Tredyffrin Easttown School District Archives - Page 26 of 42

Tredyffrin Easttown School District

Election Day is Tuesday and based on campaign mailers, signs and general rhetoric that we were voting on the Earned Income Tax. The EIT is not an issue for us on Election Day, at least not this election.

Much of this campaign discussion on the EIT stems from T/E School Board decision to form a Tax Study Group as part of their budget development process. The goal of the committee of eight volunteers, including Michael Abele, Michael Benning, Rita Borzillo, Marie Falcone, William Mullin, Terri Smith, Andrew Snyder and Edward Stevens, was to study the effect that an EIT would have on the residents and the school district and provide the pros and cons.

The Tax Study Group held 5 public workshop meetings and presented their findings yesterday at two public meetings. Based on the Tax Study Group’s findings, the school board will make a decision whether to include the EIT question on the April 2012 ballot. If the EIT question is placed on the primary election ballot in April, community members will hopefully be able to make an informed decision.

Although I was not able to attend the EIT meeting due to a prior commitment, it is my understanding that both were well attended. I am on record as saying that I believe the process for a fair and open discussion of the Earned Income Tax has been tainted by the last few weeks of campaign politics from school board candidates. Serious economic issues are going to continue to affect our school district and cause many challenges to the school board facing the 2012-13 budget and teacher negotiations.

If you were unable to attend either of yesterday’s public meetings by the Tax Study Group, the EIT presentation will be aired on TETV, Comcast Channel 14 and Verizon Channel 20 at 9 PM daily from November 4 through November 14.

Ray Clarke attended yesterday’s Tax Study Group and offers his candid remarks from the presentation:

The Tax Study Group matinee played to a packed house – probably a hundred or more residents in attendance. I whole-heartedly encourage anyone interested in the fiscal and educational future of T/E to attend the evening performance. Of the 30 slides, two thirds are devoted to background – really important to place the discussion in its proper context. The pros and cons of the EIT were fairly presented, although not weighted nor compared directly to alternatives (it was not the TSG mandate to do that). The audience seemed engaged throughout, and the questions at the end added much to the discussion.

The elephant in the room: what will be the attitude of the Townships? Will they take 50% of any money the voters may want to apply to their children’s education? Easttown and Tredyffrin may be very different, and I think we all need to have a very long memory about campaign promises made by Tredyffrin Supervisors. (The $30 million TESD fund balance did not go unremarked as a short-term support).

A lot of hard work and thought went into the research and analysis, and in developing a communication that is accessible to everyone. Shows how important the process was and what a travesty it is to try to short-change it. Hopefully many voters will be able to see the evening performance or the video and draw their own conclusions.

Community Matters Clarification on BOS and School Board Candidate Responses

November 2, 2011

16 Comments

It has come to be attention that some readers may be confused about the last couple of Community Matters posts and are questioning why Tredyffrin Republican supervisor and school board candidates did not respond to my questions and that the Democratic candidates did. Hope this post will offer clarification.

In early October, I sent an email to all the Tredyffrin Republican and Democratic supervisor and school board candidates. In addition, I sent the Republican and Democrat school board candidates in Easttown the same email. The email asked the candidates to (1) idenify what they thought was the most important issue facing either the school district or the township, (2) the candidate was asked what they would do to help or solve the issue if elected and (3) what in their background or experience qualifies you to help solve the issue. I was specific and asked that the 3-part question be 200 words or less and gave them a deadline that was prior to the League of Women Voters debates.

The Easttown school board candidates Pete Motel (R) and Craig Lewis (D) responded with their answers prior to the deadline and those responses were posted on Community Matters on October 19. In that October 19 post, I also explained that the Tredyffrin Republican and Democratic supervisor and school board candidates had declined to participate. Here is an excerpt from that post:

. . . Believing that it is important for voters to make an informed decision on which candidate they elect to serve us, I saw no downside to the candidates participation in May nor did I at this time.

Much to my surprise, the individual Tredyffrin Republican supervisor and school board candidates declined my offer, suggesting that voters could visit their websites for information and that, “We are more than happy to answer questions from individual voters across Tredyffrin – and are doing so while going door-to-door, attending community events, and more.”

The chair of the Tredyffrin Democratic Party Dariel Jamieson responded on behalf of the Democratic supervisor and school board candidates, declining to participate until after the League of Women Voters debates. Here is an excerpt from that email:

“Our BOS and School Board candidates prefer not to submit answers to the questions you posed to them until after the LWV [League of Women Voter] debates. The questions were all ones that were asked in the debates two years ago – as they should have been, they are key questions – but to have our answers published first is not fair to the LWV and makes the job of our candidates harder to distinguish themselves in the debates.

Following the League of Women Voters debates, I received responses to my questions from the Democratic supervisor and school board candidates. Although the responses were past my original deadline, I thought there was value for the voters in posting them. But so everyone knows, I actually sent a courtesy email to the Republican candidates last week to explain that the I had received the Democratic responses and offered the Republican candidates a second opportunity to answer the questions. My email to the Republican candidates stated that that no response was required if they were not going to participate; and for the record, there was no response to my email.

So there is absolutely no question in anyone’s mind — if the Republican supervisor and school board candidates would like to answer the 3-part question — I am now making a third offer to them. Candidates — answer the 3-part questions in 200 words or less and email them to me at: tredyffrincommunitymatters@gmail.com I will be happy to post your responses! I hope this clarifies the timeline and that I gave all candidates exactly the same opportunity. I am sorry if there was any confusion!

State Returns $1.3 Million to TESD — Restore Educational Program Cuts or Add to Fund Balance?

October 31, 2011

18 Comments

In reviewing the summaries of the T/E school board committees, I was interested to learn from the Finance Committee report (below) that almost $1 million is coming back to the fund balance due to lower than expected medical claims. That’s good news!

Also it was confirmed at the Finance Committee meeting, that the state would be returning $1.3 million in funding back to the school district. Now there’s a question for school board candidates — what would you do with the $1.3 million? Would you restore some of the educational programming cuts in the district? If so, which ones? Foreign language in the elementary schools? Maybe Latin in the middle school? Or, would you suggest that the $1.3 million go into the fund balance?

Finance Committee, Chair: Kevin Mahoney
Prepared by: Administrative Liaison

The Finance Committee met on October 17, 2011. The Committee reviewed a draft copy of the District’s 2010-2011 ending fund balances provided by the local auditors. The administration explained how the fund balances are required to be shown as committed, assigned or unassigned on the audited financial statements according to new GASB regulations. The Committee reviewed the fund balance commitments and agreed with the amount shown in the medical stabilization commitment and the fund balance from the athletic fund should be committed. The administration explained that due to lower than expected medical claims spending from the self funded health benefits plan, expenditures would be about $947,000 less than projected resulting in an addition to fund balance.

Next the administration presented the results of the September Treasurer’s report. According to the report the District will be receiving $1.3 million more in State Revenue during the 2011-2012 fiscal year than was originally anticipated and budgeted. All other revenues and expenditures are within the budget amounts. The Committee discussed how the additional State revenue would be used which included possibly reinstating cuts made to the educational program to balance the 2011-2012 budget or using less budgeted fund balance to balance the fiscal year. The administration presented the proposed reinstated budget cuts that they were approved by the Education Committee. The Finance Committee asked that the proposal to reinstate these budget cuts be presented at a future Board meeting.

The Committee also reviewed the budget calendar, paying special attention to the due dates that relate to the Earned Income Tax (EIT) Study Group and discussed how EIT revenue sharing with the Township would work. Finally the Committee reviewed the budget projection model and asked the administration to make a few changes to the assumptions for future review of the model.

Why Must the Campaign Season be ‘Politics as Usual’ . . . Please, Can it be the Truth?

October 26, 2011

107 Comments

Truth allows you to live with integrity. Everything you do and say shows the world who you really are. Let it be the Truth. ~ Oprah Winfrey

Is it ‘all in the name of politics’ these days that candidates seeking public office can simply fabricate information and then claim it as a truth? Is that OK or just what we have come to expect during campaign season?

Depending on where you live, as a Tredyffrin Township resident, you may have a received a negative political mailer today from the Tredyffrin Township Republican school board candidates. This mailer immediately took me back to two years ago, when as a supervisor candidate and new to politics, my fellow supervisor candidates, Eamon Brazunas and Sean Moir and I were the target of a similar negative mailer.

I will never forget the feeling of distress at reading misleading and false information contained in that 2009 campaign mailer about myself. And it is for that reason that I must use this forum to speak out on today’s Republican school board candidate mailer.

The words on the mailer from the Tredyffrin Republicans state . . . “Tredyffrin’s Democrat School Board team wants to implement an income tax” and “. . . the Democrat Team for School Board has begun the process of creating a new tax – an earned income tax”. These words are not only misleading, they simply are not accurate and hurtful.

Previously I have written about my disappointment at the yellow ‘No EIT’ Republican signs. I believed that the school district’s tax study group should present their ‘pros and cons’ of an earned income tax at next week’s public meeting without premature judging from a political party. OK, I get the idea behind the signs – they present an effective way to make it look like the Democrat candidates are ‘for’ an EIT without having to actually say it. Although we did hear all supervisor candidates state, at Monday’s League of Women Voters debate, they were opposed to an earned income tax (and that included the Democrat candidates).

So, as I read the words on the Republican school board candidate mailer, I ask where did any of them read or ever hear a Democratic school board candidate say that he or she wants to implement an earned income tax. It is one thing to imply something cleverly on a political sign, but stating a falsehood as the truth is something different. It is particularly disheartening that this is a mailer for the ‘school’ board election . . . don’t we want to set the right example for our children?

I support the value of giving voice to the community but not for those who choose to further divide us. Shouldn’t we want better for our community? Tredyffrin Township and its residents deserve the truth. I know several of the Republican school board candidates personally — and I believe that they are better than this mailer represents.

Community Matters did not exist two years ago so I did not have many options to ‘balance the scale’ after I was the targeted with misleading and false information during the campaign. Because of my experience, I am giving the four Democratic school board candidates – Karen Cruickshank, Jerry Henige, Scott Dorsey and Jenny Wessels an opportunity to respond to the Republican mailer on Community Matters. If they choose to respond, I will post their comments.

——————————————————————————–

Campaign Mailer side 1

Campaign Mailer side 2

Good News – T/E School Board Candidate Debate Will be Videotaped!

October 24, 2011

Comments

Good news — Gene Donahue, the studio manager for the township’s public access channel reports that League of Women Voters debate for the supervisors and the school board candidates will be videotaped! The debates will be available 24//7 online at the streaming video-on-demand site.

Gene reports that it usually takes about 24 hours to upload and process before the videos become available for viewing on channels – Comcast 2 and Verizon 24.

Here’s the schedule for the supervisor and school board debates:

Starting 10/28/11 & Ending 11/7/11

Supervisors Candidates Debate:
Mondays @ 8:30 PM
Tuesdays @ 8:30 AM & 2:30 PM
Fridays @ 8:30 PM
Saturdays @ 8:30 AM Sundays @ 2:30 PM

School Board Candidates Debate:
Mondays @ 10:30 PM
Tuesdays @ 10:30 AM & 4:30 PM ;
Fridays @ 10:30 PM
Saturdays @ 10:30 AM Sundays @ 4:30 PM

To view programming as video-on-demand, visit:

http://tredyffrin.pegcentral.com.

To see the schedule of programming airing on Comcast channel 2 and Verizon FIOS channel 24, visit:

http://www.tredyffrin.org/general/cable/publicaccess/programming.aspx and click any of the series’ names for detailed information.

Should Our Teachers be Graded on Student Achievement?

October 24, 2011

8 Comments

There was much discussion about public education reform during Governor Tom Corbett’s campaign and this week the Governor offered four broad proposals for reform (however, the specifics are limited).

(1) Charter school reform — Give the process of approving charter schools to a new state commission rather than to local school districts;

(2) Expansion of the Educational Improvement Tax Credit program — The program offers businesses tax credits for providing funding for scholarships or other educational improvement organizations;

(3) Voucher program — Create ‘opportunity scholarships’ that would allow low-income students in poor-performing schools to attend a different school;

(4) Grading teachers — Review and beef-up the teacher evaluation system in Pennsylvania’s schools.

As Tredyffrin Easttown School District candidates prepare for the League of Women Voters debate on Tuesday (7-9 PM at the Tredyffrin Township building), it was Corbett’s fourth initiative on public education reform that caught my attention. I wonder what school board candidates think about Corbett’s proposed teacher grading system. And how, if any, would a grading system challenge the TESD teacher contract negotiations of 2012?

My understanding is that Corbett is proposing a grading system for teachers much like the way students are graded. Currently teachers are graded ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’ and 99.4 percent of teachers in public school in Pennsylvania receive an ‘A’ . . . satisfactory rating. However, counter to the teacher’s ratings, some school systems in the state have barely 50 percent of their students performing at grade level. The new proposed multiple-point grading system for teachers would include “distinguished”, “proficient,” “needs improvement” or “failing.”

We know that most local school teachers are good, but are there not any bad ones? Is it accurate that less than 1 percent of teachers in Pennsylvania are unsatisfactory? Especially in light of the number of failing students and Pennsylvania’s ever-increasing high school drop out rate. Is there any correlation between the quality of teaching (performance of teachers) and the performance levels of students? Corbett’s is suggesting a reform of the teacher evaluation system that combines classroom observations and student performances . . . linking student achievement to teacher performance.

Is it possible that a single, statewide pay-for-performance model will work in each of the state’s 500 school districts? Should the grading of teachers take into account a teachers’ longevity?

I believe that the most important school-based factor in children’s success is good-quality teachers. Isn’t there a real possibility if we tie the merit pay of teachers performance to student achievement, this will discourage teachers from taking on the needier students and push the educators to ‘teach to the test’?

Most of us would probably agree that students with experienced, highly skilled teachers tend to do better academically. And that poorer schools have a more difficult time in attracting and keeping those teachers. The real challenge is what is the solution?

Taking that logic a step further . . . if vouchers and charter schools remove the highest-performing students from the poor school districts, isn’t there a real risk that the failing school districts will not be fixed by Corbett’s proposed public education reform?

Tax Study Group to Present EIT Findings . . . Will Yellow Signs by Republican Candidates Influence Residents?

October 20, 2011

23 Comments

As part of the budget process for the T/E School District, a Tax Study Group composed of community volunteers was formed to determine the impact of an earned income tax (EIT) on residents and the school district. The goal of the group was to identify the pros and cons of an EIT for residents and then present their findings in a public presentation to the community. The Tax Study Group will offer its findings on Thursday, November 3 at 1 PM at the T/E Administration office, 940 W. Valley Rd, Suite 1700, Wayne and again at 7 PM at the Valley Forge Middle School, 105 W. Walker Road, Wayne. Please plan to attend so that you can make an informed decision on EIT (in the event it is on the Primary Election ballot in April 2012.

I have expressed my disappointment that the Republican candidates (school board and supervisor) took an advance stand against an earned income tax prior to the presentation of the Tax Study Group. In fairness to the process, and to the volunteer’s time of those serving on the study group, why not wait until after the presentation of the EIT before publicly declaring that you are against it. The severity of our school district’s economic situation requires that all options be explored – the presentation by the Tax Study Group on the earned income tax is one of those options.

An ‘As I See It’ article written by John Petersen, resident of Paoli appeared in the Main Line Suburban newspaper a couple of weeks ago. The article was written shortly after the first bright yellow, ‘no EIT’ signs began appearing in the township. Because the article was not included on Main Line Media’s online site, I could not provide a link on Community Matters.

It is with permission from the author, that I include the article below:

As I See It: Those little yellow GOP signs: proof the GOP does not respect you

If you have been driving around Tredyffrin (since this is not a walking township), you may have noticed a new type of yellow growth sprouting up all over the place. Naturalists have classified it as Fungi Reipublicae. In fact, these yellow growths are actually a new version of the yellow GOP signs that we saw in 2007. These signs come in two flavors: “No Earned Income Tax” and “Top Ranked Schools.” Both cite that you should “Vote Republican”. Let’s break down the claims.

No Earned Income Tax

This sign would have you think that there is an active question in front of the voters and that if you vote Republican, you will be saved from the evils of an Earned Income Tax. Let’s set aside the fact that many already pay an EIT for a moment and instead, concentrate on the straw man argument that Tredyffrin GOP is perpetuating. In fact, there is an earned income tax study committee that has been commissioned by the school board. That committee was first suggested by Republican school board member Kevin Mahoney. To review, there is no active tax question in front of the voters and the only group that is studying the feasibility of an EIT in Tredyffrin was suggested by a Republican.

Top Ranked Schools

It’s true, T/E Schools are quite good. The Tredyffrin Republican Committee would have you believe that Republicans, and Republicans alone are responsible for our “top ranked schools.” In fact, there are a number of Democrats on the school board. I guess they have nothing to do with the successes. Fine, let’s give all the credit to the Republicans. But if we do that, let’s examine the whole cloth. Of Lower Merion, Radnor and T/E, is T/E the best? In terms of facilities, absolutely not. While T/E has retrofitted old buildings, both Lower Merion and Radnor have made a commitment to invest in infrastructure, the type that is required for children to get a top-notch public education in the 21st century. As for test scores, college acceptance, etc – Lower Merion and Radnor are at least as good as T/E.

How about labor relations? T/E is definitely not at the top of the class there? How about fiscal responsibility? T/E is about 9 Million in the hole. You know all of the sweetheart deals for teachers the Republicans are complaining about? Guess what, it’s the Republican led school board that has consistently given the unions what they wanted. At the same time, they are not keen on paying for it. Those same Republicans have consistently raised our property taxes year after year. And yet they are the same people who claim to be protecting us from the evils of an earned income tax.

Any organization that would try and sell the political rhetoric that we see in these yellow signs clearly does not respect their customer. The Republicans believe that we are all too stupid and too quick to fall into the fear trap. The Republicans are banking on the fact that we will believe the scare tactics that the other side is just out to tax and spend our money. Seems to me, the Tredyffrin Republicans have done a good job of that on their own already. They don’t need help from anybody! And never forget, the Tredyffrin Republicans is the party of Bob Lamina, and Paul Olson. If that is not enough reason to give the Tredyffrin Republicans a vote of no confidence, I don’t know what is.

John Petersen
Paoli, PA

Tredyffrin Supervisor and School Board Candidates Do Not Participate but Easttown School Board Candidates Do!

October 19, 2011

8 Comments

With the countdown underway to the General Election on Tuesday, November 8, I sent an email about a week ago to Tredyffrin Township supervisor candidates and to school board candidates for the Tredyffrin Easttown School District. My email to the candidates was simple; it contained a 3-part question asking the candidates to respond in 200 words or less to the following:

(1) In your opinion, what is the single most important issue facing Tredyffrin Township (or Tredyffrin Easttown School District)
(2) If you were elected, what would you do to help solve or improve this issue?
(3) Tredyffrin Township (or Tredyffrin Easttown School Board) needs problem-solvers; what in your background or job experience qualifies you to help solve this important issue?

In addition to posting their responses to the 3-part question, I offered to include the candidate’s resumes on Community Matters, as I did prior to May’s Primary Election. Believing that it is important for voters to make an informed decision on which candidate they elect to serve us, I saw no downside to the candidates participation in May nor did I at this time.

Much to my surprise, the individual Tredyffrin Republican supervisor and school board candidates declined my offer, suggesting that voters could visit their websites for information and that, “We are more than happy to answer questions from individual voters across Tredyffrin – and are doing so while going door-to-door, attending community events, and more.”

Although my email offer was sent directly to the individual candidates, it was the chair of Tredyffrin Township’s Democratic Party, Dariel Jamieson that responded on behalf of the Democrat supervisor and school board candidates. Dariel’s email on behalf of the candidates, likewise declined the offer to participate but the decision was for a different reason,

“Our BOS and School Board candidates prefer not to submit answers to the questions you posed to them until after the LWV [League of Women Voter] debates. The questions were all ones that were asked in the debates two years ago – as they should have been, they are key questions – but to have our answers published first is not fair to the LWV and makes the job of our candidates harder to distinguish themselves in the debates.

Dariel also suggested that voters could visit the website of the candidates. She apparently does not want the Democratic supervisor and school board candidates to ‘show their cards’ in advance of the debates next week.

I’d be more likely to buy that explanation were it not for a lengthy editorial written by Democrat at-large supervisor candidate Murph Wysocki that appeared in last week’s edition of the Main Line Suburban newspaper, Main Line Media News online and TE Patch online. His editorial describes his background and skill set and what he views are the important issues facing the township; in essence, answering the 3-part question that I posed. This week I see that Democrat supervisor candidates Molly Duffy and Tory Snyder have a joint letter to the editor in the paper in the Main Line Media News. In other words, Dariel’s logic of not wanting to ‘let the cat out of the bag‘ pre-debate is lost on me.

To be fair, I do not know if the Democrat candidates weighed in on this decision or not. In the case of the Republicans, their email was signed by the candidates. As full disclosure, Dariel did offer that the candidates could answer my 3-part question after the debate. I believed that this was a win-win opportunity for candidates (and more importantly, the voters) to respond.

My sole purpose in sending the request to the supervisor and school board candidates was to offer voters an additional resource to ‘know the candidates’ before Election Day — believing that the more informed the voter, the better choice he or she will make. I also saw this as one more opportunity for voters to review the resumes of the candidates before voting.

I want to see our community elect independent-thinking problem solvers and viewed that this exercise could encourage voter turnout on Election Day!

You notice that I talk about the Tredyffrin school board candidates; not the Easttown school board candidates. Easttown resident and TE School Board encumbent Pete Motel (R) is being challenged by Easttown resident Craig Lewis (D).

Because our school district is made of school board members from Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships, I had sent Motel and Lewis the same email with the 3-part question. Motel and Lewis were appreciative of my offer to help inform the voters and have chosen to participate. For the record, Motel and Lewis will also be participating in next week’s school board debates alongside the Tredyffrin school board candidates.

When I sent my emails to the supervisor and school board candidates, I stated I would post their responses in the order they were returned. Therefore, Pete Motel’s response is first, followed by Craig Lewis’ response. Their resumes follow their responses. Although I cannot vote for either Motel or Lewis for school board, I thank them for their participation and understanding the importance of informing voters on the candidates.

__________________________________________________________

Pete Motel (R) — Easttown Township School Board Candidate

The biggest challenge facing the T/E School District is maintaining the quality of education it delivers during the current economic downturn.

District revenue is down by millions of dollars primarily due to two reasons:

1) Property tax assessment appeals resulting in decreased real estate tax collection;

2) Decreased home sales resulting in decreased real estate transfer tax. This is coupled with steep increases in the state required contribution to the state pension system – now millions above the contribution required last year.

Great efforts have been made by the Board to balance the District’s budgets without significantly effecting educational opportunities. The Board has implemented cost containment through administrative salary freezes, implementation of self-insured health insurance and more efficient scheduling of staff time.

With the economic recovery projected to take another several years, T/E Boards need to continue to cut expenses without reducing core educational programs. Success will require detailed knowledge of District operations and proven leadership skills.

My experience on the T/E Board as Committee Chairs and past Board president, coupled with my professional experience as a small business owner, demonstrate that I have the proven skills to help guide the District through the next few years of difficult budgets.

Pete Motel Resume

__________________________________________________________

Craig Lewis (D) — Easttown Township School Board Candidate

TE’s biggest issue is irresponsible budgeting.

My opponent, republican Dr. Motel, has mandated 5 study halls per week in Conestoga High (12% instruction reduction) AND a 20% increase in students per teacher. TE was the 4^th best high school in Pennsylvania. Losing this rank will result in a 10% home price decline, reduced college acceptance, scholarships and earning potential.
My opponent diverted education money to purchase, tear-down and build non-educational facilities wasting millions of dollars.

TE’s projection shows out-of-control budget shortfalls. Starting with the current year they are:

-$777,000

-$3,909,000

-$7,925,241

-$11,862,000

-$15,450,000

My fiscally conservative priorities to prevent this catastrophe are:

Stop wasteful spending

Halt all construction and real-estate acquisitions.
The teacher pay was cut and workload increased 20%. Aggressive cost reduction has to look at all other areas.
Halt no-bid contracting

Preserve our premier school ranking

Repeal the 5 study-hall mandate.
Respect our staff; balance their workloads.
Initiate summer enrichment programs for profit.

Retirees deserve school tax relief – My opponent never did this, I will.

I have twenty years of experience in setting goals, developing strategies, creating and managing budgets, both departmental and enterprise wide. This required creative approaches, engaging individuals from different departments to drive successful outcomes.

Craig Lewis Resume

__________________________________________________________

St. Davids Golf Club, Burned-out Light Bulbs & TE School District Finances!

October 18, 2011

34 Comments

I attended last night’ Board of Supervisors meeting and my friend, Ray Clarke attended the T/E School District’s Finance Meeting. Following my update on the supervisors meeting, please read Ray’s comments.

The agenda for last night’s supervisors meeting went quickly and there was no ‘new matters’ from board members. I was prepared for ‘new matters’ from citizens with two topics. Based on the supervisors meeting of October 3, I asked Supervisor Olson (Bob Lamina and EJ Richter were absent) if St. Davids Golf Club had been contacted. Olson deferred to Mimi Gleason who said yes, the club was contacted and said it was a positive conversation. I asked about the timeline for response from the club re the sidewalks and her response was that there was no time limit. In other words, I said the issue remains ‘open ended’ to which she responded yes. Bottom line, it may have taken us 21 months to get to this point in time with St. Davids Golf Club, but apparently nothing is going to move forward anytime soon, in the way of enforcement, etc.. Was the only way to receive an update (status) on the sidewalks at St. Davids was to ask the same question at every Board of Supervisors meeting? I guess that is correct.

Second citizen matter from me last night was the burned out light bulb situation in the township. Although I have focused on Chesterbrook and Duportail on Community Matters, I have noticed other area lights out (Old Eagle School Rd. as an example). My questions produced some interesting facts:

The township (residents) pays PECO per light post, regardless if there are electrical issues or if the lights are working or not.
The township has a yearly maintenance contract with Lenni Electrical to change light bulbs. Some have suggested that perhaps the township was trying to save money and maybe wasn’t calling the company for maintenance as a way to avoid service call expenses. Well, I discovered that the township (residents) pays a flat fee regardless of how many (or how few) times they come out to change the light bulbs!
The pink ribbons are placed by township staff to indicate to Lenni Electrical where light bulbs need replacement. I noticed driving to the township building that there are pink ribbons on street lights that have working light bulbs and questioned why weren’t the ribbons removed when the light bulbs were changed? Obvious, I would think. According to Steve Burgo, township engineer, they know that this is a problem and are working with the contractor to get them to remove the pink ribbons.

Mimi cited ongoing electrical problems on Chesterbrook Boulevard as the cause for the non-working light bulbs. I suggested that the electrical problem with some of the Chesterbrook lights has existed for 27+ years. The response from Mimi Gleason, was that they were working with PECO and that State Rep Warren Kampf had been called for assistance.

After leaving the township building, I decided to do a more scientific study of counting the burned-out light bulbs on Chesterbrook and Duportail Rds. I drove down one side of Chesterbrook Blvd. to Valley Forge Road, turned around and drove back, counting as many of the burned-out light bulbs as I could find. This 2-mile (or less) stretch of roads doesn’t have 19 burned-out light bulbs, there are 37 non-working street lights.

Am I the only one who has a problem with this? We are all taxpayers and our money is paying PECO for these lights and our money is paying Lenni Electrical change the light bulbs. Where’s the accountability on this issue? I remain hopeful that at least one of our supervisors will take up the cause of township light bulbs.

Moving on to last night’s TE School District Finance Committee meeting. While I was busy sorting through the burned-out light bulb situation, Ray Clarke was at the Finance Committee meeting. He offers the following comments with his own editorial remarks. As always, I am appreciative that Ray not only attends the school board meetings, but takes the time to detail his thoughts for Community Matters. Thanks Ray!

The TESD Finance Committee meeting turned up a few points of interest on Monday night.

The district’s 2010/11 financials got a nice boost from the decision to self-insure healthcare benefits coupled with better than projected claims experience. That turned out to be a $1.3 million favorable variance, which in turn generated a $0.9 million surplus for the year. So our Fund Balance, combined with an additional $0.5 million which under previous accounting rules was separate (I think), is (6/30/2011) now up to a munificent $31 million. (Note, I came in slightly late to this discussion, and there was no handout on this, so my numbers may not be precise)

Also on the plus side, the Committee discussed what to do with the restoration of Corbett’s proposed cut to the state reimbursement of 50% of social security taxes, worth $1.3 million this year, which came in after TE’s 2011/12 budget was passed. The administration proposed ~$200K for postponed text-book buys and ~$300K mostly for technology spending. This generated a lot of debate, essentially asking the question: what is going to be the impact of, say, $60,000 for piloting applications for iPads, versus the current technology environment. To my mind this is the tip of a much bigger iceberg: how will we use technology spending to improve the analytic or creative skills of our students? If we need a pilot to answer that question, fine, but should we spend $60,000 for a pilot? It was agreed that this would be subject for future Board discussion.

Important upcoming dates: November 3rd for the Tax Study Group’s presentation of the pros and cons of and EIT, and November 14thfor a special School Board meeting to consider notification of the intent to request a referendum on the April 24th ballot. Some important things (from my perspective) to bear in mind here:The official financial projection model is being modified to remove the assumption of a Act 1 index 1.7% property tax increase for 2012/13, so the base case is not both a property and an income tax. The base case gap for 2012/13 is currently $5.5 million. (It’s not clear that the model has been updated yet for the actual healthcare cost and fund balance outcomes.)

The TSG’s approach is to present the features of an EIT independent of the alternatives; the Board (and potentially voters) will have to decide the merits of those pros and cons relative to its own assessment of the pros and cons of alternatives like cutting educational programs, raising property taxes or – for a few years – using some of that Fund Balance.

Unknown actions of the townships, which would be entitled to claim up to 50% of the revenues from a voter-approved residential EIT, loom large. How highly would the BOS weigh education versus the township’s own needs?

Of course, totally moot unless the School Board votes to ask the question, and the voters approve it, since there is no sign that the townships are mulling and EIT of their own.

Of course, the Republican candidates for the School Board have already decided the EIT question for themselves without waiting for the TSG analysis. Presumably they are part of the minority in TE that a) does not pay the tax already, and b) has an income greater than 40% of the assessed value of their house, so would rather see any gap (after using some of that fund balance) made up from cuts in the education program or property tax increases.

On the TEEA contract: the district is required by the state to begin negotiations for the next contract in January. The way this all gets going is for the union to send a letter to the district at that time.

How creative can the parties be? Is there a way to trade-off much lower healthcare premiums/benefits (that encourage personal accountability) for maybe allowing step increases, keeping the total compensation cost within at the very least the increase modeled in the district’s current projection?

T/E School District’s Tax Study Group Kicks Off Earned Income Tax Process

September 15, 2011

27 Comments

The T/E School District held its first meeting of the newly created Tax Study Group. Thank you to Ray Clarke for attending and providing Community Matters with his personal observations and comments. I spoke at length with Ray in regards to the meeting. Based on our conversation and Ray’s notes below, it looks like the Tax Study Group could use the assistance of a tax attorney. If there is someone living in Tredyffrin or Easttown with that expertise, perhaps they could offer their assistance in the school district’s EIT project.

Below are Ray Clarke’s comments from the Tax Study Group meeting:

The kick-off meeting for the TESD Tax Study Group (TSG) was held on Thursday. It was a long meeting, focused on bringing the TSG up to speed on basic district financial and demographic information. The TSG clearly has a long way to go, but at the end some organization emerged that leaves me hopeful for the outcome. I think it will be important that they formalize a way to get direct community input. Some observations:

The TSG was supported by Art McDonnell and the same consultant from the PSBA that worked on the 2006 exercise. A majority of the Board was in the audience, plus Tredyffrin Supervisor Mike Heaberg and about half a dozen community members.

The core of the meeting was a presentation of basic district data by the consultant. Hopefully the large binder will be a good reference, but more focus might have helped. Also, much of the data was dated and there were a disappointing number of mistakes – one important one alertly caught by Ed Stevens of the TSG. But, good info on the district’s personal income and assessed values, both trends and distribution, which will definitely be important factors in the analysis.

My selection of good TE rules of thumb and factoids for armchair analysts (it was stated that the materials will be available on the TESD web site):

– $2.3 billion of personal income

– $5 billion of property assessment, distributed according to the 80/20 rule.

– Median household income for Tredyffrin ~$100,000, for Easttown ~$130,000

– 25% of the TE population under 18;

– 16% over 65 (both percentages higher in Eastown and lower in Tredyffrin).

– Huge bubble in earned and personal income in 2007 – up more than 30% over the previous year.

TSG organization: William Mullin emerged as the organizing force.

No meeting on September 29th; other meetings will last from 7 to 9:30pm. Possible final presentation to the community on November 3.

The objective of the TSG was reinforced many times: to present a set of Pros and Cons to the Board for consideration. In my opinion the TSG will provide the greatest service if it ensures that the set is driven by data and analysis, not anecdote.

One important area for up-to-date, authoritative data: what will be the impact of an EIT on Philadelphia workers? Can TE levy an EIT on those wages, or otherwise get any benefit (gaming revenues?). Under what conditions, and what are the (quantified) odds of those conditions applying? This will have an important impact on the possible revenues and the number of residents affected.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters