Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Pattye Benson

Although the Dark End of the World Predictions Failed, There’s Light for Tredyffrin’s Special Election

May 23, 2011
5 Comments

If you are reading this, the end of the world predictions failed to pan out for Harold Camping. The religious broadcaster made the world’s biggest mistake, twice. Camping got the date wrong in 1994 when he said the world would end that year, and later explained its continued existence by saying he had made a mathematical error.

However, the May 21, 2011 prediction was different; Camping and his followers lavishly spent more than $100 million on billboards and radio advertising. Now Camping is left shaking his head, bewildered, that things did not go according to his prediction and the world did not end at 6 PM on May 21. With no Plan B in place, Camping may be forced to find some obscure, overlooked translation or an error in his math and then move the apocalypse date to a new date.

To follow up on last week’s special election in Tredyffrin, by the time you read this, there may be further news. It is my understanding that at 9 AM this morning (Monday), the two at-large supervisor candidates, Democrat Molly Duffy and Republican Mike Heaberg are meeting with Chester County voter service representatives. (The special election determined who would fill the vacated seat of Warren Kampf until January 2012). Also in attendance for the voter services meeting will be a representative from the local Democratic and Republican parties. Additionally, Duffy and Heaberg will each have an attorney present. Voter services will be conducting a hand count of the votes from the special election with Duffy, Heaberg and others in attendance.

I am not clear if voter services is hand counting the votes from all 17 precincts or only the precincts where is evidence of voting machine malfunctions. As it now stands, the unofficial vote count from last week’s special election indicates 2,266 votes for Duffy and 2,226 votes for Heaberg, a difference of 40 votes. The public needs to know that the total count in the special election is accurate and that all votes were counted, but . . . we as a community need to get to the other side of this issue and accept he voter services hand counting today.

Tonight is the Board of Supervisors meeting . . . will supervisor Heaberg remain on the dais as a member of the Board of Supervisors or, if the hand count with voter services supports the unofficial results that Duffy is the winner, will she take her seat as a supervisor? Originally, all indications were that the official results from the special election would be official and certified in 4-6 weeks. However, the special election hand counting is taking precedent over voter services handling of the primary election results; perhaps there will be an official vote count released today. Stay tuned.

The End of the World is Today, May 21, 2011 . . . Or Not

May 21, 2011
2 Comments

“Apply yourself both now and in the next life. Without effort, you cannot be prosperous. Though the land be good, you cannot have an abundant crop without cultivation.” ~ Plato

Plato’s words may be put to the test today. The AP wires and major news networks worldwide are running with the story . . . the end of the world is nigh; today, May 21, 2011, to be precise. At least today is the date that Harold Camping, a preacher from Oakland, California is predicting the end will come.

If Mr. Camping were speaking from any normal pulpit, it might be easy for us to dismiss him as just another religious eccentric. However, thanks to America’s airwaves, 2,000 billboards coast to coast and worldwide news reporting, we find his unlikely Doomsday message difficult to ignore.

Camping comes from a long line of seers, sages, preachers and prophets – all of whom time has proven wrong. What makes Camping different is the precision of his prognostications – an exact date and time, providing an uneasy sense of certainty in uncertain times. He is predicting that the end of the world will start today, Saturday, May 21. Camping believes the end will start in New Zealand at 6 PM (local New Zealand time) with the largest earthquake in human history. If we factor in the time difference, what does that mean for us on the east coast? Or . . . is it already Sunday, May 22 in New Zealand?

At 89 years old, Camping delivers his impending end of the world message out to his followers daily via the Family Radio Network, a religious radio organization funded entirely by his listeners, which he founded in the 1950s. Through the generosity of supporters, with assets over $120 million, the deep pockets of Family Radio now owns 66 stations in the US alone. Camping’s programming on Family Radio is delivered in 48 languages, and boasts tens of thousands of followers around the globe, with radio stations in South Africa, Russia and Turkey.

Camping’s prophecy comes from numerological calculations based on his reading of the Bible. When asked about his end of the world prediction, Camping is quoted in Britain’s newspaper, The Independent, “We’re not talking about a ball game, or a marriage, or graduating from college. We’re talking about the end of the world, a matter of being eternally dead, or being eternally alive, and it’s all coming to a head right now.”

Should we be planning how to spend our last hours on Earth?

Before you give away your car or make plans for your last shopping trip to the mall today, you should know that Camping has been wrong before. Yes, Camping’s last prediction for Judgment Day was September 6, 1994, and . . . 16-1/2 years later, the world remains. Such predictions are nothing new, but Camping’s latest has been publicized with exceptional vigor.

Preferring to take the positive, half-full approach to life, I choose to believe that we all will still be here tomorrow, May 22nd. But then again, maybe it already is tomorrow in New Zealand.

The Cost of a Ballot Challenge in Tredyffrin Township . . . $2,614.60 plus posting a bond fee

May 19, 2011
10 Comments

The closeness of the election results, coupled with reports of voting machine malfunctions, has led to speculation about a possible vote recount in the Duffy-Heaberg special election. As reported on the Chester County’s Department of Voter Services website, the unofficial election results indicate that Democrat Molly Duffy received 2,266 votes and Republican Mike Heaberg received 2,226 votes.

I have received several notices stating that the Republicans were challenging the election results of the special election and calling for a vote recount so . . . I did some investigating in hopes of better understanding the process. First off, I called the Chester County Department of Voter Services. As of 3:30 PM today, Thursday, there has been no ballot challenge petition received for the special election or any other race in Tredyffrin Township. Further, as was explained to me by a voter service staffer, it would be unlikely that such a petition would be received at this point in the election certification process. Why? Here’s what I learned from a Chester County’s voter service staff member on the certification process.

The voter service ‘computation committee’ will meet for the first time tomorrow (Friday) to begin work on the 2011 Primary Election certification process. This committee will take 2-3 days to sort through all the paperwork from the 226 voting precincts in the county (Tredyffrin Township has 17 voting precincts). After sorting the paperwork, the committee begins with write-ins, absentee votes and reconciliation of ballots from each precinct in the county. To complete the certification process will take the computation committee 4-6 weeks. According to the voter services representative, it would be unlikely that someone would challenge the vote count until the certification process is completed. It would appear that a candidate should wait until the election results are certified and pronounced official. I asked if the reported malfunction voting machines would pose an additional time delay and the response was not likely.

Curious, I asked if there was such a thing as an ‘automatic’ recount of votes if the certification process indicated that a race was very close, say just a few votes separating the candidates. The answer was no; there is no automatic recount; regardless of how close the election results.

Next question, how much does it cost to petition for an election recount? I discovered that Chester County Department of Voter Services does not handle the money side of a ballot challenge and I was referred to the Chester County Prothonotary’s Office. I called the Prothonotary’s Office and spoke to Elizabeth Doan, First Deputy. Deputy Doan explained that the fee schedule for a ballot challenge is $153.80 per precinct. Since the Duffy-Heaberg special election was for an at-large township seat, the petition charge is $153.80 for each of Tredyffrin’s 17 precincts or a total cost of $2,614.60. Additionally, there is a bond fee of $50, which the applicant would need to petition to have returned. It was unclear if the $50 bond fee was per precinct or a one-time fee; Doan suggested that I contact an attorney for clarification.

What did I learn from this exercise? It would not appear to make sense to petition for a ballot challenge until after Chester County Department of Voter Services completes its certification process. The computation committee has to first complete their certifying process before they can do a recount and that would be 4-6 weeks from this point. I was cautioned throughout my conversation with voter service staff that the election result numbers on county website are unofficial until they are certified.

I hope that this clarifies the ballot challenge process and offers a timeline for the election results certification and the cost of a petition process in Chester County.

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
44 Comments

The polls have closed; the votes counted and unofficial results from Chester County indicate that in the special election race for supervisor, Democrat Molly Duffy received 2,266 votes, Republican Mike Heaberg 2,226 votes and that there were 6 write-in votes. According to these results, the unexpired term of Warren Kampf will be filled be Duffy until January 2012. Heaberg was appointed in February 2011 as the interim township supervisor pending the results of the special election. Heaberg and Duffy will face-off again in the November general election for a new 4-year, at-large supervisor term.

The election of Duffy to township supervisor was history making; she becomes only the third Democrat in Tredyffrin’s history (and the first woman) to hold the office. I congratulation Duffy on this achievement and I look forward to seeing what she can accomplish over the next 7 months. There are many important upcoming township issues including the public hearing on a historic preservation ordinance change on Monday, May 23 and the June public hearing on sidewalks in the township, which will require her immediate attention.

The weather for the primary was dismal as was the voter turnout. It appears that only about 21.62% of the eligible Tredyffrin Township voters cast a vote in yesterday’s primary election. (Countywide the number of eligible voters who went to the polls is even lower at 15%), Of the 3,000+ independent voters in Tredyffrin, only 7% took their voice to the polls yesterday. Voting in primary elections is not an option for third-party voters so many independents may have stayed home, not aware that they could vote in the township’s special election. For those independents that did vote yesterday, our ballot only contained one race, the special election. Another interesting statistic from yesterday’s primary, – there were 63 people who voted in the primary election but did not cast a vote in the special election. Why? I wonder if that a conscious decision or an oversight by the voter? With an unofficial margin of victory at 40 votes, those 63 votes made a difference.

Yesterday’s voting polls were not without technical glitches. At my polling location, Tredyffrin W-2, a technician from Chester County was called for a voting machine malfunction. Apparently, the voting machine was beeping and displaying system error messages when some of the voters placed his or her paper ballots in the scanner. According to the County technician, other precincts in the township were reporting similar problems.

When the polls closed at Tredyffrin W-2, the counter on the scanner said that 517 ballots had been deposited; however, when the machine was opened and the ballots hand-counted, there were 522 ballots inside. It would appear that the scanner did not process all of the ballots. If this was a widespread problem, theoretically it could change the results of any close elections.

From the County website, click here for the unofficial results for Tredyffrin W-2. You will see that it shows 519 ballots cast – 2 more than the 517 ballots counted by the scanner. According to the Judge of Elections for Tredyffrin W-2, this is because two voters used the electronic machine and, therefore, cast electronic ballots rather than paper ballots. In short, the unofficial results reported on the County website are not correct because at a least a hand-full of paper ballots were not processed by the scanner and, therefore the results do not include the votes of all those that voted. The County will need to re-process all the paper ballots to verify the voting results.

Are the absentee ballots included in these County results? Will the re-processing of the ballots change the outcome of the special election . . . ? We may have to wait for that answer until the ballots from all 17 Tredyffrin Township precincts are re-processed.

I do not recall this technical voting machine malfunction in past elections, so here’s hoping that the glitch is corrected for the November general election.

Calling Applicants for T/E Citizen Earned Income Tax Study Group . . . Can its Membership be Apolitical?

May 17, 2011
3 Comments

We learned at the last T/E School Board meeting that the school board had decided to create a citizen Tax Study Group to study the Earned Income Tax (EIT). Postcards with details concerning the application process were mailed and I received mine today. The Tax Study Group is open to Tredyffrin and Easttown residents and the group is charged with researching the pros and cons of an EIT. The group will meeting up to eight times through September and October and then present their findings to the school board and to the community.

According to the post card, interested residents are asked to complete the Tax Study Group application online at www.tesd.net by June 15, 2011. Community members chosen will be notified after June 21. Seeking to include a diverse group of residents, questions on the application range from level of applicant’s education; children in the district; to employment status (whether you work in the school district or not, retired, etc.). Applicants are also asked why they wish to be considered for the Tax Study Group and what specific expertise you would bring to the study group.

A discussion point presented at the school board meeting, but not mentioned on the application, is in regards insuring that members of the Tax Study Group selected are apolitical. To explain, school board member Kevin Mahoney suggested that the Tax Study Group needs to be apolitical; no political candidates or elected officials should not be included in the group. However, I note that there is no mention of that point on the postcard or on the application. I support Mahoney’s suggestion, and believe for the EIT process and discussion to be the most valuable it should exclude a political bias.

I have a few questions about the Tax Study Group that is not available on the school district website – How many residents will be on the Tax Study Group? Will members include a balance of Easttown and Tredyffrin residents? What is the exact selection process and criteria? At the school board meeting, it was announced that the study group would not include any school board members, but will they make the selection of the study group members? I want the selection process and the membership of the study group to be apolitical (as was suggested) how will the school board seek to achieve this goal?

Today is Primary Election Day . . . Why Vote?

May 17, 2011
10 Comments

Candidates come and candidates go. Elections are won and lost. It matters that you vote. It is your voice – and the only person who can silence your voice is you. So applaud, complain, march, protest, petition . . . these are your rights but, without your vote, they are meaningless actions, backed up by nothing.

Why vote? So you can decide. Why let other people decide what is best for you when you have a voice: the vote. It’s your right.

Why vote? Young people, women and underrepresented groups all fought hard for the right to vote. Even today, there are countries where people are still fighting for the right to vote. Vote in honor of those who can’t.

Why vote? It is the way we change things. That is the way we reform the system and exercise our responsibilities.

Why vote? Because every voice counts. Try and appreciate the power of voting by exercising it!

Bottom Line: You should vote because you can!

Your right to vote is your right to expression and opinion. Do not take your right for granted.

Today is Primary Day and the Special Election . . . Did You Vote?

You have a voice, use it by voting. Polls open until 8 PM

Light at the End of the Tunnel for Tredyffrin’s Special Election Candidates – Your Vote Counts!

May 15, 2011
2 Comments

There is light at the end of the tunnel for Republican Mike Heaberg and Democrat Molly Duffy, Tredyffrin’s special election supervisor candidates. Monday, May 16 will be the last full campaign day before the special election and primary election the following day. Appointed interim township supervisor on February 7, Heaberg faces opposition from Duffy in the special election . . . they will take their case to the voters on Tuesday, May 17. Vying to fill the open Board of Supervisors seat left vacant by State Rep Warren Kampf, Heaberg and Duffy have spent much time at people’s doors in the community, asking for support and hoping to garner a commitment of a vote.

Historically local voter turnout for the primary election is dismal; but maybe the prospect of choosing a supervisor in the special election will attract more voters this year. For us registered Independents, primary elections come and go in Pennsylvania, always without us . . . sadly we do not get to vote in primaries. Pennsylvania is one of 18 states where Independent voters cannot vote in primary elections; I have often-thought that closed primaries disenfranchise a significant number of the American people.

So although we must leave it to our Republican and Democratic friends to vote in Tuesday’s primary election, the Independents can make our voice heard in the supervisor selection process in the special election. Yes, all registered Independent voters, your vote will count in the Heaberg-Duffy special election race. Although we only get one vote on Tuesday, it is an important vote nonetheless . . . your can help decide who will serve our community as an at-large supervisor until January 2012. Regardless of who merges victorious on Tuesday, Heaberg and Duffy will both appear on the November general election ballot for a full 4-year term.

For registered Democratic and Republican voters, you too can vote in the special election but, additionally you can vote in the primary election for supervisor, school board and magisterial district court judge candidates.

The polls will be open for the special and primary election from 7 AM – 8 PM. Below are all our local candidates that will appear on Tuesday’s ballot.

In case you missed them the last time I posted them, I have again included each candidate’s resumes or bios. (click on the candidates names).

Although I encourage and welcome thoughtful debate and commentary on Community Matters, it is your vote that will make the difference on Tuesday!

Special Election Supervisor Candidates:

Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisor Candidates:

Tredyffrin-Easttown School Board Candidates:

It is my understanding that all school board candidates have cross-filed as both Republican and Democratic candidates.

  • Easttown, Region 3: Peter Motel (R) **
  • Easttown, Region 3: Craig Lewis (D) No Response from Candidate

Magisterial District Court Judge, 15-4-01:

** Incumbent

Moving On . . . Is Partisan Politics in Local Elections our New Reality?

May 15, 2011
3 Comments

“Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.”

~ Mark Twain

This week’s torment from my stance on Community Matters (and its use) came with a personal price tag. I watched helplessly as something that I created and nurtured over the past eighteen months became a political football. Rather than feeling good about taking a stand for justice for Community Matters, and myself, I became the target; my words twisted and misinterpreted. In the words of William Shakespeare, “This above all; to thine own self be true”. That mantra proved particularly difficult to follow this week. Through the sadness and disappointment in some people, I learned some difficult life lessons . . . but, I also learned the meaning of true friendship.

In addition to Primary Election Day on Tuesday, May 17, it is the Special Election to decide which supervisor candidate, Molly Duffy or Mike Heaberg, will fill the unexpired Tredyffrin Township supervisor term left vacant by Warren Kampf’s election to State Representative. Tomorrow I plan to list the special election candidates, school board, board of supervisor and municipal judge candidates. I will make available his or her resumes and encourage everyone to get out and vote.

Based particularly on this week’s events, I offer some remarks on the new reality of partisan politics in local elections. Why are candidates for local office forced to play party politics in order to have a viable candidacy? Why can’t they just run as themselves? Whatever happened to “vote for the person, not the party?”

In my perfect world, municipal politics would be free of partisan interests. Those individuals elected to serve, would do so for all the community. The interests of the people would always trump the political party the elected official represents. In my perfect political world. There are, of course, no perfect political worlds, and Tredyffrin Township is no different from the rest.

Politics has the ability to bring out either the good or the bad in mankind. The human desire for power, if unchecked, is evil. Evil partisanship can destroy the fabric of a local community.

Perhaps more appropriate than the label of ‘Independent’, I guess I would call myself an ‘Idealist’. As an idealist, I lament for a future of local nonpartisan elections, where there will victoriously emerge individuals whose intelligence, integrity, intestinal fortitude, character and non-alliance with special interests are beyond question. I wish for a future where important issues and candidate differences can be fairly discussed and openly debated.

In the end, voters will elect whomever they think will do the best job — or at least that’s how they should cast their ballots. But what’s often said about democracy? Despite its obvious faults, it’s the best system of governing. The people, the voters, get to decide who governs them. That will be the final word on partisan politics in local elections, and local government.

The Use of Community Matters on Campaign Ad without Permission . . . Illegal or just Disrespectful?

May 11, 2011
59 Comments

This week I received several phone calls and emails concerning the Molly Duffy campaign ad received by township residents. I was asked why I had sanctioned the use of Community Matters on the Special Election campaign literature. All I could say in response was that Community Matters was used without my permission.

Prior to the printing of this campaign ad by the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee, I was not asked, notified nor did I verify the identity of ‘Resident #1’; the source of the September 19th Community Matters quote used on the mailer. No identifying date or URL (identifying website) from Community Matters appears on the campaign ad, only the quote and the words, ‘Community Matters’. By using Community Matters without appropriate annotation, the reader of the campaign ad could attribute the quote to ‘me’ as the administrator of Community Matters rather than to someone who commented anonymously. The use of Community Matters on Duffy’s campaign ad could further appear that I sanctioned the use of this quote and/or the use of Community Matters for political purpose.

This situation and misuse of Community Matters in a political campaign ad by the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee has really saddened me this week. My intention in creating Community Matters eighteen months ago was not to see it used in this way; it is too important. Community Matters is for the community not for use as political fodder. This campaign ad using Community Matters has placed me in an uncomfortable and awkward position.

In the past, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Main Line Suburban and the Daily Local have sought my permission prior to any publication of Community Matters materials. Other online news sources and blogs have added Community Matters to their sites but have done so with my permission. It would seem reasonable to expect that a local campaign committee would likewise extend the same courtesy. Was the use of Community Matters by the TTDEMS without my permission illegal? No. Was its use unethical or disrespectful . . . ?

Campaign ads that quote from blogs (in this case Community Matters), on which it is often difficult to identify the author, represent a new benchmark in Tredyffrin Township political campaigns. Some that study political advertising feel that using anonymous comments from a blog may violate a well-known standard in political campaigns that a charge against an opponent should be easy to verify.

When someone posts anonymously on Community Matters, how is it that a political campaign can just ‘use’ this information, state it as ‘fact’, and apply it against the candidate. In political advertising, you have to have a source and that source must be verifiable. If the author of a comment posts under his or her actual name on Community Matters (that is verifiable rather than anonymous) a different situation is then presented. Several people, including Andrea Felkins, Ray Clarke, John Peteresen, Kevin Grewell and Ken Buckwalter to name a few, have chosen to identify themselves in their Community Matters comments. Should a verifiable quote be used it would be different but the quote used on this campaign ad was anonymous.

In a Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com article, ‘Blog Comments Become Fodder for Campaign Ads,’ Gary Nordlinger, a Democratic consultant and past chairman of the American Association of Political Consultants ethics committee, said unnamed comments or remarks on blogs should be off-limits. “The AAPC code of ethics says don’t run anything misleading, and arguably this [the use of anonymous comments from a blog] could be misleading,” Nordlinger said. “All a candidate has in his campaign is his or her own personal credibility, and when you run advertising that can be easily revealed as baseless, the attacking candidate puts their credibility at risk.”

I want to be clear . . . my speaking out is not intended to cost votes to one candidate nor do I expect my actions to influence or give additional votes to another candidate in next week’s Special Election. However, sometimes you have to stand up for yourself and do what you think is right; and for me this is that watershed moment.

Do I believe that the TTDEMs used Community Matters on the Molly Duffy campaign ad to intentionally harm me? Probably not. My guess is that they just did not give much thought to my feelings. For the record, the Terms & Condition for Use of Community Matters appears on the home page, click here to read.

Milestone Agreement Between T/E Teachers and School District: Is it a ‘Salary Freeze’ or a ‘Pay Waiver’. . . Does it Really Matter What We Call It?

May 10, 2011
10 Comments

There was a milestone agreement between the T/E teachers and the school district last night. I am not sure whether we call the TEEA-TESD agreement a salary ‘freeze’ or a ‘pay waiver’ but, . . . if both sides are happy, does it really matter what we call it?

The school board members presented the details of the new teacher union offer. The offer from Tredyffrin Easttown Education Association (TEEA) was read and the discussion opened for public questions. The board voted on the proposal and the agreement won unanimous support from the school board.

To read a copy of the TEEA-TESD agreement, click here. If I understand the agreement, here are the important points:

  • The teachers will have their salaries frozen for the first 6 months of the 2011-12 school year based on their final paycheck of the 2010-11 school year.
  • For the second 6 months of the 2011-12 school year, the teachers salaries will ‘unfreeze’ and they will advance.
  • With this agreement, the T/E school district agrees there will be no involuntary furloughing or involuntary demotion of teachers for 2011-12.
  • This agreement is a one-time cost savings for the 2011-12 school year only and is not precedent setting. The agreement does not extend the current contract and negotiations for the next contract will be on schedule.

I asked Pete DePiano, union president of TEEA for his thoughts on the TEEA-TESD agreement. He writes,

“I am so proud of the membership of TEEA for stepping up with this offer during these difficult times. Likewise, I am happy that the Board was able to accept. A special note of gratitude must be extended to Mrs. Cruickshank, for we were in constant communication behind the scenes for a VERY long time working on this – even prior to the Corbett announcement. It was that continued line of open dialogue that made this all possible. We are looking forward to a wonderful conclusion of the school year as we continue to serve the greatest students in the greatest district in the Commonwealth of PA.”

Pete DePiano
President, TEEA

______________________________________________________

Ray Clarke attended last night’s school board meeting and at my request kindly shares his thoughts below.

Re the Earned Income Tax Study Group, I want to personally thank Kevin Mahoney for suggesting that the group members be apolitical. The school board members made it clear that no one from the school board would be on the study group and I applaud their efforts in making the selection process open and transparent!

Important developments at tonight’s School Board meeting
  1. The Board voted to accept an offer from the TEEA to defer next year’s contracted pay increase for six months with no change to the contract termination date. After six months, salaries will increase to the contracted 2011/12 levels, with step and level movement. There will be no furloughs or demotions during 2011/12, and 2012 retirees will be protected. This is expected to save the District $917,000 in 2011/12. The five year model, which assumes no salary increase in the next contract, claimed that these savings versus the previous projection continue into the out years – although I remain puzzled about that, since the matrix and distribution in place at 6/30/2012 is unchanged under the offer. It may be important to understand expectations on this going into the next contract negotiations.
  2. The impact on next year’s budget is fairly clear, though. The board approved a budget that has a 3.8% property tax increase and a $2.2 million draw down of the fund balance, with an additional $1.9 million possible in the event of specific contingencies. There was no appetite for an Activity Fee for next year, and very different philosophies from all Board members that spoke. Only Kevin Buraks voted against an amendment to remove it from the preliminary budget. Worth looking at the tape to review the issues.
  3. The Board defined the process for obtaining citizen input on the pros and cons of an EIT, through a Tax Study Group. They will select 9 residents for the Group based on information to be requested in a May 16th mailing to residents. Work to be completed by October, for a November decision by the Board whether to move the process forward towards an April 2012 referendum. Important difference from the 2006 effort: the group’s role is not to present a recommendation, but to help educate the Board and the public. The Board is looking for representation from across T/E, and wants the group to be apolitical. All meetings to be open to the public; not sure if that’s very conducive to a deep dive into the economics, but maybe that’s not the purpose.
  4. Per Dr Brake’s legislative report, there seems to be some likelihood that the Legislature will reverse or limit the Governor’s proposed capricious Social Security reimbursement cut, so that may help TESD’s budget (at best, by $1 million). It also seems probable that the local ability to increase taxes beyond the Act 1 limit will not be completely eliminated, retaining at least the possibility of PSERS and special education Exceptions.
A final pet peeve: once again this year the gaming rebate was used in the context of an offset to the property tax increase. If the rebate was increasing by $171 that would be true, but in fact it’s just the same ~$180 it has been for every year since 2008/9. At least it wasn’t Dr Waters this time, but rather Dr Brake, who I thought might know better.
Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme