PA State House 157 Archives - Page 5 of 6

PA State House 157

Once again to clarify my position. Although I was disappointed by the Board of Supervisors decision in May 2008 that would not permit the Trust from accepting the estimated $50,000 in-kind offer from Pitcairn Properties, the Trust’s Board of Directors accepted their decision. The reasoned decision by the supervisors was based on the fact that Pitcairn at that time was in land development negotiations with the township. (Albeit, I was not aware of their project). During this time, Judy DiFilippo was a Trust board member and a sitting supervisor and the concern was that a perceived pay-to-play might exist if the Trust were permitted to accept Pitcairn’s offer. This based on the fact that Judy was both a Trust board member and a supervisor.

I only offered Pitcairn as an example at the supervisors meeting to ask why the same pay-to-play perception would not exist with the solicitation of Comcast by supervisors Kampf, Lamina and Olson (understanding that Comcast is currently negotiating their 15-year franchise contract with the township). As has been stated by others, I agree that the Pitcairn decision by the Board of Supervisors in 2008 was the correct decision, . . . I just wanted to understand why are the same rules were not applied in 2010 with the solicitation of companies doing business with the township (Comcast)?

Blair Meadowcroft attended the Board of Supervisors Meeting on Monday night and below is an excerpt of her article that deals with the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive. For the full article, click here.

Tensions Mount in Tredyffrin

By Blair Meadowcroft

Tension mounted at the Monday-night Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors meeting after Pattye Benson, president of the Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust, stepped up to the microphone during the public-comment part of the meeting. Her comments were brought up just after the end of the first quarter as well as the March 31 deadline for collection of the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighter Fund Drive.

Benson explained how after budget cuts were made to the Tredyffrin Township fire companies, three of the seven supervisors worked on fund-raising for the Firefighter Fund Drive, resulting in a check for $23,200 that was presented to the fire companies.

After waiting for the Fund Drive to be complete, Benson questioned the supervisors’ fund-raising, stating, “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 Company.”

Benson went on to explain how in 2008 a sizable in-kind donation, a gift valued at as much at $50,000, had been offered to the Trust by a vice president for Pitcairn Properties. But the Trust later learned it could not accept the offer.

“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 chair 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, as understood by Benson, is similar to the Firefighter Fund Drive in that supervisors were doing the fund-raising for the 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.”

Throughout explaining the situations, similarities and her confusion, Benson made the point to explain that three of the current board members, Michelle Kichline, Evelyn Richter and Phil Donahue, were not on the board when the Fund Drive began. But she did want the other board members to explain why the Pitcairn and fire-company situations were handled differently.

“These are the same supervisors but different rules,” said Benson. “I would have liked to have been able to accept the $50,000 from Pitcairn like you were able to accept money for the fire companies. This is not about the money that was raised. It is about the process that they used to raise the money, the source of the donations and the encouragement donors may have felt in responding to the solicitation.”

In response, Kampf explained how at the time of the Pitcairn offer, township solicitor Thomas Hogan gave the advice that it not be accepted because serving Supervisor Judy DiFilippo was on the board of the Trust, making it 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.”

The discussion continued to go back and forth between a select few of the board members, Benson and a few residents. While Benson stated she was “just trying to understand why the rules are different,” the board members responding asked what her motives were.

“For you to stand up here and insinuate that this was a bad thing makes me question your motivation behind bringing this up now,” said Chairman Bob Lamina. “The timing is just interesting. We are supervisors but we’re also individuals. We made some calls and exceeded our fund-raising goal. I’m disappointed in you, Pattye. This was a win-win for the fire companies that one individual here today tried to diminish.”

While the issue was not solved, the fund-raising and budgeting question shifted after Berwyn Fire Company Capt. Eamon Brazunas approached the microphone.

“On behalf of the three fire companies, the funds raised did cover most of the budget shortfall, but we still believe the cut was a mistake,” said Brazunas. “We are, however, happy that the cut will be restored in the 2011 budget.”

Supervisor John DiBuona-venturo went on to add that the fire companies’ expectation is that funding will start back at the 2009 levels. While Lamina and Kampf agreed that a funding solution needs to be found for the fire companies, and that the board is likely to restore the funding, it was stated that no public commitment has been made.

“We feel the amount of money we were able to raise shows that if we work together with the fire companies that we will be able to do great things,” said Lamina. “We are working to re-engage the fire-company task force and plan to meet in May to discuss funding as well as other task-force issues.”

YouTube Moments from Tredyffrin’s BOS Meeting of 4/19

April 21, 2010

51 Comments

I have received many emails and calls regarding Monday night’s Board of Supervisors meeting. Like many of you, I too am dismayed by the attitude and behavior of some of our elected officials. Contrary to Mr. Lamina’s remarks on Monday night, I believe that when you are elected to serve a community, . . . you are elected to serve all the people, not just those that are of your own party affiliation. Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent or a member of the party of ‘purple’ — your job as an elected official is to serve all of us. It is unfortunate that does not seem to be the case with some of those currently elected to serve this township. As I stated on Monday night and here on Community Matters, I sent 2 emails to the Board of Supervisors last week inquiring about an official update on the fire company funding and received no response. Had there been the courtesy of a response to my questions by Chairman Lamina, it would not have been necessary to publically repeat the questions that I detailed in the email.

In review of the meeting on Monday night and Lamina’s claim of disappointment in me . . . I think, no Mr. Lamina, I am disappointed in you. At one point you reference being on the ‘bully pulpit’. On that we would agree. I know now what it is like to be at the hands of a bully. I was your target, as was Carol Clarke. As the chairman of the supervisors, does being a bully make you feel good, . . . are you are a better person for it, . . . is this your idea of leadership? Maybe disappointed is not the right word, maybe I should just say that I feel sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can not allow other people to have opinions, to offer solutions or ideas unless they are in agreement with you.

For those of you who did not see the Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday night, my husband Jeff kindly created video clips for YouTube.

BOS Meeting 4/19/10 Part I: Pattye Benson\’s Statement

BOS Meeting 4/19/10 Part II: Response to Pattye Benson\’s Statement from Lamina, Kampf, & Olson

BOS Meeting 4/20/10 Part III: Carol Clarke\’s remarks w/response from Bob Lamina

BOS Meeting 4/19/10 Party IV: Dariel Jamieson

As an amusing aside, I was just notified that Jeff’s YouTube video selections from Monday’s BOS meeting have now been picked up by Reality TV on Twitter — guess these local government moments will be shared throughout cyberspace. This is probably meaningless to those like Mr. Lamina who diminish the merits of ‘Benson’s Blog’ as he calls it. I say Community does Matter — here’s hoping that there’s enough of us in this community that agree.

Supervisors Lamina, Kampf & Olson Provide Reality TV for Tredyffrin Residents

April 20, 2010

41 Comments

Below you will find the entire transcript of my statement at last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting. I know it is long but I decided that the only way to fully explain, was to insert an unedited version. I do not believe in surprises and it was not my intent to catch the supervisors off guard last night, so I sent 2 emails last week, detailing my questions and concerns about the firefighter funding process and reminding them of the Pitcarin decision of March 2008. The $50,000 in-kind offer to the Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust was not permitted due to what could be perceived as a ‘pay to play’ arrangement between the township and Pitcarin. I received no responses to either of my emails.

I had advised the supervisors of my concerns; so my expectation for last night was that they would simply listen and at best, thank me for my remarks. Unfortunately for me, the Keene Hall audience and those watching at home that is not what happened. If one was only interested in the merits of reality TV, than last night was worth watching. As I stated last night, it was my intention to wait until after the first quarter had ended before exploring the process of the fundraising effort. (March 31, 2010 was the announced end date for collection of the fire company donations).

I waited until the fund drive was successfully completed and the money safely delivered to the fire company before opening the discussion on the process. In between the personal insults which were hurled at me, I realized something. It is OK to agree with the supervisor decisions but there’s a personal price paid if you wish to have a differing opinion. At one point, Bob Lamina called Community Matters a democrat blog and told us he refers to it as ‘Benson’s Blog’. Where that came from, I have no idea, but that will certainly be a YouTube moment. (Yes, my husband taped the meeting).

Lamina and Kampf’s admonishment of me using personal attacks and negative innuendos was disgraceful. Following their attack on me, Carol Clarke, a Great Valley resident felt compelled to speak up in my defense and to offer her opinion on the supervisors solicitation of local companies, and the perception by the community (as she saw it). Although a gallant effort (and much appreciated by me) Carol also was viewed as the enemy and similarly dismissed by supervisors Kampf and Lamina. Next Dariel Jamieson took the microphone, determined to seek an apology from Lamina to the democrats in the township and to Pattye Benson. Chairman Lamina retorted that he was allowed to have whatever opinion he wanted, apparently even as chair of the supervisors. Wow, in an instance I was taken back to earlier township meetings over the St. Davids sidewalk issue . . . remembering that Kampf, Lamina and Olson rule the township. They make the rules and once again they are free to break the rules. If you notice, I included Section IX, 902A of Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter in my remarks last night. (You will see it referenced below.)

At one point, Kampf referred to the supervisors meeting as a ‘New England Town Hall meeting’ — I have never attended a town hall meeting in New England, . . . are they laced with the same level of disrespect for the speakers? Lamina repeatedly questioned the ‘political timing’ of the fire funding discussion to myself and to Carol Clark. The timing of my remarks had to do with the ending of the first quarter, March 31st, which [by their own admission] was the official end of the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighter Fund Drive. I respectfully waited to discuss the process until the drive had ended . . . political timing, I don’t think so.

Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, and Olson consistently held the line that they had solicited as residents rather than supervisors for the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive. But remembering that the cardboard check was presented during a Board of Supervisors Meeting and the members of the solicitation committee were named (Lamina, Kampf and Olson), I am not sure how it would be possible that the businesses did not know that they were supervisors. For those that are interested, here is the solicitation form which was used.

I would encourage you all to watch last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting and draw your own conclusions. I have received a couple of emails from Blair Meadowcroft, writer with the Main Line Suburban who attended last night’s meeting. She is writing an article about the meeting and I will be curious to read her take on it.

_________________________________________________

Unedited transcript of my statement presented at April 19, 2010 Board of Supervisors Meeting

I would like to address the process of the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive. When the Fund Drive was announced on December 21 Board of Supervisors Meeting with the presentation of the cardboard check, I was as surprised as many in the community. I understood that the significance of the $23,200 cardboard check as presented by Warren Kampf was to make up for the cut to the fire companies that had occurred as a result of the township’s 2010 budget. I was surprised that 3 of the supervisors, Warren Kampf, Paul Olson and Bob Lamina had come up with this idea and with no discussion from the community were already out fundraising. It seemed unclear whether the other supervisors were aware or not of this venture. It was also unclear whether the fire companies had been counseled about the Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive. I set aside my concerns and problems with the process until after the first quarter – which as I understood it would be the cut-off for the Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive.

We are now safely past the first quarter, the money has been collected and turned over to the Berwyn Fire Company and I would like to address issues and concerns with the process. I should say at this point, that my questions are only addressed to supervisors Bob, Warren, Paul and JD – Phil, EJ and Michelle were not on the Board of Supervisors in December 2009 when the fund drive began.

To receive an official update from the Berwyn Fire Company, I contacted their president Rip Tilden, asking 4 questions. Last week I sent the following questions to Rip Tilden, president of Berwyn Fire Company, and copied the Board on the email.

(1) What was the total amount received by Berwyn Fire Company as a result of the solicitation efforts of supervisors Olson, Lamina and Kampf?
(2) Has Berwyn Fire Company distributed the money to Radnor and Paoli fire companies?
(3) Can you provide a complete list of the donors, individuals and corporate?
(4) Are there any contributions that the fire company can not accept and therefore must return?

Rip kindly supplied me with his detailed response which I have added to my Community Matters blog and also sent to you. The total they received from the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive was $24,400. In response to my question for the list of donors, it was Mr. Tilden’s suggestion that the information come from the solicitors, not the fire company, which would be the Tredyffrin Township supervisors.

When I sent you a copy of Mr. Tilden’s response to my questions, I asked you to add this topic to the agenda, answer the questions and suggested that the public should have a complete accounting of the supervisors fund drive. I received not response to my email to the board of supervisors, nor did I receive a response to my 2^nd email to the board of supervisors.

In my email to you, 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 Company. The same four supervisors, Warren Kampf, Bob Lamina, Paul Olson, and John DiBuonaventuro were supervisors in 2008 and were involved with that decision, as was Mimi Gleason and Tom Hogan. For the benefit of the other supervisors and the public, I will briefly explain. I was and still am the president of Tredyffrin Historic Preservation Trust, a nonprofit 501c3 organization. Judy DiFilippo (who was a supervisor at the time and also a Trust board member) and myself attended a press party for the Trust. At the party I was approached by Tony Noce, a VP for Pitcairn Properties. We had information available at the party on the Jones Log Barn and Mr. Noce was extremely interested in the historic rebuilding project and asked detailed questions about the barn. I explained the background and history of the project and that the barn was to be rebuilt in Wilson Farm Park. Mr. Noce suggested that to me that his company could help with their use of heavy equipment for grading, etc. He explained that his company would be building an office building in Chesterbrook and if we could work out the schedule, he’d have his guys bring the equipment over to do the grading and would have some of his people add a few extra work days to help the Trust.

I was delighted with this generous offer and truly excited about the possibility of some real help with the Jones Log Barn project, in the form of an in-kind donation. Remember, I did not solicit Pitcarin’s help – it was offered to me and the Trust. I viewed the kind offer as just that, a kind offer of help and a gift valued at as much as $50,000. We used the offer in grant applications, pushed up the date for the architectural drawings, etc. so as to be able to accept this offer.

About 6 weeks after the offer, Judy receives word at an Executive Session of the Board of Supervisors that the Trust would not be allowed to accept Pitcairn’s in-kind offer.The Board of Directors of the Trust received the following email from Judy from May 6, 2008: (excerpted)

“ . . . Trust Board Members –

1) Last evening in Executive Session there was discussion about Pitcairn’s offer to the Trust. Some of you may know that the Township is trying to negotiate an agreement with them relating to a new office building they want to construct in Chesterbrook. The Board was concerned that there was a perceived ‘conflict of interest’ with their offer to grade and/or excavate the ground in Wilson Farm Park for the construction of the barn, “What did they want in return?” for their offer. . . “

The idea was that there could be a ‘pay to play’ perception because of the final review of the land development project between the township & Pitcairn. Needless to say, I was very upset – I was not on the planning commission, the zoning commission, nor an elected official, and I was not allowed to accept this offer. Warren Kampf was chair at the time and called me while on a business trip in California to discuss the board’s decision. 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.

Fast forward 18 months to December, 2009 and the very same people who told me that I could not accept an offer with a company that was doing business in the township (even though I didn’t know it) goes and solicits local companies. Mr. Kampf read off a list of donors at the December 21 meeting of the cardboard check presentation that included:

Cafe Winberie’s
Christopher’s
Braxton’s
Margaret Kuo’s
Comcast
PECO
Devon BMW
Devon Horse Show
Lamb, McErlane
Villanova University
Saul Ewing
Aqua PA
Liberty Property Trust

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. If a business that was solicited by the supervisors during the Holiday Fund Drive were to have zoning, planning development projects, contract negotiations, etc. with the township, the perception of pay-to-play would exist. (This was the argument provided when I debated that the Trust should be allowed to accept Pitcairn’s offer.) Conceptually, there is no difference between the situations.

Comcast is currently negotiating a 15-yr. franchise agreement with the township which expires in 2010, Lamb McErlane is the township solicitor and has an agreement with the township and they were solicited and donated, Aqua PA has a contract with the township, and Liberty Property Trust has had ongoing land development issues for the last decade over Church Road in the Great Valley.

Referencing the Home Rule Charter, Article IX, Prohibited Activities and Conflict of Interest

902. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

A. No elected or appointed official of the township shall:

1. Engage in any activity or take any action by virtue of his official position from which activity or action the official, or any other person or entity in whose welfare the official is interested, shall benefit or realize a gain or advantage. Such benefit, gain or advantage shall not, however, be construed to be prohibited if the action in question is in behalf of a group of citizens of the township and such benefit and relationship is generally known and acknowledged.

2. Solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, favor, service, commission or other consideration that might reasonably tend to influence that official in the discharge of the duties of office.

3. Seek to influence, directly or indirectly, the awarding of any contract where such official is interested or would benefit directly, financially or otherwise, from said contract. Such action is not intended to apply to actions of a Supervisor on behalf of a group or class of citizens of the township who would benefit from the contract and such benefit and relationship is generally known and acknowledged.

I would like to understand why 4 supervisors in 2008 said that Pitcairn’s offer could be perceived as a pay to play but the same supervisors OK their own solicitation of local companies. This is not about the money that was raised. It is about the process that they used to raise the money – the source of the donations and the encouragement donors may have received/felt in responding to the solicitation.

Why was the Trust not permitted to accept an in-kind offer but supervisors can openly and publically solicit? Why are there different sets of rules applied? Same supervisors – different rules.

Today is the Last Day to Register (or to change your registration) for Pennsylvania’s May 18 Primary

April 19, 2010

8 Comments

Voter Registration Deadline Today

Today is the last day to register to vote in Pennsylvania’s May 18 Primary. It is also the last day to change your registration from one political party to another. To register will require you to go to Chester County Department of Voter Services by close of business today.

Chester County
Department of Voter Services
601 Westtown Rd., Suite 150
West Chester, Pa. 19380
610-344-6410
www.chesco.org

State Rep. Paul Drucker hosts 2nd Annual Community Leaders Breakfast

April 15, 2010

Comments

Our State Rep. Paul Drucker hosted his 2nd Annual Community Leaders Breakfast this morning at the Radisson Hotel in King of Prussia. Last year’s honoree was former supervisor Bill DeHaven; this year Mary Foote, executive director of the Colonial Theatre in Phoenixville was chosen.

Sitting among the volunteers this morning, I reflected on how these people are giving back to others and are making a real difference in their community. Many attending the breakfast were from Phoenixville who share and support the work of Mary Foote at the Colonial Theatre. Sharing is the keyword to describe the way in which volunteers approach their work. Volunteers share their skills and talents, even their money. But above all, they share themselves. They know that this attitude is the true measure of success in life and that it makes this community strong and healthy.

Thank you Paul for understanding the meaning of community service and for honoring the hard work of our community volunteers.

Judy DiFilippo Officially Endorses Ken Buckwalter for 157th State House District’s Republican Primary

April 15, 2010

8 Comments

For those who follow closely, a couple of days ago, Judy DiFilippo’s endorsement of Ken Buckwalter for the 157 was on Community Matters briefly and then removed. The confusion has been resolved — here is her endorsement.
____________________________________________________________________

Former Tredyffrin Township supervisor and candidate for the 157 State House District seat herself, Judy DiFilippo has decided to formally endorse Ken Buckwalter of Phoenixville in the Republican Primary. Below is Judy’s endorsement statement:

The 157th State House District includes Tredyffrin, the Borough of Phoenixville, Schuylkill Township, and 6 precincts located in Lower Providence and West Norriton Townships in Montgomery County. Two qualified candidates were recommended by the members of the Chester County Republican Committee in this District for our consideration in the Primary Election. As voters, we must now do our part and choose the person whom we believe will best represent the Republican Party in the General Election and then serve the citizens of the 157th District.

This is not a ‘Tredyffrin seat’ nor is it a ‘Phoenixville seat’. As candidate – and now U.S. Senator – Scott Brown said, “It is the People’s Seat!” It is my belief that Ken Buckwalter is running for the People’s Seat. I have observed that he is guided by principles, not politics. He has shown his ability to garner support from voters across ‘party lines.’ On behalf of taxpayers, he is capable of making tough decisions about budgets and quality of life issues. Though in the minority, he has worked with his fellow elected officials for the ‘greater good’ of the community.

As a small business owner, he has first-hand knowledge of how the economy affects jobs and our families. In addition, he understands the benefits of volunteer organizations and has been a volunteer himself. Ken has reached a place in his life where he can devote himself fulltime as a Legislator. All of these attributes deserve our consideration.

While each candidate is qualified, after long and careful thought, I have made my choice. On May 18, 2010 I will cast my vote for Ken Buckwalter in the Republican Primary, the candidate who will represent the 157th District in the People’s Seat.

Judy L. DiFilippo

Berwyn Fire Company Weighs in on Status of Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Fund Drive

April 12, 2010

9 Comments

If you recall, at the December 22 Board of Supervisors meeting, there was a Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Fund Drive announcement and cardboard check’ presentation by Supervisors Kampf, Lamina and Olson. The check in the amount of $23,200 was well documented on the local news channels, in the newspaper and here on Community Matters. This check was to represent the township’s 2010 budget cut to the fire companies. Although Paul Olson has called me periodically to update me on the Holiday Fund Drive, there had been no official word from either the fire company nor the supervisors. Last week I sent an email to Rip Tilden, president of the Berwyn Fire Company and copied the Board of Supervisors asking the following questions:

Rip graciously supplied me with a detailed response to my questions. Accompanying his letter to the community was a wonderfully supportive note which I much appreciated. Below is Rip’s open letter to the residents of Tredyffrin Township. As I expected, Rip reports that it has been the policy of Berwyn Fire Company not to provide donor information, preferring to turn that responsibility over to the supervisors who were in charge of the solicitation (Kampf, Lamina, Olson).

I am going to send a copy of this letter to the Board of Supervisors and ask that the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Fund Drive be added to next week’s supervisors meeting agenda. The Holiday Fund Drive has successfully achieved their December goal, and much like it was important to publically announce the solicitation drive with the ‘cardboard check’, I likewise think it is important that the community have closure on this matter. I will ask for an official update from the Board of Supervisors and their response to my questions, including the list of donors.

Berwyn Fire Company response to questions from Pattye Benson

April 10, 2010

Dear Tredyffrin Community,

On behalf of the three fire companies that service Tredyffrin Township (Berwyn Fire Company, Paoli Fire Company, and Radnor Fire Company), I can report that we have received $24,400 as a result of the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Fund Drive effort. We understand that one or two additional donations may still be coming to us, which would make the ultimate total greater than that amount. The donation money will be divided among the three fire companies based on coverage area (each fire company will receive the money donated by individuals and companies who reside in their coverage areas). We plan to distribute the money to the other fire companies this month (each of the presidents of the fire companies agreed to wait to distribute the funds until all the money was received).

These funds will be included in the annual fund drive totals at the fire companies, which means we will use them to help fund our general operations. We encourage members of the community to donate directly to the fire companies through the direct mail fund drives that are currently in progress. The funding needs of all three fire companies are substantial. For example, the annual operating budget for the Berwyn Fire Company is approximately $1.5 million, with about 18% of our funding needs in 2010 covered by municipal support (your tax dollars). We must fund the other 82% of our operating expenses through our own fundraising efforts, billings for ambulance calls and other sources (grants, rent, etc.). The Berwyn Fire Company responds to approximately 3000 calls a year (fire and ambulance calls) with a team of 65 volunteers and 9 full time employees (firefighter/EMTs and firefighter/Medics).

We have long had a policy of not releasing the names of donors (either individuals or companies) who make contributions to the fire company, unless they specifically ask us to do so. No one has done so in this case. We feel strongly that we should respect the privacy of our donors. We thank those who have coordinated this fundraising effort and we feel we should allow them to handle any questions as to donor information.

We thank the members of our community for their support during the budget discussions last year, and for their financial contributions. When it comes to our funding needs, your support is invaluable.

We are now focused on working through the Tredyffrin-Easttown Fire Task Force to put in place a long-term funding solution that will ensure that all of the fire companies that serve these townships can continue to provide the superior fire/EMS services that we have come to expect in this community. We look forward to working with both Boards through the current Task Force to achieve this goal in 2010.

Sincerely,

Rip Tilden, President
Berwyn Fire Company

In Forty Years There Have Been Many Changes in Tredyffrin – Unfortunately Some Things Never Change . . . Fire Company Funding

April 7, 2010

48 Comments

This topic is Community Matters at its best. I received an email yesterday with an attached Suburban and Wayne Times newspaper article dated Thursday, July 15, 1971. A reader was cleaning out his attic and came across this article and forwarded it on to me. No comment or request to post on Community Matters . . . he just thought I might find it of interest. The title of the article is, “Volunteer Firemen’s Financing is Critical”. (A link to the article at the end of this post.)

The article is based on local volunteer fire companies along the Main Line and Valley Forge, including Radnor, Berwyn and Paoli. What is both fascinating (and sad) at the same time is the plea for the volunteer firefighters funding in 1971 is exactly the same as in 2010. The tone of the article begs that more support needs be offered by the municipalities served. In discussing firefighter funding, a fire chief is quoted in the article as saying, “It has to be done on a municipality basis. It’s the township’s or borough’s responsibility to provide protection for persons and property. . . . They don’t take the responsibility . . . The volunteers do it.”

In 1970, Tredyffrin supervisors allocated $15,750 to the Berwyn fire company. Forty years ago, the Berwyn Fire Company had a deficit $1,632, due to lack of volunteer firefighter support. With populations exploding on the Main Line and aging equipment in 1971, all the fire companies were appealing to the local governments for adequate funding. There was agreement among the various fire companies, that greater support was required from the service areas. Here’s a fascinating 40-year old quote, when talking about residents, fire chiefs observed, “Many encounter surprise from new residents that the fire company isn’t a municipal service. Some persons have never even heard of a volunteer fire company, particularly those from metropolitan areas.” I am guessing that our local fire companies still encounter the same kind of remarks in 2010!

There is discussion in the article as to “What can residents do to back the volunteer fire companies”? The response was “Join!”. In 1971, the yearly dues were $1 for the Valley Forge company, $2 in East and West Whiteland, $5 per family in Berwyn and $12 per family in Paoli (which included family and ambulance service).

This post should be more than simply a walk down memory lane. It needs to be a wake-up call to the supervisors and residents. Although I have posted that Paul Olson called and told me that his solicitation committee (which included him, Lamina and Kampf) have made good on the cardboard check they presented to the Berwyn Fire Company in December, . . . there has been no official statement from the Board of Supervisors on the subject. If you recall, the cardboard check of $23,200 represented the amount the supervisors removed from the fire companies in the 2010 budget. Guess my question is where do we stand on the 2011 budget process . . . will the fire companies see their total budget reinstated? And if the township reinstate the contribution to the fire companies in the 2011 budget, what will the supervisors cut from the budget to make that happen?

We are in to the 2nd quarter of the year; has the Finance Committee begun working on the 2011 draft budget? I’m thinking that there are associated winter costs (snow removal, stormwater problems, repair of potholes, etc.) that could be considerably higher than was forecasted for in the 2010 budget. The 2011 budget process needs to be underway or there is going to be major problems come November. With the loss of Dave Brill as the township finance director, I am assuming that the supervisors need to take a very active role in the economic forecasting.

Here is a link to the 1971 newspaper article, if you would like to read it in its entirety. Funding of our fire companies is an important issue and a topic that needs to remain at the top of our priority list. Comments from the readers . . . ?

Just in . . . Carole Rubley Endorses Ken Buckwalter for PA State House 157 District

April 2, 2010

29 Comments

I received the following press release from Ken Buckwalter announcing that Carole Rubley is endorsing him for PA State House 157.

Hon. Carole Rubley endorses Kendrick Buckwalter for 157th District, Pennsylvania House of Representatives

“I respect his work ethic, his strong commitment to the community.”

PHOENIXVILLE, PA. Carole Rubley, the highly respected former member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, today announced her endorsement of Kendrick Buckwalter to become the next member of the House of Representatives from the 157th District.

Rubley said, “I have known Ken for many years. I respect his work ethic, his strong commitment to the community, and his faithful observance to our Constitution. I strongly support his candidacy for State Representative. Ken is a man of principle and integrity who stands up for the Rule of Law. He can be counted on to work fulltime for the citizens of the 157th District.”

Buckwalter, a business owner and member of Phoenixville Borough Council, said, “I’m honored to have the support of Carole Rubley. She faithfully represented our district in Harrisburg. She is a respected member of our community and I appreciate her help and her support.”

Buckwalter is running in the May 18, 2010, Republican Primary for the position. He is a recommended candidate by the Republican Committee of Chester County.

“I’m looking forward to representing the district,” Buckwalter said. “As a Councilman for eight years I’ve compiled a record of protecting taxpayers. I look to cut government programs that waste tax dollars. As a business owner for 36 years, I know the value of a dollar. I’m a businessman, not a career politician.”

Buckwalter is also a defender of the Pennsylvania Constitution. As a councilman, he filed a lawsuit when he believed council was violating a provision of the Constitution. “I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I believe in the founding principles of this country and I had a duty to challenge a violation of our laws. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unanimously upheld my view.” Buckwalter has also served his community as a volunteer firefighter and being a foster parent.

He strongly supports creating jobs, government fiscal responsibility, economic growth, entrepreneurship and personal liberties. Buckwalter has compiled an outstanding mainstream conservative record as a councilman. “I believe in conservative values, fiscal sanity, transparency, honesty, law and order and family values,” Buckwalter said.

Pennsylvania Legislators can use Tax-Free Per Diems for Home Purchase . . .What about taxability issues or fraud possibilities?

March 23, 2010

1 Comment

I tripped across an interesting article in the Pennsylvania Independent about a fascinating perk that is available to our Pennsylvania senators and representatives. Did you know that our legislators can use their per diem ($154) towards an investment home purchase?

I wonder how many of our state legislators have taken advantage of this apparently ‘legal’ perk? Using government tax-free per diem for home purchase leaves me wondering about the taxability issues . . . and what about fraud possibilities? Interesting to have this discussion as the state’s General Fund budget of $29 billion is expected to pass today. Remembering last year’s late budget which took a catastrophic toll on thousands of Pennsylvania’s residents, makes you wonder about this perk of our elected officials, doesn’t it?

Per Diems Can Be Used to Purchase Homes

By Darwyn Deyo

Despite the budget deficit facing the Pennsylvania legislature this year, representatives and senators are able to use tax free per diems to cover the cost of their housing, even if they live within 50 miles of the Capitol.

“If you live within 50 miles of the capitol you’re not eligible for the housing per diem. There’s nothing in the regulation that says you’re eligible for a second mortgage,” said Eric Epstein, coordinator for Rock the Capital. “Per diems were not designed to underwrite home mortgages or provide equity. If per diems are being used as an investment vehicle then we need to look beyond ethical lapses and explore tax fraud because they may be eligible. If they use the money as an investment and are accruing interest, that should be a taxable event. If they are harvesting an interest break off a mortgage payment, that’s a taxable event.”

Per diems can also be used by legislators who live within 50 miles of the Capitol but travel beyond that for committee meetings.

The Internal Revenue Service’s daily per diem limit for Harrisburg is $154, which would cover the cost of a hotel in the area, but some legislators, including State Reps. Todd Eachus (D – Luzerne) and James Wansacz (D – Lackawanna), purchased homes near the Capitol. While a per diem for housing at a hotel would cover the cost only of each night at the hotel, applying a per diem to a mortgage creates a commodity the owner can re-sell at a later date. Per diems, for example, can be used for travel expenses but not for the purchase of a new car. Mr. Wansacz also spoke with high school students last week as part of a forum on youth and government at Keystone College, where the representative answered questions on putting in for per diems for take-out meals.

Beyond the housing-as-investment use of per diems, however, lays the taxable element. Whereas a non-legislator is required to pay taxes on their income and then budget for items like housing, meals, and travel, a legislator using tax free per diems to pay for housing, meals, and travel essentially receives a supplement to their legal salary, a supplement controlled by rules set by legislature itself.

In an interview with the Scranton Public Policy Examiner, Mr. Wansacz said “There is nothing illegal about accepting per diems. I can tell you, the House and the Senate would have to change that next session. If that comes up for a vote, I would have no problem changing that. I have to show that I have living expenses. What I can tell you is that I’m not making any money off this. I’m not a wealthy individual. The only income I have is my salary.”

But Mr. Epstein said per diems are rarely denied and the legislature doesn’t even require receipts or vouchers to reimburse. Pennsylvania taxpayers cover about $2.7 million a year in reimbursed per diems. If taxed at Pennsylvania’s current income tax rate of three percent that would put $81,000 back into the General Fund.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters