Tredyffrin Township Archives - Page 45 of 67

Tredyffrin Township

Since the Board of Supervisors Meeting on Monday, many of you have weighed in with your views and thoughts . . .

Over 100 comments have been added to Community Matters during the last 3 days;
YouTube moments created from supervisors meeting;
Front page coverage of “Tensions Mount in Tredyffrin” in Main Line Suburban Life;
Ethics violation lawsuit against supervisors Kampf, Lamina and Olson discussed; any method of Home Rule Charter removal of elected officials for ethics violation would be deemed unconstitutional by State of Pennsylvania

In the review of the 100+ comments, I offer the following quotes from readers on the subject of Monday night’s Board of Supervisors Meeting:

From Mt. Pleasant Supporter, ” . . . Shame on you Lamina/Kampf/Olson. You are a disgrace to the position of Supervisor. You have crossed the line once again. I am not a fan of lawsuits, but I hope you all get removed. . . “

From John Peteresen, ” . . . The donation form makes clear that when started, the fund raising campaign was an officially sanctioned Township effort – much like Tredyffrin 300.The second smoking gun is Comcast. Comcast is actively negotiating its Tredyffrin cable franchise. There is no question that an air of pay to play is present here. . . “

From Neighboring Friend, ” . . . Little men with something to hide respond to polite, fact-based comments and questions with anger, defensiveness, and personal attacks. You should be ashamed of yourselves. . . “

From Papadick58, ” . . . As a life long Republican and a right-wing conservative I am ashamed of the actions and comments by the BOS to Pattye’s statement, but not at all surprised by their tactics. . . “

From Tredyffrin Voter, ” . . . Everyone in the room and everyone who watched on TV heard Mr. Kampf give these facts in a very civil manner, including Ms. Benson who was at the meeting.

From Jim Albright, ” . . . Warren Kampf has the audacity to justify the clearly political and self-serving cardboard check moment as (and I’m paraphrasing) the sort of feel-good moment that might take place during a New England town meeting. He must think we’re really stupid. . . “

From Roger, ” . . . Bob [Lamina] is using his position as a bully pulpit. His behavior hurts the image of those Republicans, me being one, who engage in civilized discourse with all parties. I always fail to understand how these individuals think they can treat people like this. Quite frankly it’s disgusting. . . “

From Disgruntled TTRC Member, ” . . . At some point, the insanity has to stop. The overriding issues have centered on loyalty to Tredyffrin’s “favorite son”. The issues have been brewing for some time. I for one will not be working for Warren on primary day. . . “

From Confused, ” . . . I watched the meeting on television ‘live’ and feel that the comments on this blog are way off base. I saw no disrespect by any of the supervisor’s of any of the residents in their comments. . . “

From the West, ” . . . my biggest question remains: why don’t the fire companies do this themselves? why don’t they hire a professional fundraiser instead of trying to do it themselves? . . .”

From Disillusioned in Tredyffrin, ” . . . It really bothers me that there are residents in the township who feel it is the Fire Departments job to Fund Raise (which btw, they do fund raise). Personally, & in my opinion I think it ludicrous that they are expected to fund raise at all. . . “

From A Friend of Pattye’s, ” . . . Appalling though it was, after watching the meeting I was even more discouraged about the prospects for fair and open government than ever. If anyone thinks this board of supervisors gives a hoot about anything beside their own party- driven agenda, you’re kidding yourself. . . “

From Sarah, ” . . . If you want to do business, you join the Chamber of Commerce, you join the Paoli Business associations….all those things are to promote your business. It’s the fact, however, when an elected official is associated with the request for the money — it’s all bad….regardless of the outcome. . . “

From Township Reader, ” . . . HOW does Bob Lamina asking Comcast, Saul Ewing, Lamb McErlane (or whatever firm Mr. Hogan serves) not only SMACK of pay to play, it validates it. WHY is the judgment of the supervisors so dysfunctional? Why are the moral compasses not working? It is always going to be “because we said so” as the reason for about everything they do that is challenged by the public? . . . ”

One of the comments that represents how many of us are feeling based on Monday’s Board of Supervisors Meeting was provided by CJ of the Main Line. I support CJ’s position that the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Firefighters Fund Drive should not be a party line issue. ‘It is an ethics issue. It is a personal agenda issue. It is a priorities issue’. Here is his/her comment in its entirety:

From CJ of the Main Line, What does any of this banter back and forth about who supports who and what party line is involved?

The bottom line here is nothing short of this:
The Supervisors decided to cut money from the fire companies that they expected. The fire companies were not happy. At the same meeting, the supervisors voted to keep the fire works. The dollar value was about the same. Fire Company & Residents put pressure on the supervisors with a very compelling show of support and petition.

Backed up to the wall, three supervisors took it upon themselves to go out and directly solicit money to cover the difference. They did it without telling other supervisors or the fire companies. In a brave showing, Warren Kampf made a surprise public display of a check representing the dollar value of anticipated pledges to support this band-aid cause.

The solicitations were done on paper that had supervisors names, the township managers name, township logo and the township’s address on it. This is not how the fire companies run their fund drives. It is not an ordinary process and was done virtually publically, with public statements and all… by the supervisors… after the big check was presented.

This was wrong for a multitude of reasons:
1) Fairly clear break of the home rule charter.
2) Placed the Fire Companies in a fairly itchy position collecting money they did not solicit and were being told how to distribute against their normal process.
3) Some supervisors used this effort to try to boost a public image of the supervisors (at least one) at the sacrifice of others.
4) Went against a very vocal, large outcry from their residents to utilize the fireworks money for their safety, not recreation.

I am displeased to say the least that there are some who want to turn this issue into a party line issue.
It is an ethics issue. It is a personal agenda issue. It is a priorities issue.

Main Line Sububan Life’s take on BOS Meeting . . . “Tensions Mount in Tredyffrin”

April 22, 2010

21 Comments

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

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

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

Tensions Mount in Tredyffrin

By Blair Meadowcroft

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

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

After waiting for the Fund Drive to be complete, Benson questioned the supervisors’ fund-raising, stating, “I voiced my concern about the solicitation by supervisors to companies that could be doing business with the township, and I cited a specific example from May 2008 and the Pitcairn Company.”

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

“The idea was that there could be a ‘pay to play’ perception because of a final review of the land-development project between the township and Pitcairn,” said Benson. “Warren Kampf was chair at the time and he was absolute that I could not accept this offer because this company was doing business with the township. I knew nothing about Pitcairn’s planning-commission review yet I could not accept the offer.”

That conflict of interest, as understood by Benson, is similar to the Firefighter Fund Drive in that supervisors were doing the fund-raising for the fire companies.

“The very same people who told me I couldn’t accept the offer from Pitcairn were out soliciting money,” said Benson. “The way I see it is the only difference between the Pitcairn/Trust situation and the fire-company solicitation is that one was an in-kind offer and the other was a monetary contribution; both could be perceived as benefiting the township.”

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

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

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

“The difference as I see it between the situations is that we are supervisors who are free as individuals and who are allowed to accept charitable donations,” said Kampf. “I do not surrender my rights as a private citizen. When I see a problem that I can help with, I will. We went out, asked for help and were able to raise close to $25,000. And people were free to refuse to donate. There were some who refused and that is fine; we wouldn’t hold that against them.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 21, 2010

51 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 20, 2010

41 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ . . . Trust Board Members –

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

The idea was that there could be a ‘pay to play’ perception because of the final review of the land development project between the township & Pitcairn. Needless to say, I was very upset – I was not on the planning commission, the zoning commission, nor an elected official, and I was not allowed to accept this offer. Warren Kampf was chair at the time and called me while on a business trip in California to discuss the board’s decision. He was absolute that I could not accept this offer because this company was doing business with the township. I knew nothing about Pitcairn’s planning commission review yet I could not accept the offer.

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

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

The way I see it is the only difference between the Pitcairn/Trust situation and the fire company solicitation is that one was an in-kind offer and the other was a monetary contribution; both could be perceived as benefiting the township. If a business that was solicited by the supervisors during the Holiday Fund Drive were to have zoning, planning development projects, contract negotiations, etc. with the township, the perception of pay-to-play would exist. (This was the argument provided when I debated that the Trust should be allowed to accept Pitcairn’s offer.) Conceptually, there is no difference between the situations.

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

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

902. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

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

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

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

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

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

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

TESD Finance Committee Meeting Last Night . . . Notes from Malvern Resident Ray Clarke

April 20, 2010

24 Comments

I attended the Board of Supervisors meeting last night — once again, reality TV was alive and well in Tredyffrin Township. I will write about the BOS meeting later, presenting some of the highlights and, unfortunately lowlights of the evening. As a result of attending the BOS meeting, I counted on my friend Ray Clarke to attend the school district’s Finance Committee Meeting. Below are Ray’s notes from last night . . .

Moving to the TESD Finance Committee tonight, I must admit to much disappointment, as the past couple of months have brought little clarity and some regression. Analysis seems to have stalled.

Of the $1.5 million in “Strategy #2” expense items, I think that fully 50% must be discounted, at least in part, because:
– The idea does not account for all associated costs or qualifications (eg not all JV and Varsity sports teams can be bussed together)
– There are difficulties with the concept (eg selling advertising for extra-curricular activities/events)
– The notion is fundamentally vague (eg reduce utility costs, reduce legal costs)
– And last but not least, the strategy is thought of as unfair to some employees. Chairman Kevin Mahoney believes that the proposed salary freeze and adjustments for non-unionized staff are inequitable, and has asked for a rethink of the idea. Estimated impact: $445,000. Debbie Bookstaber took the position that taxpayers don’t have the money for these increases. Note that in any event, these pay freeze strategies are noted in the written descriptions as “one time”, implying that the amount was to be made up in subsequent years anyway.

It is coming to be accepted that there will have to be a larger draw down of the fund balance than has been discussed so far – another $0.5 million at least is my guess.

Noteworthy discussion: general support (with some clarification needed) for a fee of $20 per extra-curricular activity for middle and high school students and for a $100/year parking fee for students (only) at CHS (up from $10). These rates were thought to be low relative to other districts. The process for converting to self-insurance for health care is moving ahead – it will be important to keep a close eye on utilization.

There was another bond issuance discussion. The District is moving from funding capital projects from general funds (paid by past tax payers) to funding them from bond proceeds (to be repaid by future taxpayers). By necessity really – the capital fund has just $1.7 million, and there are plans to spend $16.7 million over the next three years. Now, the accounting rules let you capitalize the interest on the bonds for the first two years, so the day of reckoning can be pushed out even more.

All the more reason to actually move this discussion forward by:
a) quickly coming up with fully thought-through deficit reduction proposals for the upcoming year, and
b) presenting an accessible multi-year operating projection which includes:
– Adding back all one time expense reductions
– Adding all bond principal and interest costs
– Consideration of the likely base level of capital spending and bond issuance strategy (Will the district spend $15 million in capital every three years? Are there options?)
– Adding a best guess of medium term strategies that save real dollars (eg the changes to the CHS program)
– Adding the contracted increases in compensation and benefits costs

The size of the resulting multi-year deficit will show that it’s not going to be good enough to keep pushing off the discussion of all the options for both expenses and revenues. Again, tonight there was no discussion of an EIT, beyond two pages handed out that detail the difference between Act 511 and Act 1. My summary: only the former seems relevant, the Townships do not have to claim any of the revenue (but may), additional gaming revenue may allow TESD to claim some taxes paid to Philadelphia, and implementation would be subject to a voter referendum at a May primary, for earliest implementation on July 1, 2011. There was no quantification of the impact.

To my mind, it’s time for the district to show that it truly has a grasp of the big picture, and move on from reducing $10,000 in landscaping expenses to addressing the fundamental problem of managing and funding escalating educational requirements and employee/capital costs, in a largely developed community and a non-bubble economy.

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

April 19, 2010

8 Comments

Voter Registration Deadline Today

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

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

A Perfect Storm for Chester County’s 2010-11 School District Budgets

April 18, 2010

Comments

On the eve of TESD’s important Finance Committee Meeting, I found this timely article by Mary Jean Curley, PR director for the Chester County Intermediate Unit particularly apropos. We are focused on our District’s budget; can we take solace in knowing that we are not alone?

In the past, readers have taken issue with my reference to the current school budget situation as a crisis, but I believe this is just the beginning. Read Mary Jean’s article and look at the statistics . . . at a minimum, we are on the brink of a crisis. Dramatic cuts were required to balance the township budget for 2010; and I think tomorrow night we will see the school district forced to likewise make some difficult decisions on programming cuts. Whether it is the township budget or the school district budget, as difficult as this year has been for budgets and necessary cuts, it’s going to be 2011-12 budget situation that is going to challenge all of us. Creative suggestions and visionary ideas will be required from both the township and school boards.

Chesco schools struggling to balance budgets with needs

By Mary Jeanne Curley is public relations director for the Chester County Intermediate Unit.

From Avon Grove to West Chester and everywhere in between, Chester County school districts are struggling to balance students’ needs and state mandates with taxpayers’ pocketbooks.

“There are a number of factors that are contributing to the shortfall in school budgets across the county and, in fact, the state,” said Joseph P. Lubitsky, director of administrative services for the Chester County Intermediate Unit. “The economy is a major factor; both interest revenue and tax revenue are down as a result of the recession and the bottoming out of the housing market.”Controlling health care costs, which even in a good economy is a challenge, is exacerbated in this economy, and now we are also contending with dramatic increases in the school employee retirement system,” he continued.

While local school districts all have unique situations, this year they share their budget woes and the cause of those woes, namely increased contributions to the Pennsylvania School Employees Retirement System, higher health care costs, reduced interest earnings, declines in real estate taxes and the costs of unfunded state mandates.

At the top of every district’s list is the increase to the employee retirement system contribution. The local contribution will increase 72 percent this year and continue to increase every year until 2015. According to the retirement system’s projected employer rate, Pennsylvania school districts’ contribution rates will go from 8.22 percent this year to 10.59 percent next year and to 29.55 percent in 2012. The rates will then level off at 33.6 percent in 2015 and remain above 30 percent until 2020. For the Intermediate Unit, this means going from $2.5 million this year to $4.4 million next year and to $20.5 million in 2015.

The Great Valley School District, which recently passed a resolution urging legislative action for school employee pension reform, estimates pension contributions will cost the district an additional $12 million over the next five years, beginning with a $1.3 million increase next year.

The Great Valley School Board also voted not to apply to the state for an exception to raise taxes above the 2.9 percent index allotted under state Act 1. Contributions to the employee pension fund and special education are two costs for which school districts are allowed to apply for an exception.

The Great Valley School District is not alone in voting to remain within the confines of the Act 1 index. Avon Grove, Coatesville Area, Downingtown Area, Oxford Area, Tredyffrin/Easttown and other school districts have taken similar positions. The Chester County Intermediate Unit lacks taxing powers of its own and relies on its funding from its member school districts.

Health care costs also continue to spiral out of control. For example, medical renewal costs in the Kennett Consolidated School District are expected to increase by 40 percent, in Owen J. Roberts by 39 percent and in Phoenixville Area schools by 27 percent.

In addition, while special education costs continue to rise, state and federal support for the mandated programs has steadily decreased as an overall percentage of support. Special education costs have risen at the Great Valley School District from $2.8 million in 1999 to a projected $10.1 million next year. Meanwhile, state and federal funding rose from $1.1 million in 1999 to $1.5 million for 2010-11.

State support has gone from nearly 40 percent to less than 15 percent of the district’s total budget.These costs alone would strain a district’s budget, but coupled with decreased interest and tax revenue, they have created a perfect storm for school district budgets in the 2010-11 school year.

The tax base in Chester County has steadily eroded over the past seven years, decreasing by $12 million in the past school year alone. School districts hardest hit include Avon Grove, Downingtown Area, Great Valley, Kennett, Oxford Area, Tredyffrin/Easttown, Unionville and West Chester Area. Tax revenue has decreased $654,023 for Kennett, $218,898 for Great Valley, $184,000 for Octorara and $180,442 for Oxford.

Interest earnings are down as well. The Intermediate Unit’s interest earnings are down from $1.2 million in 2007 to a projected $627,991 next year.

Similarly, Great Valley predicts interest revenue for 2010-11 will fall from $1.9 million in 2007 to only $90,000 next school year, or an annual loss of nearly $2 million in revenue. The decline has been sharp over the past three years, with last year’s interest only generating $390,169, a net loss of $640,182 from 2008-09.

All of these factors are leaving school districts with three options: cuts costs, raise taxes, or find alternative sources of revenue. With many county schools boards opting not to petition the state for exceptions that would allow them to raise taxes above the state-approved index, all districts are looking at a combination of these three options.

For example, to close a $4.9 million budget gap, the West Chester Area School District eliminated 19 staff positions and put stadium lights on hold, and it may change school bell schedules, consolidate bus routes, raise student parking fees and increase taxes 2.9 percent.Several school districts are looking at charging facility rental rates for the first time or increasing existing rates.

In the Great Valley School District for the 2009-10 school year, the school board eliminated nine full-time positions and 12 teacher extra-duty positions and reduced summer workers by 50 percent, theme readers by 50 percent and instructional aide by 3,500 hours.

For the 2010-11 budget, just to maintain the status quo, Great Valley officials will need to cut expenditures by $1,645,933 and raise taxes 2.9 percent. The Chester County Intermediate Unit has deferred hiring staff and has eliminated 18 positions. It has reduced energy and operational costs by $268,000 a year. In addition, the Intermediate Unit continues to work with the school districts to save money through joint purchasing, in which participating schools realize an annual cost reduction of $2 million by bidding for supplies jointly.

The Intermediate Unit’s self-insured medical program continues to contain health care costs, and while the Blue Cross fully insured program saw an average rate increase of 30.88 percent, the Intermediate Unit’s rate increase is projected to rise just 2 percent next year.

Although not bound by the Act 1 index, the Intermediate Unit has made a commitment to its member school districts not to raise costs above the average county index and has kept its member core contribution rate unchanged. The Intermediate Unit is also working with school districts to find alternative funding sources. It recovered $2.9 million in costs for Chester County school districts through medical reimbursements for services provided to special education students. Districts are responsible for these costs as part of the students’ educational programs.

Many school districts are requesting community input to help them through this fiscal crisis and have extensive budget information on their Web sites. To find out more about a school district’s budget process, visit the district’s individual Web site. A link to all Chester County school district Web sites can be found at www.cciu.org (click on the “Find Your School District” link).

Mary Jeanne Curley is public relations director for the Chester County Intermediate Unit.

North Penn, Montgomery County Teachers Set to Strike Monday . . . Could this be a sign of the times?

April 17, 2010

Comments

Many of the area school districts are in their final discussions for the 2010-11 budget, include Tredyffrin Easttown School District. As the school year is starting to wind down, there is news that the North Penn teacher’s union in Montgomery County has made the decision to strike starting at 7 AM this Monday. North Penn School District is a large sprawling district with over 13,000 students. Are the actions of the North Penn School District’s teachers a sign of the times?

If I understand the teacher union’s case correctly, the teachers told the North Penn school board what they were willing to accept in the contract negotiations. However, the school board voted unanimously to reject an arbitration award from the arbitration panel mediating between the district and the teachers.

The teacher union and the school board put a spin on the proposed contract differently. The teachers union report that their proposal included a $43.4 million salary increase, 23.5% annual payroll increase over the next five years of the contract. According to the school board, the proposed teacher contract ignored the fact that the proposed teacher’s contract would increase the current district budget by over 17.3% and as a result require residents to pay an approximate 25.4% increase in property taxes over the five years of the contract. The teacher union is disputing these tax hike numbers presented by the school board. North Penn union president Alan Malachowski argued, “The salary increase in the first year was a 0, which our teachers overwhelmingly said was OK, and beyond that were yearly increases of 2.5, 2.5, 2.8 and 2.8 percent, very modest salary increases that they know they can afford.”

For comparison sake, the current North Penn salary schedules for 2009-10 starts at $42,870 and ends at a maximum salary of $93,948 (the same as in the base year of 2008-09). The proposed increase allows for a starting salary of $49,518 to maximum salary of $104,410 in 2013-14. How do North Penn’s teachers salaries compare to T/E School District?

______________________________________________________________

From our own school district . . . the TESD Finance Committee Meeting is scheduled for this Monday, April 19, 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School auditorium. Here is the Finance Committee Meeting agenda— interesting to note that the Earned Income Tax (EIT) is listed as an agenda item.

Save Ardmore Coalition Syndicates Community Matters

April 16, 2010

Comments

Save Ardmore Coalition, a 501c(4) nonprofit civic action organization has syndicated Community Matters and added it to their blog roll. Save Ardmore Coalition (SAC) whose tag line is “Working Together for Lower Merion’s Future” is one of the earliest community grassroots organizations in the area and has attracted an impressive following. Believing in community input and consensus building, SAC has lively discussions and debates on school board meetings, township meetings, community events, etc. Many of their local government and budget issues are similar to Tredyffrin Township and we can learn much from sharing our experiences.

On the bottom of each of SAC’s pages, you will find a listing of the blogs they support, including PA Watercooler, Conservative Reform Network, Postcards from Lower Merion, and now Community Matters, along with most recent posts from each site. I thank SAC and appreciate the recognition of Community Matters. By increasing the traffic to Community Matters, we continue to shine light on important issues in our community. A greater awareness of the issues is a first step to finding solutions. Thank you SAC.

Is Decision of Middle School Principals on Posting Diversity Signs Regressive?

April 16, 2010

16 Comments

Award-winning Conestoga High School’s newspaper ‘The Spoke’ recently ran an anonymous op-ed Letter to the Editor, titled ‘A Sign of Intolerance’. An interesting editorial, the writer discussed the recent decision by TESD middle school principals not to post the sign,“This classroom [or office] is a safe learning environment for all students regardless of ability, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation.”

This diversity sign is found in all of the high school classrooms and offices but the two middle school principals (T/E and Valley Forge) decided against posting the sign in their school classrooms. I’m not quite sure why? Manuevering through the early teen years can be difficult for many children, and for their parents. Peer pressure of the middle school years can be overwhelming; our children are acutely aware of what their friends think, and that can affect their self-perception and values. Not that I think a posted sign in middle school classrooms would automatically change attitudes and create acceptance, but what is wrong with reinforcement that school is a safe enviroment regardless of your differences?

The School Board has a Diversity Committee so I wonder why this decision to ‘not post’ the signage was left to the middle school principals; and further why did the middle schoold educators made this choice? Or, does the school board not make this type of district policy decision? For those that may better understand the rationale for this decision, I’d appreciate your comments. Below is the editorial that appears in the recent edition of The Spoke.

A Sign of Intolerance
Anonymous Letter to the Editor
The Spoke, Conestoga High School

As they walk through the halls of Conestoga, students of different ethnicities, sexual orientations, religions and races can feel like they have the chance to be accepted. They know that once they enter any classroom, their teacher will offer them a safe environment in which they can grow and develop.

This automatic sense of security is provided in each high school classroom by a sign bearing the words, “This classroom [or office] is a safe learning environment for all students regardless of ability, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation.”

On Dec. 9, the school board’s diversity committee recommended that these signs be included in both T/E and Valley Forge Middle Schools, where they would have provided assurance to those in fifth through eighth grades. When the decision was brought to the education committee, however, the middle school principals were given the final say as to whether or not to include the signs in the schools. Here, they ultimately decided to reverse this forward-thinking protocol.

This decision directly followed a diversity committee meeting where parents and students in attendance spoke out in favor of the sign. Regardless of a Conestoga student’s first-hand testimony about her harsh middle school career as an openly-bisexual student, the middle school principals decided to ban the signs, thereby restricting openness among their students.

Despite any reasoning that these administrators might offer, we on The Spoke’s editorial board believe that the middle school principals’ actions only serve to limit progress in the areas of tolerance and acceptance for students.

Let us be clear that we make no presumptions that such a sign can prevent the formation of personal prejudices that many students already hold. We recognize the need for further initiatives to help instill this greater sense of acceptance yet, as a starting point, the sign is a step in the right direction. It is one of the simplest ways for students to gain a better understanding of the diversity that exists in our society.

The educators that made this decision must realize that the sign, though it may simply be a piece of paper bearing inspirational words, is also a symbol of the tolerance that students of all ages deserve. By removing this emblem, the district shows a decided lack of interest in the development of diversity and acceptance of various groups of individuals.

In light of recent budget cuts, T/E has been forced to make tough decisions for the future. Throughout this process, the district’s rationale has been linked to a desire to “develop students who will be prepared to excel in the 21st century.” However, there is little chance of this happening if administrators continue to implement such regressive policies.

The school district leaves us with no other option but this: we, as students, have to do what those signs will not. We have to make sure that our fellow students feel safe and accepted when they walk into a classroom. We have to reject the indifference of our higher ups and counter it with acceptance, tolerance and belief. Belief that we can be the change that they refuse to give us.

← Older Posts

Newer Posts →

Pattye Benson

Community Matters