Tredyffrin Easttown School District Archives - Page 16 of 42

Tredyffrin Easttown School District

Yesterday, the League of Women Voters held the TE School Board candidate debate and the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors candidate debate. I attended both debates. Although the debates were not shown live, they will be available for viewing (Comcast 2 and Verizon 24 channels) sometime after Monday’s Board of Supervisors Meeting. My guess is that there will be separate schedules for the two debates – check the township website for details.

Unfortunately, due to the lateness of scheduling, the school board debate was limited to a 1-hour format versus the 2-hour supervisor debate format. In speaking with the League of Women Voters representative, Mary Lou Dondero, before the debate, I learned more about their scheduling process. Ms. Dondero was none too pleased about the lateness of which the school board candidates debate was scheduled. When asked who was responsible for debate scheduling, it was interesting to learn that it not the local political party leaders that should ask but rather the candidates themselves who should contact the LWV. This is good information to know going forward.

Six of the eight school board candidates participated (due to prior commitments, Easttown Democrats Maryann Piccioni and Jean Kim were unable to attend). After each candidate presented a 2-minute opening personal statement, the moderator read questions, which audience members had anonymously submitted. Each question was answered by all candidates with the moderator giving each candidate the opportunity to be first to answer. Following the questions, each candidate had an opportunity for a 2-minute closing statement.

The LWV debate is not the traditional format that many of us recall from our high school/college days, but rather a Q&A forum. The downside of the LWV debate style is it does not allow for rebuttal by candidate. Case in point, the LWV repeatedly asked the candidates (both school board and supervisors) to respond to the specific question yet several candidates answered the LWV questions with accusations against their opponents. Due to the LWV format, it made it difficult for the candidates to defend the accusations.

Everyone that follows Community Matters knows that I fought for a school board candidate debate. Important school district issues surfaced this year, making for a contentious situation for all involved — the Board, administration, employees and the public. For my efforts in moving the school board debate forward, some questioned my agenda. If I had an agenda, it was simple – voters need to ‘know’ the candidates and candidates need to have the opportunity to deliver their views on issues, before Election Day. Hindsight being 20/20, I’m actually glad that I had nothing to do with the school board debate other than to attend. I cannot be accused of unfairness or a bias in the organization of the debate – candidates were not coerced; they own their words.

For those of us who regularly attend and/or watch the school board meetings, there was little surprise in most of the audience questions. As a result of contentious school board meetings this year, many of the questions related to communication, trust, transparency and morale issues, — asking what would the candidates do to ‘improve’ the current situation, if elected.

Five of the six candidates spoke of the need to improve communication and several of them mentioned morale issues. School board director Rich Brake (R), who is seeking re-election, accepted that there have been communication issues between the Board and the residents and spoke of the need to improve the dialogue, suggesting town hall meetings. Brake believes that the negativity issues need to be handled directly and wants to bring people together. It was refreshing to have a current elected official acknowledge the problems, accept responsibility and suggest ways for improvement.

With a similar response, Brake’s opponent Scott Dorsey (D) supports greater transparency and open dialogue between the public and the Board, suggesting a public advisory board. Dorsey spoke out against the Board’s use of the consent agenda and suggested its use should be reconsidered. The consent agenda is designed for routine items, such as meetings minutes. However, as Dorsey explained, the consent agenda takes away the public’s right to question an issue. The consent agenda can bury an item that the Board does not want publically discussed. In my opinion, in 2013 we saw the misuse of the consent agenda by the school board for the hiring of Andy Chambers and the inclusion of administrator raises and bonuses. If the hiring of the former police chief as the District’s security expert or giving raises to the administrators was such a good idea, why not openly discuss them in a public school board meeting, than than buried in a consent agenda. Dorsey was the only candidate to address the consent agenda issue.

Easttown Republicans Doug Carlson and Virginia Lastner spoke favorably on the topic of communication, wanting to see greater resident participation and awareness of District issues. Lastner wants the employees to feel that they can speak candidly and not risk their jobs by speaking out. Referring to her background and prior elected positions in Connecticut, Lastner is a proponent of the “listen and learn” concept.

Tredyffrin school board candidate Pete Connors (R) remarks on this topic included “morale starts with leadership”. Connors believes that there exists a trust issue in the community and proposed an advisory citizens group. He specifically cited the threat of outsourcing and the proposed demolition of the tennis courts where the Board was forced to reverse their decisions due to the public. Concerned about the Board’s lack of transparency that has decisions being made in private, Connors promoted a greater sharing of information with the public.

The consistent theme from Brake, Dorsey, Connors, Lastner and Carlson was the need for the school board to provide greater communication opportunities for the public. Dorsey, Brake and Connors took it a step further and spoke of changing the negative tone, improving trust and respectfulness and supporting the creation of some type of citizen advisory group.

As president of the school board, Kevin Buraks (D) was center front to the confrontational monthly and committee school board meetings of 2013 yet did not agree with the other candidates on District morale or communication issues. Unmistakably Buraks is disconnected to the important issues raised by his fellow school board director Rich Brake and by Democrat Scott Dorsey. At times, it was hard to believe that Buraks and Brake are both on the same school board or that Buraks and Dorsey are representing the same local political party.

Responding to a question, Buraks stated clearly that there are no morale issues in the District. He further commented that if there were moral issues in the District, the employees would leave. On the issue of communication, his stance is that the school board already provides an open forum, is transparent and that through emails, website, etc. all District information is available. He pointed out that the Board listened to the public about the demolition of the tennis courts and the outsourcing of the aides and paras and reversed their decision. In other words, according to school board president Kevin Buraks, there is no trust, respect or communication issues in the school district. He backed these assertions by continuously pointing to T/E school district’s rankings as his proof.

So overall, was there any new ‘news’ or any surprises learned from the school board candidate debate for me? Yes and no. Because I regularly attend the school board meetings and understand most of the issues, some of the information was not new. However, I did not know the background and views of Easttown residents Virginia Lastner and Doug Carlson, so appreciated the opportunity to learn more about them. I know candidates Pete Connors and Scott Dorsey and both have previously spoken out about the District’s communication and transparency issues, so was not surprised by their responses.

The surprise was in the school board incumbents performances. Perhaps it is because Kevin Buraks is an attorney, but his stance during the debate was not to back down or take responsibility for any of the public’s perceived ‘miss-steps’ of the school board or of his term as the president. I guess as an attorney, you make a calculation and then stand by your decision, using the mantra of no ‘do-overs’ allowed. Taking the approach that because the TE School District is highly ranked, Buraks wants the voters to believe it is a result of his leadership. Other the other hand, incumbent Rich Brake took a completely different approach and surprised me with his candor. Portraying himself as somewhat of a school board outsider, Brake acknowledged that there needs to be greater dialogue with the public and more openness. Whereas Buraks would have the public believe that everything is cohesive and agreeable among the school board directors, Brake paints a very different picture.

These are my personal observations from the school board debate, I welcome others who attended to contribute their opinion. If you did not attend the debate, I would encourage you to watch in on online when it is available.

Partisan Politics; No need to go to Washington!

October 11, 2013

10 Comments

The Federal government shutdown has magnified the political partisan bickering in Washington. Unfortunately, over the last week, I have had a front-row seat to the local version – I’ll explain.

In the last Community Matters post, I mentioned that the League of Women Voters is conducting a Tredyffrin Township supervisor candidate debate on Saturday, October 19, 2-4 at the township building. Knowing that in the past a similar LWV debate was scheduled for the school board candidates, it struck me odd that no such event was planned for this year.

I was told that the reason that there was no scheduled TESD school board debate was that the LWV calendar was full and therefore could not accommodate the event. The explanation seemed plausible and I probably would have walked away from the situation except that two TESD school board candidates (Scott Dorsey (D) and Pete Connors (R)) approached me (separately) questioning ‘why’ there was no scheduled school board debate as both were interested in participating in such a forum.

This discussion of a ‘Meet the School Board Candidate’ forum occurred last week as I was completing last minute details for the Paoli Blues Fest. Between the Blues Fest and community street fair on October 5, the 9^th Annual Historic House Tour the Saturday before and eye surgery in between, I was certainly not anxious to take on another ‘project’. However, believing that more people in our community need to be engaged in local issues and to ‘know’ the candidates before casting a vote next month, a debate/forum needed to develop. Without the assistance of the LWV or any other organization, I first contacted Tredyffrin Township to check available dates/times to hold the forum. To the credit of the Tredyffrin Township staff (particularly the township secretary Pat Hoffman) and the police department, township manager and ultimately the Board of Supervisors, I was given approval to hold the candidates forum on Saturday, October 26, 2-4 PM. If you are wondering why I approached the township for use of their building rather than the library or one of the schools – the answer is simple, cost. There is a fee to use the schools or the library for an event.

Once I had the day/time locked in, I gathered the email addresses of all eight TESD school board candidates, which includes incumbents Rich Brake (R) and Kevin Buraks (D). All eight received the same invitation to participate. With my contact information, I sent the following email to the eight candidates:

Dear Tredyffrin Easttown School District School Board Candidates,

‘Meet the Candidates’ forums are central to democratic processes and are an important element of civic action and engagement. In recent years, the League of Women Voters has held these forums for township supervisor candidates and school board candidates. The League of Women Voters will hold a debate for Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors candidates on Saturday, October 19, 2 – 4 PM but a similar forum is not planned for school board candidates of the Tredyffrin Easttown School District.

This type of forum establishes connections between candidates and residents; allows voters to make informed decisions on election day, gives candidates the opportunity to present their platforms on issues that matter to residents; and gives residents the opportunity to raise issues that they feel need to be addressed by the successful candidate(s).

Utilizing a grassroots community organizational approach, there will be a ‘Meet the School Board Candidates Forum’ on Saturday, October 26, 2 – 4 PM at the Tredyffrin Township Building, 1100 Duportail Road, Berwyn, PA 19312. All candidates for the T/E School Board are invited to participate in this upcoming forum. The purpose of this forum is to give school board candidates an opportunity to address a wide range of issues that affect our school district…

Appreciating that the moderator of the candidate forum needed to be a non-TESD resident, I contacted a friend who is an attorney and a financial planner. With no questions asked, he agreed to help. I then asked four residents (representatives from Easttown and Tredyffrin Townships) to serve on a committee to help with the planning, logistics, marketing, etc of the candidate forum. For the record, two were Republicans, one a Democrat and the fourth a non-US citizen. As a registered Independent, I looked more at choosing people that understood the local school board issues versus their party affiliation. These four individuals were enthusiastic and anxious to help with the event. As stated in my invitation to the candidates, I was utilizing a “grassroots community organizational approach” to this “Meet the School Board Candidates” forum.

Of the eight school board candidates, I immediately received responses from five candidates (3 Republicans, 2 Democrats), offering support, appreciation for the effort, willingness to re-arrange personal schedules so they could participate, etc. With a moderator, a volunteer committee, a place, day/time and support from the majority of the candidates, I was feeling confident about this TESD school board candidate forum.

Then the rumblings from the local political parties started – I should mention, that my invitations went directly to the candidates, not the political parties that they represent. Believing that elected officials need to be independent-thinkers, it seemed the decision of whether to participate in this public community event should be up the candidates themsevles, without influence from the leadership of the respective political parties. Again, to the credit of many of these school board candidates, there was overwhelming support for the candidate forum.

What do I mean by ‘rumblings’ – I received questions about the format, where would the questions come from and how would the questions be asked, would questions come from the audience, (if so, how would they be categorized), would the process be ‘fair’ or biased to the Republican candidates or biased to the Democratic candidates, what political party were the volunteers, etc. etc. The rumblings started within 24 hours of my sending the invitations to the candidates – but it should be noted that not one of the five candidates who contacted me criticized or questioned my motives or my fairness.

About the time the local partisan politics started to surface, it mysteriously became known that the League of Women Voters schedule was not full and that they could accommodate a school board candidate’s forum. Imagine that! I knew if ever there was a moment when something was meant as a ‘sign’ this was it. It had become painfully obvious and very quickly, that no matter how I organized this candidates forum, either the local Democratic Party or the Republican Party (or both) was not going to be satisfied with my efforts or the results. The finger pointing had already started and it was only 24 hours since I sent the candiate’s their invitations. If a school board candidate debate was to happen, it was up to the ‘D’s’ and the ‘R’s’ to organize it with the League of Women Voters.

As a result, the following email was sent to the eight school board candidates:

TE School District Board Candidates —

I was working on scheduling a TESD School Board Candidate Forum on Saturday, October 26 for two reasons: (1) to provide an opportunity for candidates to present their platforms on important issues facing the TE School District and (2) to give residents the opportunity raise issues that they feel need to be addressed by the candidates. A public forum to discuss school district issues is important. When I questioned why there was no school board candidate forum scheduled as in prior years, I was told that the League of Women Voters did not have availability on their calendar. Based on the information that the League of Women Voters was unable to schedule such an event (and having been approached by two school board candidates, a ‘D’ and an ‘R’), I moved forward to make the necessary arrangements for such a forum.

It has now come to my attention that the League of Women Voters is available for Saturday, October 26 to host the forum/debate for the school board candidates. To those candidates that contacted me either with a commitment to participate in the forum or a willingness to rearrange their personal schedules, thank you and your responses were most appreciated. Please know that as a community member and as a registered Independent, my only intention in scheduling a school district candidate forum was to engage more residents in our important school district issues and to allow candidates an opportunity to express their views on these issues. There was no personal agenda on my part.

The location, day and time for the school board candidate forum has been reserved for Saturday, October 26, 2-4 at the Tredyffrin Township Building. If you were interested in pursuing this opportunity with the League of Women Voters, I would encourage you to contact your local Republican and Democratic Party representatives.

Please accept my apologies for any confusion and best wishes for a successful campaign.

Pattye Benson

The moderator and committee members that I had contacted to help received the same update as the candidates. I thank these five volunteers for their support and willingness to help. So … where does the school board candidate situation now stand? It is my understanding that the leadership of the political parties is working with the League of Women Voters to organize a debate. The last update I received was that the plan was to schedule the school board candidate debate prior to the Tredyffrin Township supervisor debate on Saturday, October 19 at the township building. I look forward to hearing a confirmation on the date and time.

It remains unclear why the local Democratic and Republican parties scheduled the supervisor candidate debate with the League of Women Voters and did not do the same for the school board candidates. However, I am hopeful that the school board candidate forum will occur; that important school district issues will be discussed and that candidates can have the opportunity to present their view.

In closing, the last ten days has taught me one thing, … whether it’s elected officials in Washington or our local political parties, I recognize that I am no fan of the partisan sandbox. For me, it’s about understanding the issues and then supporting the candidate that best represents my views.

Four weeks and counting until Election Day

October 7, 2013

Comments

Election Day 2013 is 4 weeks from tomorrow, Tuesday, November 5. If you are not registered, today is the last day to register to vote in the Municipal Election. Applications from Pennsylvanians registering for the first time, those changing their address or changing their party affiliation must be postmarked or delivered to Chester County’s board of elections by the close of business today, October 7. Chester County’s board of elections is located at Government Services Center, 601 Westtown Rd., Suite 150, West Chester, PA 19380. Their phone number: 610-344-6410. Office hours: 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM.

Do you know the candidates for the Board of Supervisor or the Tredyffrin Easttown School Board? What issues facing the township and school district are important to you – do the candidates share your concerns, your opinions? How likely are you to vote on November 5?

If you are a voter in Tredyffrin Township, you will have an opportunity to learn more about the Board of Supervisors candidates. The League of Women Voters is holding a supervisor debate on Saturday, October 19, 2-4 PM at the Tredyffrin Township Building. There are three contested seats on the Board – two for supervisor-at-large and a district supervisor for the middle district. Seeking one of the two at-large supervisor seats is incumbent Michelle Kichline (R), Trip Lukens (R), Murph Wysocki (D) and Mark Freed (D). Current at-large supervisor E.J. Richter (R) is opposing Laurie Elliott (D) for the middle district seat.

In recent years, the League of Women Voters also has held a debate for the TE School Board candidates. Unfortunately, the volunteer organization will not hold a similar debate this year for the school board candidates. This is an important time to know your candidates – what are their backgrounds and experience, where do they stand on issues, etc. etc. So … why no debate for the school board candidates? Do you know who the school board candidates are?

On the Tredyffrin side of the school district, we have Democrat incumbent Kevin Buraks being challenged by Republican Pete Connors in Region I. In Region II, Scott Dorsey (D) opposes incumbent Rich Brake (R).

On the Easttown side of the school district, there are two seats available in Region III. For personal reasons, neither Betsy Fadem (R) nor Anne Crowley (D) is seeking re-election. I attend almost every school board meeting and I have not met any of the four candidates vying for the two open Region III seats. The candidates are Republicans Doug Carlson and Virginia Lastner and Democrats Maryann Piccioni and Jean Kim.

School board candidates Pete Connors and Scott Dorsey have each stated that they want the opportunity to discuss school district issues and are interested in pursuing a debate forum with the other school board candidates — Neither knows why a debate was not scheduled as in prior years. Because of my discussion with Connors and Dorsey (and the interest from the public in learning about the school board candidates), several options are being explored. However, with only 4 weeks remaining until Election Day 2013, it does not leave much time to organize a ‘meet your school board candidate’ forum.

If the past is any indication, the political war for control will rear its ugly head over the next 30 days with school board and supervisor candidates door knocking, campaign mail pieces hitting our houses and the robo-calls that invariably come at dinnertime. Voters need a reason to go the polls on November 5 – they need to know the issues and which candidates support their views. Everyone should be interested in the election because the future of the township, the school district and the community are dependent upon strong, issue-focused leadership. The issues are complex and the School Board (and the Board of Supervisors) must work as a team united (with the community) to find effective solutions.

TE School Board Meeting — A call for transparency and open communications

September 24, 2013

38 Comments

I attended last night’s School Board meeting and noted a common thread linking many of the resident’s comments. The words may have been slightly differently from residents Neal Colligan, Scott Dorsey, Peggy Layden, Michelle Berger and myself, but the message to the School Board was the same. We were all asking for transparency, public dialogue, open communication, etc. etc. between the Board, administration and the public.

In the first comment period, Neal Colligan asked the Board to detail the timeline and process for the TENIG and teacher contract negotiations. He referenced the ‘early bird’ contract negotiations that are underway and asked that the public have adequate time to review any proposed contract. The public understands that negotiations are private between the sides and we cannot be part of the process — however, once there is an agreement it would be appropriate that that there be adequate time for review. Disappointingly, the Board did not offer much in the way of a response, except to say that the discussions with TENIG are ongoing.

At the August Board meeting it was announced that the RFP was going out shortly which would seek outsourcing bids for the TENIG contract. (Both the TENIG contract and the teachers contract expire June 30, 2014.) It would seem to make practical sense for the Board (and TENIG) to have the cost analysis for outsourcing to use as a starting point to negotiate a contract. How else would the District know what (if any) savings would occur through outsourcing without the ‘real’ numbers? And for the TENIG members, how would they know ‘what’ they needed ‘to give’ back in salary and/or benefits if there was no comparative numbers from the outside? Last night it was entirely unclear if the RFP was sent out yet there’s rumblings of an agreement between the District and TENIG. If there is an agreement, it will be curious to see what TENIG members gave up to keep their jobs. If you recall the last time, only the custodians were in the position of giving back whereas this time it is the all of TENIG that is at risk. Whatever happens with TENIG is certain to have an effect on the teacher contrac negotations.

My comments last night related to Community Matters and the school district’s apparent ‘blocking’ of the website from their computers. I read a prepared statement which included asking for the reinstitution of the District’s ‘Public Information Committee’ . I spoke of the need for open communication and transparency and asked the Board to respectfully remove the ‘block’ of my sebsite. At least some members of the school board were not aware of the situation until I brought it to their attention. Dr. Waters told the Board that he would look into the matter and report back. Improving communication between the administration, Board and the public should be something that we all want to achieve.

As follow-up, I sent the following email to the Board, Waters and Robin McConnell:

Dear TE School Board Members,

This email is follow-up to my statement at last night’s school board meeting regarding the ‘blocking’ of Community Matters website from school district computers. It was my understanding from the Board’s response that none of you were aware of this situation until I brought it to your attention. For the record, I have had at least 15 people, including employees working in various District schools, support staff, substitute teachers and students to either call or send emails asking why they are receiving ‘this site is blocked’ notifications when they attempt to access Community Matters.

At the school board meeting, Dr. Waters stated that he would look into the matter and would check with Robin McConnell, who was not at the last night’s meeting. I respectfully asked last night that the ‘block’ be removed from my site and the access be restored. Can I expect that Board members will follow-up with the administration and correct this situation?

The community is looking for transparency and open communication from our elected officials; thank you all for supporting that goal.

Sincerely,

Pattye Benson

I hope that the situation is resolved quickly and that Community Matters is ‘unblocked’ in the school district. To the employees and students who contacted me in this regard, thank you — please let me know if the situation is resolved.

During the second comment period, Neal Colligan once again addressed the Board, stating that they had not answered his earlier question about providing adequate public time to review and comment on any proposed union agreements. Again no response from the Board. Without a commitment from the Board on the process of public commentary in regards to any proposed union contracts, Colligan furthered his request. He stated there would be new leadership on the school board come January 1 and based on the outcome of the November election, that could mean either 2, 3 or possibly 4 new Board members. Colligan offered that it was not fair that new Board members would be saddled with the results of these ‘early bird’ contract negotiations and again suggested that there should be community input.

Recent history indicates that when there is public input, initial decisions of the Board can sometimes be changed — we saw this with the proposed outsourcing of the aides and paras and again with the tennis courts at Valley Forge Elementary School. When members of the community supports an issue, shows up at meetings and offers their opinion, it can make a difference. Transparency and open dicussion between the Board, administration and the public is critical.

TESD Finance Meeting Tonight — agenda includes RFP for TENIG contract

September 9, 2013

2 Comments

There is a TE School District Finance Committee meting tonight at 7 PM. According to the agenda, the RFP for the TENIG contract will be discussed. The RFP is lengthy (over 100 pages) and details all requirements. The TENIG union includes the custodial workers, maintenance, security, kitchen staff and support staff.

After all the months of back and forth regarding the aides and paras and their employ in the District, I was curious as to how many actually returned for the 2013/14 school year. The week before the start of school, I sent the following email to Sue Tiede:

Sue,

With the start of the 2013/14 school year only a few days off, I am following-up on the status of the returning aides and paras and have a few questions –
(1) How many aides/paras did not return for the 2013/14 school year?
(2) Of the total vacated positions, how many positions were filled with new employees?
(3) Were the vacated positions filled with part-time employees?
(4) Did the District fill the vacated positions through outsourcing?
(5) If the District outsourced the vacated positions, which company was used?

Thank in advance for this information.

Pattye Benson

In response to my email, I received the following email from Sue. I look forward to hearng the update at the Finance meeting tonight.

Dear Pattye,

We are finalizing our hiring process at this time and have received several resignations as late as yesterday afternoon. At the September Finance Committee Meeting we plan to summarize our staffing for the 2013-14 school year. Our hiring process for aides has remained unchanged. As always, we plan to fill each vacancy with qualified candidates.

Best regards,

Sue

TE School Board and VFES Neighbors … A shared vision regarding tennis courts!

August 22, 2013

3 Comments

Tonight’s Facilities Committee meeting, and the discussion on the Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts, could best be described as a ‘shared vision’. That is, a shared vision between the VFES neighbors and the TE School Board.

The primary focus of the meeting was the VFES tennis courts – their usage and maintenance. Since the last Facilities Committee meeting in June, VFES neighbor Michele Berger had spoken with a number of neighbors, tennis pros, and court maintenance companies and offered her findings to the audience, Facilities Committee and school administration. If you recall, the Facilities Committee decided at their last meeting in June to continue the Tredyffrin Township user fee rate of $30/hr. for one court and $60/hr. for two courts for private lessons and tennis camps.

Although residents enjoyed the use of the VFES tennis courts free of charge this summer, usage fees were expected to begin in September with the start of school. Tonight the Facilities Committee chair Pete Motel offered a brief history on the tennis courts and then listened to community member’s questions and concerns, offering clarity where appropriate. VFES neighbor Don Detweiler has maintained the VFES tennis courts for years and offered the opinion that the courts surface and nets have at least 5 more years of use before costly repairs are required.

Board members and community members listened to different viewpoints and discussed potential solutions to long-term maintenance issues … a two-way dialogue with a shared direction.

A satisfying and amiable solution to the tennis court usage was reached; I can report that there will be no charge for residents to use the VFES tennis courts. The School District will collect user fees from those individuals using the courts ‘for profit’ — such as tennis lessons or tennis camp at a rate of $30/hr per court. With the start of school, the tennis courts will be locked during the school day. The tennis courts will be available for resident’s use after school, weekends and on non-school days. However, it was agreed that the school district’s Safety Committee will review this policy to possibly permit court usage during the school day.

The Facilities Committee meeting represented community conversation and a shared vision. Pete Motel involved the people in the decisions that affected them – the VFES neighbors. Michele Berger agreed to serve as the liaison between the Facilities Committee and the VFES neighbors. Common ground was found and it was a pleasure to witness; thanks to all involved!

==================================================================================

On a personal note, for those wondering about me and the status of Community Matters, I am OK and so is CM. I have struggled with some health and personal issues during the last couple of months but I think that the fog has finally begun to lift. I appreciate your emails and your concern – Wasn’t it Emerson that said, “Life is a journey, not a destination.”

Obamacare Delay — Hours Restored for TE School District Employees for 2013-14 School Year!

July 25, 2013

15 Comments

Exciting news today for the TE School District aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals — their hours have been fully restored for the 2013-14 school year! This is wonderful news for the affected employees who faced major cuts to their hours — in some cases, as much as twenty-five percent. The restoration of hours of the aides and paras to their previous level is win-win news for the students, their parents and the community!

According to an announcement on the District website this morning (see below), the District solicitor has confirmed that delay of the Affordable Care Act implementation for another year. Based on this notice, it is interesting that the policy-making decision to restore the employee hours comes from the office of the District solicitor, Ken Roos to the administration. As a result, the District has suspended the June 17 school board decision to reduce the hours of aides and paras to 27.5 hours or below. This may only be a one-year reprive for the affected employees, and they could find them in the same position a year from now, however … so much can happen in a year. For examples, the Federal government could change implementation requirements for ACA, specifically as it relates to part-time workers.

With outsourcing of aides and paras off the table for a year and the restoration of their hours, the 2013-14 school year presents an opportunity for the District to fully understand the ACA insurance requirements for their employees. Rather than reducing the hours of employees to avoid Federal compliance laws, perhaps alternatives can be explored to provide affordable health care to all District employees. In an earlier post, I mentioned the idea of a citizens group to review Obamacare and the compliance requirements during the 2013-14 school year. As we have learned, the topic is confusing and needs further study — use the ACA transition period and learn more on the topic. As more information becomes available from Washington,the Board will be better positioned to work towards compliance for the following year.

School Board Suspends June 17, 2013 Resolution to Limit Hours of Current Aides, Para-Educators and Paraprofessionals to 27.5 or Less

The hours for District aides and paraeducators will not be limited to 27.5 hours per week for the 2013-2014 school year as was previously announced. The District Solicitor has confirmed that the Treasury Department has delayed the implementation of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act relevant to the Board’s June 17 resolution directing the administration to schedule all District part-time employees, such as aides and paraeducators, for no more than 27.5 hours per week for the 2013-2014 school year to ensure that they meet the definition of part-time employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act for the 2014-2015 school year. Pursuant to the Board’s subsequent July 8 resolution, the administration is now authorized to suspend the implementation of the Board’s June 17 resolution.

Parking lot underway at Valley Forge Elementary School and so are tennis court usage fees!

July 17, 2013

28 Comments

I was surprised how many heavy equipment vehicles are required to add a few parking spaces at Valley Forge Elementary School. Passing by the school on Walker Road, you couldn’t miss the mountain of dirt, storm water drainage system and assortment of backhoes and bulldozers. Increasing the size of the VFES parking lot is one of the school district’s summer facilities projects.

While I stopped to take a photo of the parking lot construction, I walked over to the infamous tennis courts. It was nice to see the tennis court door unlocked and available to use. It’s been years since I played tennis, but I couldn’t help but notice how pristine the courts looked – the playing surface well maintained, the lines recently painted and the net in great shape. VFES neighbor Don Detwiler has maintained the tennis courts for years – free of charge.

The VFES tennis courts are available through the summer for residents to use free of charge but the start of school in six weeks will also mark the start of user fees for local tennis players. At the District’s June 14 facilities meeting, discussion of usage fees ranged from a suggested $28K annual association charge to hourly fees of $15/hr. weekdays to $25/hr. weekends.

The rental of the courts for private lessons and tennis camps was established at the June facilities meeting at rate of $30/hr. for one court and $60/hr. for two courts with fees to start immediately. Signage is now on the tennis court fences reflecting those fees. To schedule the use of the courts for lesson or camp, there is a notice to call the District’s business office 8 AM – 4 PM, Monday – Friday. It is completely unclear to me how the District ‘polices’ the use of the courts by instructors — there’s no lock box and the door was ajar. Shouldn’t the details of how the process works be known to the public?

The usage fee for individuals to use the tennis courts will be determined at the August facilities comittee meeting and those fees will presumably begin with the start of school year in September. If the fee schedule for the use of the tennis courts for instruction is determined in the facilities committee meeting, I guess the facilities committee will also determine the usage fee for residents. It’s impossible for many people to go to the monthly facilities meetings as they are held on Friday at 2 PM. I would have expected the usage fees to be discussed at a regular school board meeting. In fact, because the usage fee was not previously discussed at the monthly school board meeting, I thought there was still an option not to charge residents a fee. But based on the signage on the fence, there’s no question that there will be a fee — only question remains as to how much it will cost the residents. Doesn’t it seem odd to anyone else that policy is determined in a committee meeting and then is sanctioned though the use of signage. Shouldn’t the tennis court usage and the fee schedule be available for public disucussion at a regular school board meeting?

I have several questions in regards to the VFES tennis courts — (1) what is the cost basis for determining the District fee schedule (remember, Mr. Detwiler has maintained the courts for free, for years); (2) what is the District’s process for collecting the user fees; (3) how much will the District’s collection process cost; (4) how will the tennis courts be policed; and (5) what is the estimated cost to police the courts.

If the TE School District is going to charge residents for the use of the tennis courts, why not charge them for the use of the school playground equipment on the weekends or for the use of the high school track?

Without a final Vanguard settlement agreement, Tredyffrin supervisors postpone vote … How could School Board vote to approve?

July 16, 2013

1 Comment

Tredyffrin’s largest employer, Vanguard, challenged the tax assessments for its main corporate campus and several of the buildings that surround the main campus for tax year 2012-13.

On July 8, the School Board held a Special Meeting to approve the Vanguard appeal settlement. The School District had challenged Vanguard’s appeal and rather than the potential loss of $800K in revenue annually, the settlement cost the District $150K in annual revenue – saving the District $650K in annual losses.

All of this sounded like good news for the District – improving financials is always good news, isn’t it? The Board detailed the ongoing efforts of the District staff and solicitor in regards to the Vanguard settlement and enthusiastically approved the proposed settlement. Although the other taxing authorities (township and county) had to approve the settlement, the solicitor stated that he expected the additional approvals by the end of the month. In other words, fait accompli for the approval of the Vanguard appeal settlement. Following the meeting, the Board released a statement on their website, which in part said …

School Board Approves Vanguard Appeal Settlement

At a Special Meeting on July 8, 2013, the Tredyffrin/Easttown School Board approved a settlement agreement concerning the Vanguard assessment appeals. While the Board approved the settlement, the agreement is not final until Tredyffrin Township and Chester County, which are also taxing authorities for the Vanguard properties, also approve the agreement. All parties have been involved with the negotiations process which began in the fall of 2011.

I attended Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting last night and discussion of the Vanguard appeal settlement was on the agenda. Based on the school board’s July 8 approval of the settlement agreement, I assumed that the supervisors would rubber-stamp that decision. However, as we learned from the township solicitor, Vince Donohue, the Vanguard agreement was not final and that the attorneys for the District and Vanguard were still going back and forth over the details as late as 5 PM last night. Donohue explained that the legal discussion would not change the assessment values but rather the ‘terms’ of the agreement, concluding that the “devil is in the details”. Based on the uncertainty of the final Vanguard agreement, Donohue advised the supervisors to postpone their vote.

For several of us who attended both the school board meeting and the supervisors meeting, you are left shaking your head and wondering why is there such a disconnect between the school district and the township. Two weeks ago the school board holds a special meeting to tell the public their ‘good news’ – that after much effort, the District has reached a settlement with Vanguard and that there is a net savings of $650K. Plus the added bonus included in the settlement is that Vanguard will not seek assessment appeals for 3 years. We have no idea what ‘terms’ of the agreement are still in debate, maybe Vanguard is no longer interested in a moratorium on assessment appeals.

What we saw with the VFES tennis courts, we now see with the Vanguard agreement … a complete disconnect between the school district and the township on public issues. Why the seemingly disregard of the township supervisors by the school board? Rather than collaborating on shared matters, such as the tennis courts and the assessment appeal, the school board makes their decisions and then leaves it to the supervisors to find out after the fact.

I’m struggling to understand how it is possible that, without a final Vanguard appeal agreement to review, the township supervisors appropriately decides to postpone their vote whereas the school board votes to approve that same agreement and then works on the terms afterwards?

IRS & Dept of Treasury provide further explanation on Affordable Care Act one-year implementation delay — Is this sufficient information to satisfy TE School District?

July 11, 2013

57 Comments

Special thanks Roberta Hotinski for sending the link to the latest announcement from the IRS and the Treasury Department of the ‘Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions’ for 2014 which was released on Tuesday!

Federal government Notice 2013-45 was provided as a follow-up to the July 2 alert from the Treasury Department announcing a one-year delay in the effective dates of certain Affordable Care Act provisions including the annual information reporting requirements and the employer shared responsibiity provisions — these provisionso of the ACA will now be fully effective for 2015 rather than 2014.

The IRS followed up its decision to delay these key provisions by publishing Notice 2013-45 below which outlines the additional time for input from employers in an effort to provide time for employers to adapt to the health coverage and the reporting process. Notice 2013-45 provides the background and guidelines for the one-year transition period, including the the employer shared responsibility provisions.

Is there sufficient information contained in this update to satisty the questions of the TE School Board and District solicitor? Upon review of Notice 2013-45, will the District reinstate the hours of the aides, paraeducators and paraprofessionals?

Transition Relief for 2014 Under §§ 6055 (§ 6055 Information Reporting), 6056 (§ 6056 Information Reporting) and 4980H (Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions)
NOT-129718-13

Notice 2013-45

I. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW

This notice provides transition relief for 2014 from (1) the information reporting requirements applicable to insurers, self-insuring employers, and certain other providers of minimum essential coverage under § 6055 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) (§ 6055 Information Reporting), (2) the information reporting requirements applicable to applicable large employers under § 6056 (§ 6056 Information Reporting), and (3) the employer shared responsibility provisions under § 4980H (Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions). This transition relief will provide additional time for input from employers and other reporting entities in an effort to simplify information reporting consistent with effective implementation of the law. This transition relief also is intended to provide employers, insurers, and other providers of minimum essential coverage time to adapt their health coverage and reporting systems. Both the information reporting and the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions will be fully effective for 2015. In preparation for that, once the information reporting rules have been issued, employers and other reporting entities are encouraged to voluntarily comply with the information reporting provisions for 2014. This transition relief through 2014 for the information reporting and Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions has no effect on the effective date or application of other Affordable Care Act provisions.

II. BACKGROUND

Sections 6055, 6056, and 4980H were added to the Code by §§ 1502, 1514, and 1513, respectively, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted March 23, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-148.1 Section 6055 requires annual information reporting by health insurance issuers, self-insuring employers, government agencies, and other providers of health coverage. Section 6056 requires annual information reporting by applicable large employers relating to the health insurance that the ————————————— 1 Section 4980H was amended by § 1003 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA) (enacted March 30, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152) and was further amended by § 1858(b)(4) of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (enacted April 15, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-10). Section 6056 was amended by §§ 10106(g) and 10108(j) of the ACA and was further amended by § 1858(b)(5) of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. In this notice, the term Affordable Care Act refers to the ACA and HCERA, collectively. ————————————– employer offers (or does not offer) to its full-time employees. Section 4980H(a) imposes an assessable payment on an applicable large employer that fails to offer minimum essential coverage to its full-time employees (and their dependents) under an eligible employer-sponsored plan if at least one full-time employee enrolls in a qualified health plan for which a premium tax credit is allowed or paid. Section 4980H(b) imposes an assessable payment on an applicable large employer that offers minimum essential coverage to its full-time employees (and their dependents) under an eligible employer-sponsored plan but has one or more full-time employees who enroll in a qualified health plan for which a premium tax credit is allowed or paid (for example, if the coverage offered either does not provide minimum value or is not affordable to that full-time employee).

III. TRANSITION RELIEF

Q-1. When will the rules be published regarding § 6055 Information Reporting and § 6056 Information Reporting? How will these provisions apply for 2014?

A-1. The Affordable Care Act requires information reporting under § 6055 by insurers, self-insuring employers, government agencies, and certain other parties that provide health coverage and requires information reporting under § 6056 by applicable large employers with respect to the health coverage offered to their full-time employees. Proposed rules for the information reporting provisions are expected to be published this summer. The proposed rules will reflect the fact that transition relief will be provided for information reporting under §§ 6055 and 6056 for 2014. This transition relief will provide additional time for dialogue with stakeholders in an effort to simplify the reporting requirements consistent with effective implementation of the law. It will also provide employers, insurers, and other reporting entities additional time to develop their systems for assembling and reporting the needed data. Employers, insurers, and other reporting entities are encouraged to voluntarily comply with these information reporting provisions for 2014 (once the information reporting rules have been issued) in preparation for the full application of the provisions for 2015. However, information reporting under §§ 6055 and 6056 will be optional for 2014; accordingly, no penalties will be applied for failure to comply with these information reporting provisions for 2014.

Q-2. What does the 2014 transition relief for § 6056 Information Reporting mean for application of the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions for 2014?

A-2. Under the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions, an applicable large employer generally must offer affordable, minimum value health coverage to its full-time employees or a shared responsibility payment may apply if one or more of its full-time employees receive a premium tax credit under § 36B. The § 6056 Information Reporting is integral to the administration of the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions. In particular, because an employer typically will not know whether a full-time employee received a premium tax credit, the employer will not have all of the information needed to determine whether it owes a payment under § 4980H. Accordingly, the employer is not required to calculate a payment with respect to § 4980H or file returns submitting such a payment. Instead, after receiving the information returns filed by applicable large employers under § 6056 and the information about employees claiming the premium tax credit for any given calendar year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will determine whether any of the employer’s full-time employees received the premium tax credit and, if so, whether an assessable payment under § 4980H may be due. If the IRS concludes that an employer may owe such an assessable payment, it will contact the employer, and the employer will have an opportunity to respond to the information the IRS provides before a payment is assessed.

For this reason, the transition relief from § 6056 Information Reporting for 2014 is expected to make it impractical to determine which employers owe shared responsibility payments for 2014 under the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions. Accordingly, no employer shared responsibility payments will be assessed for 2014. However, in preparation for the application of the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions beginning in 2015, employers and other affected entities are encouraged to voluntarily comply for 2014 with the information reporting provisions (once the information reporting rules have been issued) and to maintain or expand health coverage in 2014. Real-world testing of reporting systems and plan designs through voluntary compliance for 2014 will contribute to a smoother transition to full implementation for 2015.

Q-3. Does this affect employees’ access to the premium tax credit?

A-3. No. Individuals will continue to be eligible for the premium tax credit by enrolling in a qualified health plan through the Affordable Insurance Exchanges (also called Health Insurance Marketplaces) if their household income is within a specified range and they are not eligible for other minimum essential coverage, including an eligible employer-sponsored plan that is affordable and provides minimum value.

Q-4. What does this mean for other provisions in the Affordable Care Act?

A-4. This transition relief through 2014 for § 6055 Information Reporting, § 6056 Information Reporting, and the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions has no effect on the effective date or application of other Affordable Care Act provisions, such as the premium tax credit under § 36B and the individual shared responsibility provisions under § 5000A.

IV. DRAFTING INFORMATION

The principal author of this notice is Kathryn Johnson of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt & Government Entities). For further information regarding this notice contact Kathryn Johnson at (202) 927-9639 (not a toll-free call).

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters