Pattye Benson

Community Matters

State House 157

Tredyffrin Township Then and Now . . . What a Difference 8 Years Makes for Chairman Lamina and Supervisor Olson (or Does It?)

February 18, 2010
4 Comments

What a difference 8 years can make or does it?

Many of us continue to be disturbed by the fact that St. Davids Golf Club was not on the January 25 Board of Supervisors Agenda yet that did not stop Supervisor Olson from making a motion, Chairman Lamina seconding the motion and with the additional votes of Supervisors Kampf and Richter, approving the motion 4-3 to return the escrow to St. Davids.

‘Roger’, a Community Matters reader has also been troubled by the backdoor approach that Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter took to get the St. Davids Golf Club matter just pushed through without public notification. Roger did some background research yesterday, reading Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes all the way back to 2002. His discovery led him to June 16, 2002 BOS Minutes: take a look at what he found:

Under Miscellaneous, Page 3, Paragraph 1: Mr. Olson said he had planned to make a motion tonight to keep the Strafford Library open, but he was informed that it must be placed on a public agenda for everyone to see. He said he will introduce a motion to keep Strafford Library open at the Board’s next meeting.

Interesting to note that in 2002, Board of Supervisors Chairman was John Bravaco and Vice Chairman was Bob Lamina. Supervisors Lamina and Olson understood (and followed) the rules of Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter in 2002 but 8 years later in 2010 the requirement to follow the rules is no longer necessary. How is that Olson knew he could not make a motion without public notification in 2002 but neither he nor Chairman Lamina viewed that as a stumbling block in 2010? I guess we are to assume that the policy and procedures which existed in 2002 are no longer valid. (Or maybe the difference is that Lamina is Chairman in 2010 whereas he was Vice Chair in 2002).

Here is the link for the June 16, 2002 BOS Meeting Minutes

The Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes are now available from the January 25, 2010 meeting. Please take the time to read these recent meeting minutes. You will see that Supervisors DiBuonaventuro and Kichline understand the need for public notification of motions (and just think, these 2 supervisors were not even serving in 2002!). Note in the minutes that several audience members attempted to point out that the rules of the Home Rule Charter were not being followed. Rules, policy, procedures . . . not required by Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter in 2010.

Isn’t it interesting what the Board of Supervisors could do in 2010 they could not do in 2002!

__________________________________________________

The execution of the laws is more important than the making of them.
– Thomas Jefferson

Newspaper Editor Offers His Opinion on our Supervisors, stating ". . . Tredyffrin Township residents deserve better and we will make sure we hold the board accountable for their actions."

February 17, 2010
7 Comments

When do you suppose was the last time the editor of our local newspaper weighed in on the actions of our local elected officials? I cannot remember it happening in any recent times, that is until today. In today’s edition of Main Line Suburban Life, Executive Editor Tom Murray offers strong words in his Editor’s Corner for supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter and their St. Davids Golf Club decision. Tom’s words, ” . . . trust was lost when four of the supervisors made that fateful vote a few weeks back” are understood and echoed by many in this township. (Tom’s full column is below.)

Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter probably thought that their St. Davids decision to return the country club’s escrow would be forgotten by this point, swept under the carpet by their apology and that we (the public) would have just moved on. Just the contrary, . . . far from forgotten, I think we all agree with Tom Murray’s assessment, we do deserve better in Tredyffrin Township.

For the record, there has been no response from Chairman Lamina concerning my email request this morning to add St. Davids Golf Club to the Agenda for the Board of Supervisors meeting. Guess he doesn’t need to respond to me; I will just wait and see if St. Davids is on the Agenda tomorrow.

As an aside, I wonder if the stalling on the St. Davids matter is related to Warren Kampf’s upcoming weekend event – the Chester County Republican Committee have their formal endorsement process in West Chester this Saturday (my understanding is the committee vote will help determine Mr. Kampf’s political future).

Bad decision in Tredyffrin

Published: Wednesday, February 17, 2010

By Tom Murray

Three weeks ago I guess you could say I hit a wall.

After 62 consecutive weeks of writing this weekly column – all 54 in Main Line Suburban Life and eight before that for Main Line Life, I felt I needed a break. We had some very strong letters to the editor and I felt it was more important to hear from the readers.

Two weeks ago the new boss of our parent company started and there were meetings and discussions about our Web site, videos to watch and podcasts to listen to, and bull sessions with my bosses and staff. Another batch of strong letters and guest columns made my decision not to write again easier.

Then last week came the snownami, which according to the Urban Dictionary I found online is defined as “when it is snowing so damn much you can’t even see a thing.” Yes, Mother Nature sure had the last laugh last week when she followed up her 28-inch snowfall with 17 inches more and winds that left many Main Liners in the dark.

A decision was made to push up deadlines so another week passed without this column. I received a few phone calls and plenty of e-mails from loyal readers asking if everything was OK and a few were concerned about my employment status. I assured them that I would make sure that I would let them know when that time comes. I want to thank all those readers who checked in. So with the batteries recharged, I feel it’s important to touch on one issue that I missed the past few weeks.

Up the line in beautiful Tredyffrin Township, the Board of Supervisors voted a few weeks ago that sidewalks weren’t needed at St. Davids Golf Club and they voted to release money from an escrow account that ended the longtime controversy.

While the debate over sidewalks has been around long before I arrived on the Main Line, it was the way the board went about its business that has me concerned.

I took it personally because it was my decision not to attend the meeting when the four commissioners pulled a quick one. Each week I sit down with reporter Blair Meadowcroft and we discuss what needs to be covered. There was a big Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board meeting that same night and the school budget for the year was being discussed. Blair and I looked at the agenda for the Board of Supervisors that night and we made the decision that since there was nothing earth-shattering to be discussed, she should attend the school-board meeting and see where the board would cut millions of dollars in programs.

But a funny thing happened on the way to that week’s newspaper.

I started getting calls and e-mails that night from upset residents letting me know what the supervisors did, and that was bring up the St. Davids issue, debate it for a short time and then vote to give the golf club back the money it originally had to put up. Board Chair Bob Lamina has since apologized to residents for the board’s actions. It was a good first step but I don’t blame residents for still being upset.

Board members need to realize that it’s no longer the 1950s and they can’t get away with this kind of behavior anymore. I had given the board the benefit of the doubt a few times since January’s reorganization meeting, but now it’s personal. That trust was lost when four of the supervisors made that fateful vote a few weeks back.

Tredyffrin Township residents deserve better and we will make sure we hold the board accountable for their actions.

That’s our job.

Supervisor Lamina, Kampf, Olson, Richter Vote to Return St. Davids Escrow Continues to Provide Commentary From Residents

February 16, 2010
11 Comments

Looking at the viewership statistics from yesterday, I am pleased that many residents have watched the February 8 Board of Supervisors meeting YouTube video clips and have continued to weigh in with personal comments. I would encourage you to email the Community Matters link to your neighbors, co-workers, friends in the township; failure to follow policy and procedure by our elected officials is an important issue and one that we need to keep in community discussion. A comment from Township Reader, ” . . . Is there anyone out there who is a lawyer who can tell us if there is any basis whatsoever to do a recall of 1)the vote or 2)the supervisors?” has sparked comments from others, including a couple of attorneys.

JudgeNJury and John Petersen, offer their legal opinions and case studies that speak to the specific problem of recalling both the vote and supervisor(s). Reading through the following commentary, it is obvious that legal recourse would not be a simple, inexpensive road to take. However, I am one of those who believes that justice will win and that the wrong will be righted as it pertains to the vote to return St. Davids escrow. Public scrutiny of the situation, compelling commentary from residents, and continued light on our elected officials will hopefully encourage the supervisors to ‘right the wrong’ at the February 22 Board of Supervisors meeting.

Please read through the following commentary from local attorneys:

JudgeNJury, on February 15th, 2010 at 10:48 PM Said:
As I see it, there are two options for “undoing” the vote: (1) a majority of the Board votes to undo it, or (2) a court orders the Township to undo the vote. Given what we’ve seen so far, option 1 does not seem terribly likely. Therefore, you’d have to pursue option 2. But a court will not do anything unless and until someone brings and prevails upon a suit (which, as a general rule, can take months or years to resolve). This previous thread discussed the legal precedent: http://pattyebenson.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/home-rule-charter-violations-legal-cases-from-philadelphia-and-erie-county/. In short, where a municipality takes an action that violates its Home Rule Charter, the proper course of action for those who want to challenge the decision appears to be a declaratory judgment action to declare the municipality’s action null and void (or “void ab initio,” as they say) and/or an injunction action to prohibit the municipality from enforcing its decision. There are two main problems with bringing suit, one legal and one practical.

First the legal problem: Only a person with “standing” may bring this kind of suit. In Cohen v. Rendell, 684 A.2d 1102 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996), the Philadelphia City Council passed 28 ordinances in one “block vote” (i.e., it passed all 28 ordinances in one vote). Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter, however, provided that ordinances had to be voted on individually, not in a block (I am oversimplifying a bit, but that’s all you really need to know for purposes of this discussion). Therefore, arguing that the vote violated the City’s Home Rule Charter, three private citizens and Philadelphia City Councilman David Cohen brought an action against the City for a declaratory judgment that the ordinances were invalid and for an injunction to prohibit the City from enforcing the ordinances. The Commonwealth Court (one of Pennsylvania’s appellate courts) held that, although Councilman Cohen had standing to challenge the ordinances, the private citizens did not. Here is a quote from the opinion (I cannot find a copy of this opinion on any of the free legal reference sites, so I cannot provide a link to it):

“As to the standing issue, Private Citizens contend that each have standing to maintain the action since each has an interest in Council following the Charter’s procedure for adopting ordinances. In order for Private Citizens to have standing as ‘aggrieved’ citizens, they must assert more than the common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law. See William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168, 346 A.2d 269 (1975). ‘Standing is the requirement that the person bringing the action be adversely affected by the matter they seek to challenge to assure that they are an appropriate party to bring the matter to a judicial resolution.’ Drummond v. University of Pennsylvania, 651 A.2d 572, 577 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994). A person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter he seeks to challenge cannot be ‘aggrieved’ and, thus, has no standing to seek judicial resolution of his case. William Penn, supra. Rather, he or she must allege a ‘direct’ interest by which he or she demonstrates the causation of harm to his or her interest by the matter of which he or she complains. Id. Private Citizens clearly do not possess the type of interest in the result of the ordinances necessary to obtain standing because they have not asserted anything more than an interest common to all citizens. Though they contend that Cronin and Haver [two of the private citizens] represent citizens of the City of Philadelphia who ‘would be affected by the various passed Ordinances’, they have failed to specifically allege that any interest of either Cronin or Haver has been directly affected here. And, though they contend that Shigaki [the third private citizen] was directly affected because one of the 28 ordinances affected ‘streets in the area in which Shigaki lived and encompassed by members of his civic group’, Private Citizens have not pled any facts that would show that he is specifically aggrieved.”

What this means, I think, is that a generic Tredyffrin resident would not have standing to sue the Township to undo the St. David’s vote. Rather, the plaintiff would have to be an individual (or a group of people) who can allege that he or she will be directly and negatively impacted if the Board’s vote is left to stand. And since the vote did not actually kill the sidewalk (although that may be the practical effect, all the vote actually did was release a letter of credit), finding someone who can say they are “aggrieved” by the vote may be difficult.

The second problem – the practical problem – is money. Unless you can find a lawyer to do this for free (not terribly likely, I’d think) you would need to pay for a lawyer to bring this suit, which would not be cheap. This is not the type of case that a lawyer will take on contingency, as there is little chance the court will award monetary damages and, even if it did, they won’t amount to much.

  • Ray Clarke, on February 16th, 2010 at 9:37 AM Said:

    So, if councilman Cohen had the standing to challenge the ordinances in the case cited, would we have to look to one or more of the Supervisors in our situation?

    • JudgeNJury, on February 16th, 2010 at 9:57 AM Said:

    • Yes. This analysis from the Cohen case seems to suggest that one of the Supervisors would have standing to mount a legal challenge:

      “Councilman Cohen, however, as a Council member, possesses the requisite standing to bring the complaint against the City. In Morris v. Goode, 107 Pa.Cmwlth. 529, 529 A.2d 50 (1987), we considered whether individual members of a city council have standing to seek injunctive relief based on council’s failure to comply with the voting procedures mandated by the Charter. In Morris, we held that the plaintiffs, as council members, possessed a legal interest granted by the Charter in having a quorum present to vote on council resolutions. Id. 529 A.2d at 53. In other words, council members individually possess a legal interest in enforcing the voting procedures established by the Charter, and have standing to seek declaratory relief when such procedures are violated.

      And, in an analogous situation, in Zemprelli v. Thornburg, 47 Pa.Cmwlth. 43, 407 A.2d 102 (1979), we held that a Pennsylvania State Senator’s right to have Governor’s nominations to vacant appointed offices submitted within the constitutional period conferred a legal interest upon him by which he possessed standing to seek a judicial remedy against the Governor when he failed to submit such nominations. Because Cohen, as an elected, voting member of Council, has a legal and direct interest in ensuring that Council follows the procedures set forth by the Charter, we hold that he does possess standing to bring his case against the City.”

    JudgeNJury, on February 16th, 2010 at 10:28 AM Said:By the way, I was curious to see what the ultimate resolution was in the Cohen case so I pulled the docket from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas:

    “30-SEP-1999
    03:44 PM WSFFD – FINDING FOR DEFENDANT GLAZER, GARY S 30-SEP-1999
    03:47 PM
    Docket Entry: IT IS ORDERED THAT THIS COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS EQUITABLE POWERS, FINDS THAT ALTHOUGH THE HOME RULE CHARTER WAS VIOLATED BY THE USE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, THE NULLIFICATION OF THE 28 ORDINANCES, PASSED BY CONSENT AGENDA BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PHILA ON 6/22/95, WOULD IMPOSE GREAT HARDSHIP ON ALL INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES AFFECTED. THEREFORE, THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLTF IS DENIED, AND A FINDING IS ENTERED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFTS IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER. BY THE COURT ….GLAZER,J 9/30/99″

    So even if you can prove a violation of the HRC, that is no guaranty that the Court will award relief.

  • John Petersen, on February 15th, 2010 at 11:04 PM Said:

    This link may help..

    http://www.lgc.state.pa.us/deskbook06/Issues_Governance_08_Removal_from_Office.pdf

    • Not good news… In PA, we simply cannot recall an elected official. There must be a crime of some sort. Is there underlying criminal activity re: the St. David’s vote? As outrageous as many of my comments appear to be, even I wouldn’t go that far as to allege a crime was committed here. Bad judgment and bad political calculations. Put it this way, if there was a cognizable crime here, I would be shocked. And for the record, not much shocks me…

    Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors Meeting, 2-8-10 . . . YouTube Video Part VI: Final Citizen Comments, Loss of Trust in Elected Officials

    February 15, 2010
    3 Comments

    This last video clip of the February 8 Board of Supervisors meeting is important to watch. Many more residents speak including Lou Erdelan, Marie Thibault and Carol Clarke. What is striking in this part of the meeting is that many residents are now speaking to an overriding concern . . . the loss of trust in our elected officials. Pay close attention to Lou’s remarks, he says that he has worked on committees with Warren (Supervisor Kampf) and that he thought he could trust him.

    There is a sadness when you have people who represent organizations, committees, groups, standing up and questioning the actions of our elected officials. What happens to a community when the residents don’t feel that their elected officials can be trusted?

    Folks, the clock is ticking on this situation and we need resolution and answers which we did not receive at the last supervisors meeting. In my opinion, Supervisors Lamina, Olson, Kampf and Richter have one more chance to correct the trust issue and that will happen at the February 22 Board of Supervisors Meeting. Here’s hoping that they find the courage to do what is right.

    To watch the final video clip: YouTube Video Part VI: Final Remarks, Loss of Trust in Elected Officials

    Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors Meeting, 2-8-10 . . . YouTube Video Part V: Residents Pattye Benson, Liz Feinberg & Supervisor DiBuonaventuro's Response

    February 15, 2010
    2 Comments

    As I have said from the beginning, for me the decision to return St. Davids escrow is not about sidewalks. It is about the failure of certain supervisors (Lamina, Kampf, Olson, Richter) to follow the policies and procedures as set forth in Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter. I find it remarkable that as elected officials they make the choice to disregard the rules (deciding instead to govern as they please), apologize for their actions and then expect the community to just move on. I stand behind the comments that I make in this video clip. The actions of Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter have now set precedent; with liability to the taxpayers for lawsuits as a result of this vote. When asked at the January 25 supervisors meeting, township manager Mimi Gleason agreed that the return of St. Davids escrow has now set precedent for future developers doing work in Tredyffrin.

    Supervisor DiBuonaventuro’s response is an interesting section of this video clip. His comments and understanding of the citizens stands in stark contrast to remarks made by Supervisors Lamina and Kampf. I know many of us thank JD for hearing the residents and trying to ‘right’ the wrong of the decision to return St. David’s escrow.

    Please watch this video clip: YouTube Video Part V: Residents Pattye Benson, Liz Feinberg & Supervisor DiBuonaventuro Response

    Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors Meeting, 2-8-10 . . . YouTube Video Part IV: Residents Speak Out

    February 15, 2010
    12 Comments

    Residents continue to offer their opinion on the St. Davids escrow return at the February 8 Board of Supervisors Meeting. Please note that the community members who attended the meeting and offered their remarks where not ‘arranged’ in advance.

    If you recall, there was a small group of St. Davids neighbors contacted for the January 25 BOS meeting. It was at that meeting that St. Davids Golf Club did not appear on the agenda, no public notification and yet some of Supervisor Olson’s constituents in the St. Davids area somehow knew to show up (some even had written comments) and support Olson’s motion. Supervisor Olson was absent for the February 8 meeting. Interestingly the small Olson support group also did not attend that meeting.

    At the February 8 meeting, one after another resident offered commentary and asked questions of the supervisors. For the most part, their questions were unanswered, citing legal reasons. Chesterbrook Jim Bailey did not expect to speak but was so troubled by the treatment of Supervisors Lamina and Kampf towards resident John Petersen, Jim was compelled to speak. He also offered that he was a Tredyffrin Republican committeeman; highlighting that the issues/concerns with certain elected officials was not about one political party vs. another.

    Please watch this video clip, Part IV: Part IV: Residents Continue to Speak Out

    Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors Meeting, 2-8-10 . . . YouTube Video Part III: Citizen John Petersen

    February 14, 2010
    6 Comments

    The next to take his turn to present comments was John Petersen. The audience witnessed an amazing exchange between John and Chairman Lamina and Supervisor Kampf. John attempted to ask questions of the supervisors but was quickly interupted by Lamina and Kampf. It was obvious that they had come to the meeting prepared to ‘take John on’ . It appeared to me that Lamina and Kampf were not about to let John make his comments without intervention. Although John tried to ‘plow’ on through, at one point Lamina is heard to say that John would not be allowed to speak again. The behaviour of these 2 elected officials calls in to question a citizens right to freedom of speech.

    The interchange between John and Lamina and Kampf is one that all residents need to watch; YouTube video clip, Part III: Citizen John Petersen

    Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors Meeting, 2-8-10 . . . YouTube Video Part II: Christine Johnson

    February 14, 2010
    9 Comments

    One of the most moving moments of the Board of Supervisors Meeting was when Mt. Pleasant resident Christine Johnson took her turn to speak. Christine eloquently spoke of her community, Mt. Pleasant as not being a sidewalk to nowhere as is often referred to by Supervisor Olson. Christine is a research librarian and she put hours in to research, providing copies of minutes from Board Meetings, Planning Commission meetings, STAP meetings, etc. Please watch Christine’s passionate delivery of information . . . and please watch as virtually no response is offered from Chairman Lamina.

    Please watch this video clip: YouTube Video Part II: Christine Johnson

    Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors Meeting, 2-8-10 . . . YouTube Video Part 1: The Apology of Lamina, Kampf & Richter

    February 14, 2010
    6 Comments

    The Board of Supervisors Meeting on February 8 was important for many reasons. I wrote about the meeting in my post, United in their Resolve, Residents Speak Out. Many residents attended that Board of Supervisors meeting and I know that many watched at home. But I thought it was important to capture some of the important commentary of that evening, so my husband Jeff has kindly put together sections of the supervisors and citizens comments from that meeting and is in the process of uploading them to YouTube. As they are uploaded I will post them on Community Matters. I added a new page to the front-page of Community Matters, If you look across the top, you will see a tab for YouTube Videos. Going forward, you will be able to locate all relative videos by clicking on that tab. Hopefully, this will make it easier for residents to review.

    YouTube Part 1: Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Apologize . . . Lamina, Kampf & Richter Supervisors Lamina, Kampf and Richter make their apologies for the vote of January 25. Their apology is followed by citizen comment. First to speak is Dariel Jamieson, newly elected chair of the Tredyffrin Township Democrats. Ms. Jamieson speaks to the issue of Supervisors Olson and Lamina speaking disparagingly of Democrats in the newspaper, in emails and also at the January 25 board meeting. Supervisor Lamina had little response for Ms. Jamieson in regards to his actions.

    Bringing Attention to our Small Business Community, State Representative Paul Drucker Chooses Paoli for Re-Election Campaign Office

    February 13, 2010
    8 Comments

    State Representative Paul Drucker is kicking off his State House 157 re-election campaign and Paoli office opening this Monday, February 15. His new campaign office is located at 12 E. Lancaster Avenue, across the street from Starbucks and the Paoli Train Station.

    Due to the economic downturn, Paoli, like so many areas of our community, has empty storefronts. Conditions for small business remain challenging. Taking one of those storefronts for his local campaign office provides Paul with continued visibility in the community; highlights the Paoli Train Station redevelopment project; and brings attention and awareness to Paoli’s small business community. By keeping the flow of business and energy in the neighborhood, everyone can play a vital role in regenerating the economic growth of Tredyffrin. I am looking forward to our community emerging from survival and in to the growth mode, ready to focus on the future again. Supporting the business community of Tredyffrin Township supports everyone. State Representative Drucker’s campaign office in the heart of Paoli will provide an opportunity for residents to understand the ongoing need for revitalization and encouragement of our township business community.

    I applaud the choice of Paoli for State Representative Paul Drucker’s campaign office but would suggest that his website, www.votepauldrucker.com needs to be updated. I just checked and the last entry is November 2008, following his election to the State House.

    Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme