordinary process and was done virtually publically, with public statements and all… by the supervisors… after the big check was presented.

This was wrong for a multitude of reasons:
1) Fairly clear break of the home rule charter.
2) Placed the Fire Companies in a fairly itchy position collecting money they did not solicit and were being told how to distribute against their normal process.
3) Some supervisors used this effort to try to boost a public image of the supervisors (at least one) at the sacrifice of others.
4) Went against a very vocal, large outcry from their residents to utilize the fireworks money for their safety, not recreation.

I am displeased to say the least that there are some who want to turn this issue into a party line issue.
It is an ethics issue. It is a personal agenda issue. It is a priorities issue.

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme