Pattye Benson

Community Matters

TTGOP

Negative Political Campaigning Needs to End . . . Election Day 2010 Cannot Come Soon Enough!

October 30, 2010
50 Comments

Tuesday cannot get here soon enough! Turn on the television and you are certain to see a barrage of negative campaign ads from various candidates attacking their opponents. With Election Day 2010 just days away, households across America are being attacked by negative political ads. Without an invitation, the negative attack ads are finding their way into our homes, by way of television, robo-calls, on our computers and in our mailboxes.

Everyday someone says to me they cannot wait until Wednesday when it’s over, and Election Day 2010 will be only a memory. The amount of time, energy and money spent on negative sound bites feels eternal… and maybe it is. With unlimited dollars (both domestic and foreign) buying airtime, it takes a persistent and dedicated voter to ferret-out all the paid-for misinformation. People complain and say they hate the ads, the mailers, the political phone calls and the mudslinging that we see in the news articles and the opinion pieces. But they must work. After all, it is amazing how much money is spent on these political campaigns.

Look at the contents of the political ads on TV and in the campaign mailers. The distortion, the exaggerations, the misleading claims – the blatant lies. True or false? Fact or Fiction? Most of the campaign ads are more like half-truths, half-falsehoods – and a lot of embellishment.

But do these negative ads actually work . . . do they influence decisions? I would like to hope that they don’t work and that they don’t influence voters. I want to believe that voters are smarter and more informed and that they rise above the distortions and exaggerations. Unfortunately, psychological research has shown that the brain processes negative information more deeply than positive information. Guess political campaigners support the scientific research and have decided that negative ads do work – at least better than positive ads.

By the time the calendar hit mid-October, the viciousness of the negative ads had picked up momentum. And it is no surprise that the closer the individual race, the more negative the ads. Research suggests that negative campaign ads work even though people hate them. I think the potential also exists that people just get tired of the negative campaign season and that this feeling can actually drive the voter turnout down. Eventually, after being influenced by the candidate’s negative campaigning, is it possible that a voter would just stay home on Tuesday, thinking “why bother?”

Negative ads can have a powerful impact; people tend to remember them. . . . Isn’t that why bad news always enjoys more ‘play time’ on TV than good news. I would bet that none of these ads tells the whole truth – the truth you would accept as a reasonable person. Almost all the negative ads are partial or biased on one way or another or just misleading. In a perfect world, positive ads would have as much an impact as the negative ones. What would happen if someone ran an issue-based campaign with no mention of the opponent and no mudslinging? Would an issue-based campaign ever be possible in today’s society? Would it even work?

Where does all this leave us for Election Day; what is a voter to do? There are no campaign enforcement police making sure everyone is telling the truth. My hope for all of you who hold the privilege to vote is to think for yourself. Do a little research and use that developed human brain of yours. Please try not to be influenced by the negative campaign ads. Your vote is worth more than a nay saying ad or a half-truth campaign mailer.

I hope that residents in our community have enough sense and reason to make logical decisions and can only hope that others beyond Tredyffrin will do the same. I would ask that you stay informed by multiple sources. Think for yourself, beyond what your neighbor, your friend or co-worker favors. Know the candidates and support those who have shown ethical behavior. Exercise your right to vote in a sane, thoughtful manner and make your vote count this Tuesday!

PA State Representative 157 Race – Candidate Question #5 and Response

October 18, 2010
15 Comments

This is the Candidate Question & Response Forum for the Pennsylvania State House 157 candidates. As previously stated, candidate Warren Kampf declined to participate in the question and response forum. Candidate Paul Drucker’s response follows the question. Each Monday for six weeks, a new question and response will be posted. The candidate forum will end the week before the election.

Question #5: Small business owners are struggling to keep their doors open in today’s economy. What should government do to help them?

Paul Drucker’s Response:

The best way for government to help all business, small and large, is to make an environment that is friendly to them. One step government can take to help small business owners is to improve local downtowns and develop older communities.

What’s more, we need to ensure that businesses, particularly start-ups and small businesses, are taxed at a fair and responsible rate. With that in mind, lowering property taxes is not only important for homeowners, but for business owners as well.

As I mentioned earlier, it is critical that we have a well-educated workforce and provide small businesses access to capital in this tight credit market.

And, once again, we cannot separate economic development from our transportation needs. We will not attract 21st century businesses with a 20th century infrastructure.

Would the Founding Fathers Be Happy?

October 17, 2010
30 Comments

It’s only 2-1/2 weeks until Election Day 2010, and it’s not easy to find something that Americans agree on these days.

Referencing our own backyard, the Philadelphia Inquirer today refers to the Drucker-Kampf Race as a ‘battleground house race’. With just a couple of weeks remaining until Election Day, the rhetoric continues at a heightened level with much at stake . . . both sides dissatisfied with the other and both parties anxious to see their candidate win. The growing tension is recognized everywhere we look . . . I am receiving nearly daily robocalls from campaigns in addition to regular candidate mailings.

We turn on the news and there is more mud-slinging and political divide. We have witnessed the emergence of the Tea-Party Movement, describing themselves as a “community committed to standing together, shoulder to shoulder, to protect our country and the Constitution upon which we were founded.”

Locally, the Valley Forge Patriots website claims Tea-Party Conservative status and the goal of their organization “to protest and act to remove: out of control federal spending, impending huge taxation of ALL Americans, governmental and corporate fraud and abuse, and legislation which will reduce our Freedoms, Invade, and Control our Personal Lives.” The group honors Glenn Beck and asks that supporters join their weekly mall rallies on Rt. 202, King of Prussia, noon to 3 PM each Saturday. I find myself struggling to understand some of the tea-party viewpoints; but it is apparent that others do support and are following their cause.

Anger, hatred, discontent . . . it’s so hard to see this in America today. Will the results of Election Day 2010 somehow ‘right’ the wrongs of the past and satisfy those looking for a change? Will Americans wake up the morning after Election Day and believe that the government will now self-correct to their liking with the election results? Will having their candidate win on Election Day suddenly improve their quality of life? Will the partisan political divide somehow lessen based on who wins the election?

Interesting questions . . . especially, as we look at our own battleground and the Drucker-Kampf state house race.

Pressure on for Pa. midterm . . . The balance of power in Harrisburg is at stake, and both parties are fighting hard to help their chances.
By Angela Couloumbis
Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG – Outside the halls of the Capitol, in the main streets of small towns and big cities, Democrats and Republicans are waging a fierce battle for control of the state House of Representatives. Just three seats separate haves from have-nots in the 203-member House, where Democrats hold the majority and the power that comes with it: the coveted ability to drive the legislative agenda and, next year, the upper hand in the once-a-decade redistricting process.

With so much at stake, both parties have been feverishly fund-raising, spending, and strategizing to get voters to pull the lever for them Nov. 2 . . .

Battleground House races in the Philadelphia suburbs include Rep. Barbara McIlvaine Smith (D., Chester) against Dan Truitt, Rep. Paul Drucker (D., Montgomery) against Warren Kampf, Rep. Steve Santarsiero (D., Bucks) against Rob Ciervo, Rep. Matt Bradford (D., Montgomery) against Jay Moyer, and Rep. Rick Taylor (D., Montgomery) against Todd Stephens.

G. Terry Madonna, veteran pollster at Franklin and Marshall College, said that given the political stakes, voters could expect to hear a lot in the next few weeks about these and other legislative races.

For starters, there is redistricting. State legislative and congressional districts are redrawn every 10 years based on the census. The process will start in earnest with the new legislature next year. If the GOP controls both chambers, the party could redraw the maps to benefit its candidates.

Do Political Campaign Signs influence your vote? How About in the Drucker vs Kampf election?

October 13, 2010
14 Comments

Do political campaign signs make a difference in in election results? Do they influence individual voter decisions? Do how many signs a candidate has, or conversely a perceived lack of signs by individual candidates have any effect on voters?

In driving around the township yesterday, there certainly is a plethora of political signage. At least now, the leftover campaign signs of former Republican Lieutenant Governor Candidate Daryl Metcalfe are no longer alone. Metcalfe came in a distant third in the May primary but his red and white signs remain ever-present in our community 5 months later! Which begs the question, which is responsible for removal of the signs post-election . . . the candidate, the political party, volunteers?

Political signs display grassroots support. When voters display your political campaign signs in their yards, it shows neighbors that they believe in you enough to temporarily alter the landscape of their property. Recognizing the power of that association, does that influence other voters?

Among the traditional campaign signs, I noted a new political sign, ‘Republican for Paul Drucker’. As a Democrat and incumbent State House Representative Candidate, Paul is looking to gather support from the registered voters of the opposing party. Do we expect that the Warren Kampf campaign will likewise use signage touting registered democrat voter support? With the growing ‘Independent’ party affiliation among voters, is there signage claiming ‘Independent for Drucker’ or ‘Independent for Kampf’ on the horizon from either candidate?

Voter turnout was very low in the primary and historically Tredyffrin Township has not fared much differently in the general election (especially non-presidential election years). However, with the Governor’s race at stake this year, can we hope for a better than average turnout. Low voter turnouts make is easier for single-issue candidates and candidates with narrow but deep support make a good showing. If you are one of those folks, than you probably don’t want to tell the public when the election is. However, if you are a serious candidate with broad appeal than why not tell the public when to vote.

To inform the voters, and build interest in the fact that there’s an election date coming, why not some signs stating Election Day November 2 or at least on Tuesday, November 2, signs that say “Today’s the day”.

As a registered voter hoping for greater voter turnout, Election Day signage is something that I could support! I’d like to make a suggestion that the township as a public service could set-up those temporary sign boards to notify the public of the upcoming election.

Quick Response from Township Manager & Public Works . . . Political Campaign Signs Removed from Township Park

September 28, 2010
13 Comments

I received a response from township manager, Mimi Gleason thanking me for me email and explaining that the township would take care of the removal of the political campaign signs from Swedesford Road Open Space Park. Within minutes of receiving the email, a public works truck and two township workers arrived at the park. A township worker stood on the top of a tall ladder and a garden rake and his long reach were required to remove the signs. Good news . . . quick response from the township and the political campaign signs are down . . . bad news is that is that it required township time and money for the removal.

I’m sure that township residents don’t want their taxpayer dollars spent this way; I ask that political candidates instruct their campaign volunteers not to use our township parks for political signage. Thank you Mimi and Steve Norcini for your quick response!

PA State House Representative 157 Race . . . Candidate Question #1 and Response

September 20, 2010
14 Comments

This is the Candidate Question & Response Forum for the State House 157 candidates. As previously stated, candidate Warren Kampf declined to participate in the question and response forum. Candidate Paul Drucker’s response follows the question. Each Monday for six weeks, a new question and response will be posted. The candidate forum will end the week before the election.

Question #1: How is the Commonwealth going to help the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District’s ballooning pension obligations?

Paul Drucker’s Response:

It is important to note that there is no silver bullet to fix the pension obligations of Tredyffrin-Easttown or any of the other school districts in the 157th district. The situation in which we currently find ourselves is a cumulative effort that has been in development over the past 11 years of irresponsible handling of the pension system, combined with the stock market collapse of 2008.

Eleven years ago the rules were changed concerning vesting, multiplier rates, lump sum payouts, actuarial analysis and other matters. As a result, the Commonwealth and the respective school districts find themselves with millions of dollars of unfunded liabilities and are facing a potential spike in the payments due in the immediate future in the billions of dollars.

There are some acts the legislature can take to begin fixing this problem. This session, the House passed a pension reform bill that relieves many of these problems. By reducing the multiplier used to calculate benefits, eliminating the lump-sum payout employees receive and raising the retirement age, we addressed this crisis in a responsible, bi-partisan manner. 194 members of the House voted in favor of the bill (although, surprisingly, my opponent has stated that he opposes it). While the Senate has not yet taken action, I strongly encourage them to do so.

Why Does Tredyffrin’s 2011 Budget Discussion Have to be a Political Party Debate? Why Does Transparency and Open Government Need to be Criticized?

July 7, 2010
31 Comments

Wayne resident, Rob Betts wrote a letter to the editor which appears in this week’s Main Line Suburban, as a rebuttal to a written statement by Dariel Jamieson, chair of the Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee, delivered at the June Board of Supervisors meeting – here is a copy of the TTDEMS 2011 Budget Proposal as presented.

Although Ms. Jamieson represented herself as chair of the TTDEMS at the June Board of Supervisors Meeting when presenting her statement, I wrote the following in a June 22 post on Community Matters:

” . . . The suggested TTDEMS 2011 budget process further includes a request that the budget discussion occur in an open and transparent manner with public involvement.

Although the proposed 2011 budget process was suggested by the local Democratic Committee, I do not believe their recommendations are politically polarizing. Rather, this suggested 2011 budget process encourages a thoughtful, systematic budget approach in difficult and challenging economic times; a process that many residents in the township would probably support (regardless of their political affiliation).”

I found Rob Betts op-ed article interesting on several levels. In reading the article, what first jumped out at me was a missing piece of information. Members of the community have been quick to criticize those that write political opinion articles and do not state their own political affiliations. Personally, I believe that if an individual is writing on a non-political topic, such as Ed Sweeney’s letter to the editor last week as a member of the Knights of Columbus, there should be no need to identify with a political party. However, if someone is writing on a political topic, I agree with critics that the writer should inform the reader of their political affiliation such as a committee person for either the local Democratic or Republican parties. For the record, Mr. Betts overlooked providing his political affiliation as the GOP committeeman for E-4 in his letter to the editor.

Reading Mr. Betts op-ed article, and of his membership on the BAWG committee (and participation in the subsequent BAWG report) brought back memories for me. I recall standing in front of the Board of Supervisors last fall and asking a series of questions regarding the BAWG report and the $50K St. Davids sidewalk offer contained in the report. If you recall, I provided the supervisors with questions in advance; one which included a question about whether any BAWG members were members of St. Davids Golf Club. If memory serves me correctly, Tom Coleman (as chair of the BAWG committee) was asked to answer my question and he reported that Mr. Betts was a St. Davids Golf Club member, but quickly added that Mr. Betts had recused himself for any votes related to St. Davids.

So in reading Mr. Betts letter, I had to ask myself why is he so seemingly concerned about the transparent budget process that Ms. Jamieson suggested in her proposal? But, when I recall the St. Davids Golf Club $50K sidewalk offer, and the attempt to cover-up the offer contained in the report, I guess I have my answer. We all remember the negative attention that our township and supervisors received over the St. Davids Golf Club offer!

Transparency from our elected officials is important to me and it saddens me to know that people can be criticized for wanting that kind of open and honest government. I believe that the suggestions that Ms. Jamieson posed in her 2011 Budget Proposal were ones that we could all support. I would take it a step further and suggest that rather than representing the TTDEMS with her proposal, I believe that the suggestions may have been better served if presented as a resident rather than a political party chair. However, I understand that as chair of the TTDEMS, Ms. Jamieson probably thought it best that her remarks be with full disclosure.

As I said in my Community Matters post of June 22, ” . . . this suggested 2011 budget process encourages a thoughtful, systematic budget approach in difficult and challenging economic times; a process that many residents in the township would probably support (regardless of their political affiliation).”

Below is Rob Betts letter to the editor . . . you make your own judgement.

Openness plea a Dem power play

To the Editor:

I was left shaking my head at the demand from Dariel Jamieson that the Tredyffrin Township supervisors open up the budget process to more public scrutiny. I believe the request is nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to discredit the budget once it is adopted by claiming it wasn’t “open.”

The Democrats’ goal is to increase the scope of government at all levels, which requires an increase in revenue, and unlike Washington, our supervisors can’t print money. An Earned Income Tax is their ultimate goal, but without any Democrats on the Board of Supervisors, the best they can do is complain about the process. The request for openness is just their way of saying the 2011 supervisor election has begun.

As a member of the Budget Advisory Working Group last year, I can assure you that the township budget is lean. Much of the township’s budget is fixed due to debt service and collectively bargained contracts. The supervisors refinanced a significant portion of the township’s long-term debt this year (a BAWG recommendation), leaving union contracts and their benefit cost as issues to be addressed.

The current contracts with the township’s unions run through 2013 so those costs are fixed for the current budget cycle. Long-term, the defined-benefit system and free retiree health care for uniformed employees must be changed, for all levels of government, not just Tredyffrin Township. Our supervisors should be applauded for forcing arbitration with the police union on the health-care issue and maintaining the township’s AAA credit rating during the recent bond refinancing.

The Democrats are ready to start the next supervisor election. Look for lawn signs in December.

Rob Betts, Wayne

PA State House 157 Candidates Drucker & Kampf . . . Campaign Finance Reporting

June 16, 2010
32 Comments

In the days leading up to the May Primary, comparison of expenditures between State House 157 Republican candidates Ken Buckwalter and Warren Kampf was discussed on Community Matters. At that time, some Community Matters readers criticized me for not discussing the expenditures of Democrat candidate State House Representative Paul Drucker. I explained that as an unopposed, endorsed candidate I thought it would be more appropriate to compare Drucker’s campaign expenses after the Primary (when we knew the identify of his Republican opponent). However, as a reader has recently commented, the Primary is over, Warren Kampf is the Republican candidate and the campaign finance reports are available.

Comparing the latest campaign finance reports of 5/3/10 of both Drucker and Kampf was an interesting exercise. (Campaign finance reports are public documents). Looking at the campaign finance reports shows you various things, including the level of funding received by candidates, listing of candidates expenditures and specific donations received by the candidates.

Here are the candidates totals as of 5/3/10:

  • Combining candidates contributions carried over from 2009 with funds raised during the first 4 months of 2010: Drucker $65,925.02; Kampf $58,448.49.
  • Total expenditures of candidates: Drucker $53,297.25; Kampf $33,896.18.
  • Ending available balance of candidates (after deducting expenditures and unpaid debts): Drucker $9,627.77; Kampf $14,907.31.

Looking at Schedule III of the campaign finance reports for Drucker and Kampf, it is interesting to look at how each candidate spent money. Below is a breakdown of the top expenses of each campaign:

  • Major Drucker Campaign Expenses: $33,716.98 consulting; Paoli office rental $1,000/mo plus utilities; Phoenixville office rental $450/mo; $1,025 computer software.
  • Major Kampf Campaign Expenses: $14,445 mailers; $6,535 consulting; $7,107 postage; $5,500 website; $1,982 signs

So where did the candidates receive their major campaign funding to date? The campaign finance report details the (1) Political Committee Contributions of $50.01 to $250 and over $250 and (2) All Other Contributions of $50.01 to $250 and over $250. Any contribution of $50 or less is not required to be reported.

Both candidates have received many donations from generous supporters. For the purposes of this discussion, I am only going to focus on the contributions that are $1,000 or greater.

In the category of Political Committee Contributions $1,000 or greater, the candidates received the following donations:

  • Drucker: Bricklayers Local 1 $1,000; Citizens Elect Dwight Evans for State Rep $2,500; International Electrical Workers $1,000; Iron Workers Local 401 $1,000; LawPac $1,000
  • Kampf: Aqua America Political Action Committee $1,000, White and Williams LLP PAC $2,000

In the category of All Other Contributions $1,000 or greater, the candidates received the following donations:

  • Drucker: Michael Barrett, Esq. $1,000; Larry Bendesky, Esq. $1,000; Stewart Eisenberg, Esq. $1,000; Ronald Kovlar, Esq. $1,000; Robert Mongeluzzi, Esq. $1,000; Deborah Willig, Esq. $1,000
  • Kampf: Paul Olson $2,500; John Piasecki $1,000; Robin Kohn $1,000; Edmund McGurk $1,000; James McErlane, Esq. $5,000

I remember hearing that the State House 157 race between Paul Drucker and Guy Ciarrocchi was the most expensive race in Pennsylvania’s 2008 election year. The amount of money spent on the 2008 race was shocking. How will the contributions in the Drucker and Kampf match up to the 2008 level of funding? Although the campaign contributions and expenditures indicated in the campaign finance report for Drucker and Kampf would seem high, I think it is safe to assume that raising money in today’s economic climate will be far more difficult than just a couple of years ago.

But then again, should it really need to cost $500K or more to win a Pennsylvania state representative seat? Personally, I would hate to think that Drucker and Kampf will expend anywhere near that kind of money between now and November’s general election. Much time can be spent by candidates “dialing for dollars” to a select few rather than talking with a wide range of voters about their beliefs, hopes and needs. It would seem that the endless competition for funds from special interest groups weakens the role of civic dialogue and can create ineffective governance.

Pennsylvania is one of only five states that have no contribution limits and no public financing of elections. As a state representative in Pennsylvania, with a 2-year term, you no sooner are elected than you are soliciting funds for the next campaign – almost as if fundraising becomes a second profession. The lax laws mean a candidate can spend an enormous amount of money on a campaign. This puts pressure on incumbents to keep their coffers filled in case of a well-financed challenge.

The rules on funding campaigns in Pennsylvania need to change. There are good proposals out there; lawmakers just need courage to vote on them.

Public Invitation Includes Speakers Gerlach, Toomey and Kampf . . . but Where's Buckwalter?

March 11, 2010
56 Comments

A friend gave me a public invitation she received in today’s mail. Here was a part of the invitation:

Come and Hear:

Congressman
Jim Gerlach

Tredyffrin Supervisor and State Representative candidate
Warren Kampf

Plus a Surprise Speaker!

Sponsored by Tredyffrin Township Republican Committee www.ttgop.com

I am puzzled and confused by this invitation. On February 20th, both the Democrats and the Republicans held their nominating conventions and I wrote about both of the conventions. For the State House Representative 157, incumbent Paul Drucker was endorsed by the Democrat Party. However, at the Chester County Republican Convention neither Warren Kampf nor Ken Buckwalter were endorsed by the party. After three rounds of voting (Round #3, Kampf 29 – Buckwalter 27) the decision was to recommend, not endorse either candidate. To receive the party’s endorsement would have required one of the candidates to receive 60% of the votes. To read about the Chester County Republican Committee vote which I posted, click here.

So then I look at this invitation and wonder to myself if the TTGOP is sponsoring this public event in a public place (the event will be at the Strafford Library, April 12, 7-9 PM) a couple of things jumped out at me. First thing, I wondered was where was Ken Buckwalter’s name? Warren Kampf is recommended (just like Ken) and this is sponsored by the local Republican party, so shouldn’t both of their names appear on the invitation? Shouldn’t Ken have the same opportunity as Warren to speak at this public forum? Was this a simple oversight . . . a miss-step . . . or what? The opportunity to participate in this forum should be open to both candidates. If Warren had been endorsed by the party, this would be a different matter but he was recommended, just as was Ken. I think that Ken should be included and given the same opportunity to participate; level the playing field.

Then the next question I have about the invitation is re Jim Gerlach. Is this invitation intended to imply that Gerlach has endorsed Warren Kampf? That’s the way it reads to me but I don’t recall seeing a press release to that effect. Has Gerlach endorsed Kampf? Did Gerlach OK this invitation? Does Gerlach know that Ken Buckwalter was not included? For the sake of party unity, I would think that Gerlach would want to treat both candidates fairly until the primary.

Now my third comment on this invitation, I was curious who the ‘surprise speaker’ was? I did some checking around — and was able to track down the surprise speaker — Pat Toomey. Very interesting . . . I wonder if Gerlach was told about the surprise speaker? Interesting trio of speakers – Gerlach, Toomey and Kampf. Comments anyone? Do you agree that Ken Buckwalter should be asked to join this group on April 12 and given an opportunity to speak?

Main Line Suburban Life Weighs in on Board of Supervisors Meeting and St. Davids Golf Club Motion

February 24, 2010
Comments

Today’s Main Line Suburban Life newspaper offered the following article by Blair Meadowcroft concerning the recent Board of Supervisors Meeting and the St. Davids Golf Club Motion. I decided to post this article because it quotes John Petersen as saying that he intends to move forward with the lawsuit against the township. As of today, John has changed his mind and will not file the lawsuit. Rather than people reading this article and misunderstanding, I thought it best to clarify the situation. John has left on a business trip otherwise I would let him explain . . . perhaps he will offer an explanation for his decision once he gets to Austin.

Tredyffrin board votes to look at St. Davids Golf Club controversy

By Blair Meadowcroft

The St. Davids Golf Club issue, which has been a heated debate for weeks in Tredyffrin Township, has taken yet another turn.

First the Board of Supervisors voted 4-3 to approve a motion to release $25,000 from an escrow account to the golf club on Jan. 25. Then on Feb. 8 three of the four supervisors who approved the motion publicly apologized, saying their actions were not perfect. Two weeks later, after getting requests from numerous residents to reverse the vote, Chairman Bob Lamina offered a new motion that he hoped would serve as a “solution.”

Specifically the motion stated that the vote made on Jan. 25 “be reversed and rescinded.” While this on its own made residents happy, more conditions were added to the motion that quickly changed their opinion. According to the motion, the BOS, Planning Commission and Sidewalks, Trails and Paths Committee (STAP) will form a subcommittee to “begin a process to re-examine where the community wants and needs sidewalks.” Under this motion the committee will look at the “conditions upon which the Planning Commission may from time to time grant relief from our land-development ordinance” among other specific assessments including prioritization and funding sources.

According to Lamina the subcommittee will be initiated in March and the process of re-evaluating should be done by the end of the year.

“I hope this motion can get us back to where we should have been all along,” said Lamina. “We need to get back into a dialogue process for paths and sidewalks in the township. My hope is that we can move forward together and not look backward.”

According to Township Manager Mimi Gleason, the idea of discussing and defining the greenworks network, which is a part of the Comprehensive Plan, had been considered, and such an assessment, if done, would hopefully gain resident input on what is wanted or needed in the township.

However, in response to Lamina’s motion, residents questioned why there wasn’t a simple reversal without added conditions. Many suggested the board divide the motion into two separate parts, and requested to see it in writing and be given time to consider it before taking a vote. The underlying feeling from those who spoke at the meeting was that the residents no longer trust the board and therefore question its actions.

“I wrote the motion with the idea that this was a comprehensive response to the discussions and comments that have been made, and that it would put us to where we were before,” said Lamina. “There is no deal, no reasoning behind the second part of the motion. This is just trying to move forward.”

According to Lamina, St. Davids officials confirmed their continued obligation to put in sidewalks, and that everyone he had spoken to regarding the proposed motion was on board.

As one of the supervisors who originally voted against the motion Jan. 25, John DiBuonaventuro stated that he supported the new motion on the table because “if anything less than a genuine evaluation comes out of this, I will speak up against it and so will you, and for now we have to get past this.”

After hearing varied comments from residents, most of whom were against the motion, as well as comments from board members in favor of it, Lamina held a vote. The board unanimously passed the motion.

As a result of the conditions placed on the motion, Tredyffrin resident and one-time supervisor John Petersen has decided to sue the township. Before the meeting Monday night, Petersen had written up a complaint against the township and specifically the four supervisors who originally voted in favor of the motion. His intention was to wait to see how the meeting played out and then decide whether or not to serve the township the papers.

“They did not do what I requested, which was to formally reverse, in pure form, what happened on Jan. 25,” said Petersen. “I asked for declaratory judgment stating that what happened was wrong, but Monday night there was no admission or recognition that what happened was against the Home Rule Charter, Paul Olson never apologized and the board didn’t simply reverse the vote; they added new conditions.”

According to Petersen, his plan is to review the lawsuit and make a few changes, and will go forward with this within the week.

“I am going to remove the individual names from the lawsuit because the focus of this now is about the township and the board as a collective whole and wanting them to do the right thing,” said Petersen. “With the unanimous action from the board, there is no reason to distinguish the members.”

He went on to say that no such lawsuit should have to be filed, and that his filing will be subject to the board “doing the right thing.”

“All I am asking is that the court declares what happened as illegal, and that the vote made last night was null and void,” said Petersen. “I want everything to go back to exactly the way it was before Jan. 25.”

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme