Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Vince Donohue

BAN the Digital Billboard in Paoli Yard Signs + 3,100 Signatures on Change.org Petition

November 2, 2018
14 Comments

 

The BAN the Digital Billboard in Paoli yard signs arrived and are finding homes primarily on private property until post-Election (Otherwise, they are lost in the sea of political campaign signs).

The allocation of the lawn signs began with GoFundMe donors living in single family homes. One such location is a beautiful property on Grubb Road in Malvern – the owners support the ban the digital billboard campaign and requested a sign. I delivered and placed the sign at the driveway’s edge; a perfect location with no political signs in sight. Sadly, the BAN yard sign was stolen from this private home three days later. Troubled by the action but undeterred, the owners have requested two more BAN signs.

The Change.org petition continues to gain daily supporters – to date there are 3,100 signatures of those who oppose the digital billboard. In addition to local residents expressing their opposition, I am fielding calls from Ardmore to Villanova. Many residents are concerned that if Tredyffrin Township supervisors fall to the demands of Catalyst Outdoor Advertising CEO Thaddeus Bartkowski, it will simply be a matter of time before the digital billboards dot the entire Main Line.

Remember, this proposed welcome to Tredyffrin Township monument is actually two 20-ft. high blinking billboards with a reflecting pool to be located on the small site where the Clockworks building currently stands.

Although certain township supervisors would have the public believe otherwise, there is no financial gain for Tredyffrin Township and its taxpayers if this proposed digital billboard is approved. Township solicitor Vince Donohue stated at the last supervisors meeting that this proposed digital billboard is income neutral. Catalyst is not purchasing the property (no transfer tax) he is leasing the property — no additional money coming to the township for this digital billboard!

People ask me what they can do to help … write an email to the Board of Supervisors, BOS@tredyffrin.org, sign the Change.org petition, contribute to GoFundMe and most importantly,share the digital billboard information with neighbors and friends and plan to attend Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors meeting (when the digital billboard appears on the agenda).

Please contact me at tredyffrincommunitymatters@gmail.com for a yard sign if your home or business is in a traffic visible location. Also email if you would like a pdf of the BAN the Digital Billboard flyer for distribution.

TE School District Submits VFMS Fencing Permit Application … Tredyffrin Township Denies Request!

April 26, 2015
12 Comments

No FencingValley Forge Middle School fencing was not on the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors April 20th meeting, but many Chesterbrook residents attended the meeting and spoke against the TE School Board’s project. The supervisors deferred all questions/comments to the township’s solicitor Vince Donohue for response who told audience members that the township would not get involved until the District made either a “permit request or there was a shovel in the ground”. Chesterbrook residents left the meeting hoping for a more proactive approach by township officials.

The ‘wait and see’ township attitude was quickly tested when the School District submitted a permit request for the Valley Forge Middle School fencing this past week. The township’s Planning and Zoning Director Matt Bauman denied the permit request on the spot and in a letter to the School District, stated

“Please be advised that the permit is hereby denied. The issuance of the permit would violate the terms of that certain Zoning Hearing Board Decision in Appeal Number 64-02 issued December 17, 2002.”

The School Board’s action attempted to violate the legal agreement between TESD and the Chesterbrook Civic Association. Without an amendment to the Special Exception granted by Tredyffrin Township’s Zoning Hearing Board in 2002, how does the School Board think that they can move forward with their planned fencing project at VFMS?

Unless something has changed in the last couple of days, there has been no movement on part of the School Board or the District to resolve the VFMS fencing situation directly with the Green Hills residents or with the Chesterbrook Civic Association. As David Miller, president of CCA told us at the supervisors meeting, there has been no return of phone calls or emails to either himself or to the Green Hills and CCA attorneys from the School Board or their attorney David Falcone of Saul Ewing. Yet the District went ahead and made a permit application for the fencing!

I encourage Chesterbrook residents and Valley Forge Road neighbors to bring their chain link fencing opposition message to the TE School Board meeting on Monday, April 27, 7:30 PM at Conestoga High School. At some point, the School Board has to listen to those that they were elected to serve.

Contrary to what you may have heard … No compromise reached on planned Valley Forge Middle School fencing!

April 22, 2015
4 Comments

As we learned at Monday night Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisor meeting there seems to be some cfencing 2onfusion and/or misunderstanding surrounding TE School District’s planned fencing project at Valley Forge Middle School. Some members of the school board have suggested that the issue was settled with the Green Hills homeowners and Chesterbrook Civic Association and compromise reached. We learned at the supervisors meeting, that the township solicitor Vince Donohue (and apparently the supervisors), had heard the same inaccurate rumor.

Other than a statement by TESD President Kris Graham read to a handful of people at the Facilities Meeting on Friday, April 10, 2 PM, there has been no communication whatsoever between the school district and the Valley Forge Middle School neighbors regarding the fencing. But somehow, the school board president’s statement was translated by the school board as an agreement and circulated to the public. Negotiation is a discussion between both parties trying to work on a solution. It doesn’t work when you only have one party at the table.

During the public comment period at the supervisors meeting, Green Hills resident and president of the Chesterbrook Civic Association David Miller, read the following prepared statement which offers historical background. I think its important for people to understand that the VFMS fencing issue is unique and differs from the other TESD fencing projects.

Although the fencing project will probably not be listed on the agenda for the TESD school board meeting, on Monday, April 27 (7:30 PM at Conestoga High School), I strongly urge the Green Hills residents to attend and voice their concerns and opposition.

Good evening my name is David Miller, I am President of the Chesterbrook Civic Association and a resident of Green Hills in Chesterbrook; I’ve lived in the township for over 20 years.

We are here because:

  • The Chesterbrook Civic Association has a legal agreement with the TESD concerning development around VFMS. This agreement was reached and documented with the township’s assistance through the special exception granted by the zoning hearing board when the 4 athletic fields adjacent to VFMS were developed in 2002/3.
  • At the April 10th Facilities Committee meeting we think the TESD presented plans that will violate this agreement. I say we “think” because nothing is in writing and the fact that the VFMS fence was going to be discussed was only added to the agenda 2 hours before the Facilities Committee Meeting which was held at 2:00 on a Friday. So, as you would expect, it was difficult to getting people there at the last minute.
  • We think their plan is to build a fence along the northern border of the original Middle School lot and along Valley forge Road to the border with Green Hills and then along the border with Green Hills to the first residents property line.
  • So why should you care – This is not just a dispute between neighbors. This is issue impacts the entire community. If the TESD builds the fence as we think they are planning, it will negatively impact all of Chesterbrook, cost the township money and is inconsistent with the Chesterbrook master plan.

Let me give you some background:

  • In 2002 the TESD presented a plan to build 5 fields and a parking lot on the RC zoned lot between VFMS and Chesterbrook. This plan had many significant issues and could not be built as presented. But more importantly at this time the township was developing Wilson Park and there was some view that the school district should provide fields for students and the township should provide fields for the sports leagues. From the residents perspective it’s the same kids in different uniforms. After discussion the township formed a committee consisting of members of the township staff, planning commission, school board and residents to work out a plan. Which we did and which was built and documented. The legal agreement between the CCA and TESD, documented during the Zoning Hearing Board’s Public Hearing when the special exception was granted is the result of this process.
  • Let me read some highlights from 2002.
  • We do not know the school board’s view on this agreement, they will not return my calls or emails and have directed their attorney not to work with our attorney. But based on the last Facilities Committee Meeting we do know they moved the fence 600 feet away from the residents after receiving letters from our attorneys. So maybe they are starting to take this seriously.

What are the issues?

  1. The fence will block community access to the playing fields. In 2002 the planning commission required the TESD to add parking to the VFMS lot to accommodate people who would be using the 4 new fields. This fence will block the path from the parking to the fields. People will either have to park on Chesterbrook Boulevard or the township will have to provide alternate sites for the sports teams. How are you going to pay for 4 new multipurpose fields? The TESD has made it very clear we should expect the gates to be locked except when students are going to and from school.
  2. The walking paths will be blocked so residents can’t walk to Gateway, Wilson Park and St. Isaacs. These paths are part of the original Chesterbrook Master Plan. Again, back in 2002 the TESD was required to rebuild the walking path so residents could pass by the school … why would you let them block these paths now? If there isn’t an alternate route for residents to get around VFMS they will walk on school property. The school board has said they will direct the schools to call the police when unauthorized people are on school property, so are they really going to call the police when some resident is walking to Wilson Park or St. Isaacs? Why would we create this issue? Police time is valuable and there is at least one easy fix, just build a short connector path behind the football field between the exiting sidewalk and the existing walking path.
  3. We think their plan calls for a fence to nowhere in the woods. Besides being silly since it will be parallel to an existing fence around the field closest to VF road, so that they are just fencing in the trees, it violates the provision that calls for the woods to be undisturbed.
  4. Finally, we believed the school board’s attorney when he said “the district will be legally bound” and “any material change in that plan we understand we have to come back before this board”… there has to be some integrity a process sanctioned by the Supervisors back in 2002.

So we would like you to tell the TESD to honor their commitment from 2002 and then implement the same process we used last time by creating a group consisting of residents, staff and officials to resolve this quickly and reasonably. We are parents and are not against student safety we just want a plan that makes sense.

Zoning Amendment Could be Solution to Saving the Tennis Courts

May 1, 2013
13 Comments

May 1 was the deadline for the School District to submit their variance application to the Township in order to be listed on the Zoning Hearing Board’s May 23 meeting agenda. According to Township Manager Bill Martin, the application was received today. Some of the neighbors of the Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts may think there is nothing to stop the ZHB from awarding the variance, but that may not be the case.

The combined impervious coverage of the tennis courts and the additional parking spaces exceeds the township stormwater requirement. Based on the PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) there appears to be no legal basis for Tredyffrin’s Zoning Hearing Board to grant a variance to the School District.

Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) a zoning hearing board “may grant a variance, provided that all of the following findings are made where relevant in a given case:

  1. That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located.
  2. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable reasonable use of the property.
  3. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant.
  4. That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare.
  5. That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation in issue.”

According to the MPC, the School District needs to show an economic hardship for ZHB to grant a variance in this matter. However, the additional parking spaces at VFES are optional (not a requirement) for the School District and therefore do not constitute an economic hardship. I have been forced to accept that using the logic that the impervious coverage (of the tennis courts plus the additional parking) is only a ‘little over’ will not satisfy the MPC requirement. There is also the matter of a strict stormwater policy in Tredyffrin, and an important issue that is unlikely sidestepped.

A solution that would save the tennis courts, allow the additional parking spaces and not require a ZHB variance was presented to the School District and Township by John Petersen, a former ZHB member. I was copied on the following email sent to Michelle Kichline, chair of the Board of Supervisors, Kevin Buraks, President of the School Board and the Township and School District solicitors, Vince Donohue and Ken Roos, respectfully.

Here’s a suggestion…

The BoS offers up a zoning amendment that creates an exception for what is counted as impervious coverage: tennis courts, basketball courts, etc. that are available for public use (defined as owned by either the township or school district) that exists on or before the date, the zoning amendment is ratified. A possible permutation is that the first 1K square feet is exempted.

I normally don’t endorse amending the ZO based on specific facts. Like everything, there are always exceptions. For an exception, there must be some solid criteria to support such:

1. The items covered by the exception can never increase

2. Its not de-facto spot zoning because there are any number of places where this applies

3. Not likely to have an adverse impact on storm water (TESD will still have storm water issues to deal with in the parking long construction)

4. There is a strong public policy argument in retaining recreational facilities

I don’t think you will get much, if any push back on this. Is it legal? That’s up to you guys to figure out. In my opinion, this is not objectionable, unlike the recent C-1 amendment. The school district is not just any ordinary landowner.

Baring this, there is no way to keep the courts and build the additional parking. There are no legal grounds to grant a variance.

There’s an old saying that bad facts make bad law. In this case, bad facts sometimes require us to re-visit the law. In 1,000 cases, there may be one time when we should do that. I think this is one of those times. The change is very limited and is in keeping with public policy and finally, no material adverse impacts to storm water. The school district should hot have to choose between courts that have been there for 40+ years and the need to add much needed parking.

John

Although there were follow-up emails sent, to date no one has responded to Mr. Petersen’s suggestion. The four people receiving Petersen’s email (Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos) are all attorneys and therefore presumably understand the standard required by the Municipalities Planning Code for the Zoning Hearing Board to issue a variance. In fact, if memory serves me, Michelle Kichline served on the ZHB before her election to the Board of Supervisors. Considering the legalities of the MPC, why should the School District bother to submit a variance application? If not economic hardship, on what grounds is the School District seeking a variance?

Even if the Township reduces the fees to the School District, there are professional costs (legal, architectural) involved with the ZHB variance application. Why not consider a zoning amendment – the tennis courts are saved and the parking lot is expanded. Looks like a win-win for the Township, the School District and the residents who use the tennis courts!

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Note: I am sending this article to Kichline, Buraks, Donohue and Roos asking them to comment directly to me on (1) the grounds for the ZHB to issue a variance to the School District and (2) the consideration of a zoning amendment. Their responses will be posted on Community Matters.

VFES Tennis Courts: Looking for an explanation from TESD President Kevin Buraks

April 22, 2013
5 Comments

The Valley Forge Elementary School tennis courts are on tonight’s agenda of the TESD. Every time you think that this situation has moved forward, it takes a couple of steps backwards. As a result, it is unclear exactly what is going to come out of tonight’s meeting — will the courts stay or will they go?

At the District Facilities Meeting on Friday, April 12, the committee voted to recommend to the school board that the tennis courts be saved. Having attended the Facilities Meeting, I took that to mean that their recommendation would be discussed at the next regular School Board meeting (tonight). I presumed that the Facilities Committee would first make the recommendation; but then it would be up to the full School Board to ‘act’ on that recommendation.

However, at the same time that the Facilities Meeting was going on, a draft tennis court agreement was sent from the District to the Township. We learned of that proposal at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, April 15 from chair Michelle Kichline. Kichline, with concurrence from Township Solicitor Vince Donohue, suggested legal problems with the proposal … specifically, that the District was asking for stormwater relief from the Township, in exchange for the tennis courts. After all the discussion that has taken place on this topic, it is impossible to understand why the School Board cannot accept that a stormwater-tennis court trade is not legally possible. Why would the School District submit such a proporal to the township that included storm water relief? We were led to believe at the Facilities Committee meeting, that the school district was interested in a reasonable settlement of the tennis courts situation. However, the proposed agreement suggests otherwise. Who wrote this draft agreement … the School District Solicitor Ken Roos?

Beyond the legalities of the proposal, I am struggling to understand how this agreement was sent to the township before the School Board reviewed it. How could the School Board review the draft agreement before the Facilities Committee even sent them their recommendation? Did School Board president Kevin Buraks review the tennis court proposal and authorize its release to the Township? Doesn’t proper procedure count for anything? Where’s the sunshine?

The outcome from the Board of Supervisors meeting was the suggestion for the School District and Township solicitors to prepare the tennis court agreement. Donohue and Roos are left to ‘hash’ out the agreement between the two entities at the taxpayer’s expense. Neither TESD nor Tredyffrin Township can afford the legal expense that has now been created by this situation. With all the talks of cuts in the school district, threats of outsourcing, etc. where’s the fiscal responsibility?

But here we are with the tennis courts on tonight’s School Board agenda. The saga continues …

From Jimmy Duffy’s Catering to Sage Senior Living … Planning Commissioners to review plans tonight

April 18, 2013
1 Comment

Looks like the old Jimmy Duffy catering site may soon to have a new name … ‘Sage Senior Living Development’.

For months leading up to September 2012, there was an urgency to pass the new C1 zoning ordinance to permit assistant living facilities (ALF). The driver behind this zoning change was Capital Health and developer Ed Morris with plans to build an ALF on the former Jimmy Duffy’s Catering site on Lancaster Ave in Daylesford. During that period there was much discussion and debate with township supervisors, planning commissioners, township manager and residents regarding the C1/R1 site and its suitability as the future home of an assisted living facility.

On September 18, I wrote “Community Matters: Your Voice Matters … Except when it comes to C-1 Zoning Change” discussing the ordinance change and what I viewed as a flawed township process. Here is an excerpt from that post …

I thank all the citizens who took 4-1/2 hours of their time on Monday night to show support and to have their voices heard on the C-1 zoning change to permit assisted living usage. Tredyffrin residents spoke out from across the township, Paoli, Berwyn, Strafford, Wayne, etc. not just the Daylesford neighbors. Hours of public testimony and not a single resident voiced support for the proposed C-1 zoning change. Citizens stated opposition for a host of reasons … flawed process, spot zoning, preferential treatment to a developer, should be a conditional use not a by-right use, bed density, safety concerns for patients, increased demand on township’s emergency services, etc. — the list went on and on.

Given the urgency in pushing the C1 zoning change through the system, it has been very surprising that the developer and his plans have been MIA for the last seven months. If you recall, one of the rationales from the Planning Commission in regards to the C1 zoning change, was the fear that the township might lose Morris’ development plan if they took too long in changing the zoning. Touting economic development for the community, there was a concern among some of the planning commissioners that we might lose this opportunity if the township didn’t move swiftly to permit ALF as a permitted use in C1.

So … on tonight’s Planning Commission agenda is the following:

06-2013; Sage Senior Living Development: Sketch Plan Application for an assisting living facility in C1/R1 Districts (parcels 43-10J-127/43-10J-128.1). Action: Discussion and input by the Planning Commission to the applicant for conceptual site plan prepared by Momenee & Associates, Inc., dated 4/4/2013.

The Jimmy Duffy site is comprised two parcels, zoned C1 and R1 … for Ed Morris to make his proposed ALF project work he needs use of the R1 for parking. The Sage Senior Living Development project hinges on whether the R1 parcel is ‘legally’ abandoned. Last year, Tredyffrin’s solicitor Vince Donohue provided an opinion letter in regards to the grandfathering usage of parking on the 1-acre R1 parcel. Although the Jimmy Duffy property has remained abandoned for several years, Donahue was of the opinion that the nonconforming use of parking remains available to the owner.

At least one other attorney did not share Donahue’s legal opinion that the nonconforming use of parking in the R1 parcel can continue. In a July 20, 2012 Community Matters article, “Tredyffrin’s Proposed C1 Zoning Amendment Change … Where do we go from here?” attorney John Petersen offered his opinion,

Perhaps the bigger issue is the R1 parking and whether it is grandfathered. There are four reasons why Vince Donahue’s analysis in his opinion letter is flawed:

  1. There has been a change in ownership
  2. The catering business ceased at least 3-5 years ago
  3. Mr. Donahue’s analysis leaves it to a reasonableness standard
  4. Donahue cites fact in support of his conclusion as opposed to case law

The conclusion in Mr. Donahue’s opinion is that the zoning officer “Could not reasonably conclude that the use has lapsed.” In fact, I just gave a number of reasons why Matt Baumann, our zoning officer, could reasonably conclude that the use did lapse. In fact – I’d say that based on these facts – Baumann couldn’t reasonably conclude the use didn’t lapse. If the township tries to grandfather this use, that itself could be a prima facie case of contract zoning – which is always construed to be spot zoning. Ironically, where the PC and at least some on the BOS thought they were helping this project along, they actually did more to harm it by not following sound process and procedure.

Whether or not the grandfathering of the R1 parking is permitted is the key to the Sage Senior Living Development project. For the project to move forward with the Planning Commissioners will require a resolution. The Planning Commission is 7 PM tonight at the Township Building.

Under New Communication Policy, John DiBuonaventuro’s Letter Would be Approved for Website

November 28, 2012
4 Comments

I have now had an opportunity to review the Communication Policy which was passed by the Board of Supervisors on November 19. The policy was in response to Supervisors John DiBuonaventuro’s ‘letter to the citizens’ of September 5 which appeared on township letterhead on the township website. It remains unclear as to which supervisors ‘saw’ the letter before it went on the township website. You may recall that Mimi Gleason, former township manager, responded to my inquiry stating that she approved DiBuonaventuro’s letter along with the township solicitor Vince Donohue and BOS chair Michelle Kichline. Beyond Gleason, Donohue and supervisors Kichline and DiBuonaventuro, it is unclear as to what any of the other supervisors knew. Although privately some of the supervisors denied knowing anything about DiBuonaventuro’s letter, nothing was ever said publicly.

The communication policy is an attempt to define social media responsibilities in the township, and lists the primary communicators as township manager, police chief and chair of the Board of Supervisors. The stated purpose of the communication is:

The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines as to how a member or group of members of Tredyffrin Township’s institutions should communicate with the public. In this era of a multitude of vehicles for disseminating information, the Township has determined that it should adopt a communications policy that will help residents clearly distinguish the communications of an individual from those of one of the Township’s institutions. The purpose of this is not to reduce open dialog but to provide reasonable guidance to Township officials on how to communicate with the Public.

In regard to the township website, the communication policy states:

The Township web site (www.tredyffrin.org) provides an on-going method of communication with the public. The Township Manager or designated member of Township staff shall be responsible for maintaining the web site and for coordination of updates to the web site. All content must be approved by the Township Manager. Supervisors may use the website to communicate with the public on Township issues. Due to implied endorsement nature of the site, any Supervisors using the Township website must be clear so as to identify of the author(s) and supporters of the content posted.

The policy makes it clear that individual supervisors can use the website as long as they identify they are acting independently. The only approval required for the use of the township website is from the township manager. Since the township manager is vetted and hired by the Board of Supervisors, my guess is that approval process would be fairly easy. There is no description of what constitutes ‘township issues’ — no guidelines or definition provided in the policy. The new communication policy leaves ‘township issues’ completely open to interpretation.

What is obvious is that the communication policy is an attempt to separate the actions of supervisors from each other. In other words, the policy implies that DiBuonaventuro (or any of the other 6 supervisors) can continue to write their ‘letters’ on the township website, but the only difference is that the public is not to assume he/she represents the voice of the rest of the board.

The communication policy makes no reference to township resources (staff time, legal review by solicitor, etc.) by individual supervisors who may choose to use the website for their personal communications. Apparently, the costs of the personal communications by individual supervisors to be absorbed by taxpayer dollars, under the guise of ‘township issues’.

At September’s Board of Supervisors meeting, former T/E School Board member and resident Andrea Felkins weighed in on supervisor communications to the public, stating,

” … This is about the need for a policy that would dictate the circumstances that would permit or deny a member of this board to use Board letterhead and post a personal letter. I cannot envision any circumstance that would have allowed this personal and angry tirade to be used in this fashion. … So, if you do not have a policy that dictates the use of your website that would have governed this, then I encourage you to develop one. We should not permit the use of taxpayer funded and limited access sites to vent frustrations and exorcise your demons. There is no rebuttal to any township distribution. And I think we all know that the personal attack on Pattye Benson, claiming that she is bent on damaging the township, as well as the childish reference to her “absolute defeat” in an election went well beyond the bounds of civility. Mr. D, your letter expressed indignation, and you were clearly upset, but it turned into a bullying exercise, and intimidated anyone who might challenge you in the future.

Clearly, I believe there was a misuse of the township resources, township website and township letterhead with DiBuonaventuro’s letter of September 5. The problem with this new communication policy, is that it offers no guidelines or guarantee to the public that this similar situation cannot occur over and over again.

Without parameters as to what constitutes ‘township issues’ or any approval oversight by the Board of Supervisors for the use of the website by individual supervisors, how is future abuse to be avoided?

Looking at various municipal communication policies, I found Lower Merion Township’s website policy to be of interest, representing a clear and concise approach to usage. Their policy is specific as to what constitutes township business and that the objective of the township website is to inform the public. A website policy such as Lower Merion’s would help Tredyffrin Township to avoid repeating mistakes in the future. As it now stands, there is nothing in Tredyffrin’s new communication policy to avoid a repeat performance by our Board of Supervisors.

Here is Lower Merion’s website policy:

Lower Merion Township Web Site Operating Policy

Purpose

The purpose of the Township Web Site is to provide information to the public about government and government-related community programs, activities, services, events, and issues. The Township Web Site will also provide links to related areas that will assist the public in learning more about the community of Lower Merion Township. This 24 hour/day information will originate at and be the responsibility of the Township of Lower Merion.

Objectives

  1. To provide timely public information about government meetings, services, programs and events.
  2. To provide information which will enable the residents of Lower Merion to have more effective access to local government.
  3. To educate residents about government procedures and processes.
  4. To provide residents with information on various Township functions and departments.
  5. To expand community awareness of the decision-making processes of local government.
  6. To provide accurate, up-to-date information to residents during emergencies.
  7. To assist Township departments in the delivery of services, programs and information.
  8. To provide access (via hyperlinks) to information concerning:
    • historical, cultural and educational institutions (including the Lower Merion School District)
    • economic development and opportunities within the Township as well as facts about the Township’s numerous business districts
    • other organizations which provide services to the citizens of the Township (e.g., public transportation, healthcare, etc.)

Content

The web site will include information directly supporting the stated objectives which benefit the public. Examples include a welcome from the President of the Board of Commissioners and the Township Manager, the President of the Board of Commissioners Vision for the Township, biographies of each Commissioner, schedule of public meetings of Boards and Commissions, frequently asked questions, history, etc.

Tredyffrin Township Website Policy … Rank Hath Its Privileges

November 20, 2012
7 Comments

As of last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, Tredyffrin Township supervisors approved a communication policy that included the use of the government’s website by the supervisors. Although I was told earlier in the day by the township solicitor Vince Donohue that the meeting agenda would be changed to include this ‘vote’, no such change appeared on the agenda, leaving me to believe the discussion would occur at some future date. The resolution for a communication policy was not listed on the agenda however; it was included in the meeting. According to Donohue, a resolution does not take advance advertisement.

Michelle Kichline read the resolution for the communication policy with no comment from any of the supervisors. You will have to watch the BOS meeting or wait to see if the meeting minutes include the policy, as the resolution was not available in a printed format at the meeting. The vote to approve the policy was unanimous. Going forward the policy for the use of the website is, with approval from the township manager and township solicitor, that supervisors are permitted to use the website for ‘township business’ in communicating with residents. However, the communique must explicitly state which supervisor(s), whether the entire board, a subset or an individual are responsible for the message.

Individual supervisors can independently use the website for whatever he or she believes constitutes ‘township business’. Although I questioned that, without oversight or a majority vote from the other supervisors, John DiBuonaventuro’s letter of September 5 or a similar personal diatribe could be repeated, it changed nothing. Based on recent history, resident, Cheryl Bittner asked that a definition of ‘township business’ be included in the communication policy. That was not deemed necessary – which seemed to suggest that supervisors know what constitutes township business.

In essence, there is absolutely nothing to stop DiBuonaventuro or any of the other six supervisors from writing opinion letters on the township website whenever they disagree with residents, the press or comments on a blog. They just need the approval from the solicitor and township manager. Scary proposition – given that the township solicitor and township manager approved DiBuonaventuro’s September 5 letter as ‘township business’. The township’s communication policy has now given all seven supervisors a green light to use the township website as they wish – just call it ‘township business’ and it becomes a personal tool to communicate your message.

What’s the saying; “rank hath its privileges” … guess the use of the township website is a new perk if you are an elected official in Tredyffrin Township.

Tredyffrin Township Website Policy — Vote TONIGHT!

November 19, 2012
15 Comments

Although the agenda for tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting does not include the policy for the use of the township website by supervisors — the policy will be presented and voted upon tonight by the supervisors. In response to my inquiry to Michelle Kichline, I received an email from Vince Donohue, township solicitor, stating that the agenda will be revised to include a vote on the policy.

It was my understanding that the Sunshine Law required the township to notify the public at least 24 hrs. in advance of a vote. I asked this question of the solicitor and his response was,“The Board intends to adopt a policy by resolution, which does not require any advertisement. “

How much will the public’s opinion matter with regards to the township website — shouldn’t we have a copy of the resolution in advance to review? For those that are just tuning in, the communication policy is a result of John DiBuonaventuro’s use of the township letterhead, township website and township resources for his September 5 letter to the citizens.

As a result of DiBuonaventuro’s letter and personal attack on me and Community Matters (in addition to traditional news sources, including Main Line Media News), my attorney, Sam Stretton, sent a letter to the members of the Board of Supervisors on October 25. Vince Donohue responded to Stretton on November 8 where he detailed the new township policy would include.

According to Donohue’s letter, the communications on the Township website would pertain to Township issues. He also states that the it would be clear about the source of the communication, whether it was from the entire board, a subset of supervisors or an individual supervisor. Donohue writes, “ … The purpose of the policy is not, however, to restrict any Supervisor’s ability to communicate with Township residents on matters each deems appropriate.” If this language is contained in the communication policy, it is problematic. There is nothing to keep any supervisor from using the government website (or any other township social media tool, i.e. twitter, Facebook, etc.) as their own personal ‘bully pulpit’ whenever the mood strikes.

What’s to keep a supervisor from labeling their communication to the citizen as ‘township business’ and then the website becomes theirs to use. Who has the oversight on what constitutes ‘township business’? Read DiBuonaventuro’s letter again — especially where he speaks of my 2009 supervisor race. Yes, I ran for the Board of Supervisors in 2009, three years ago — what in the world constitutes that as ‘township business’ in 2012? So … will this new ‘communication’ policy protect the rights of DiBuonaventuro (and the other 6 supervisors) to use the government website whenever feeling threatened by the local news media, Community Matters or the township citizens. If an individual supervisor is permitted to the use of the government website for whatever he/she feels is township business, how about next year, when three of the supervisors are up for re-election — what keeps them from the use of the website as a campaign platform? If you think the suggestion ridiculous, remember DiBuonaventuro used the government website a personal attack on a private citizen, including a thee-year old political campaign!

We learned in Richard Llgenfritz, Main Line Media article of November 8, ‘Majority of Tredyffrin supervisors may not have approved DiBuonaventuro’s letter posted to website’, that several of DiBuonaventuro’s fellow supervisors had not seen nor approved his letter on the township website. I have subsequently heard that at least a couple of the supervisors would not have approved the letter, had then seen it in advance. So … will the communication policy of the township prohibit something similar in the future? Or will the policy force supervisors to ‘act alone’ without needing the ‘team’ behind them. From my vantage point, I hope that this communication policy contains strict guidelines and oversight or what’s the point?

Re Personal Letter on Government Website — Did Tredyffrin Supervisor DiBuonaventuro receive approval from his fellow supervisors?

November 8, 2012
16 Comments

Did John DiBuonaventuro actually have approval from fellow supervisors before using government resources and government letterhead to post his personal letter of September 5 on the government’s website? The answer to that question is not entirely clear, and the answer also depends on whom you ask.

As the resident targeted in DiBuonaventuro’s diatribe to the citizens of Tredyffrin Township, I was very interested to read the Main Line Media News article, “Majority of Supervisors may not have approved DiBuonaventuro letter posted to website”. In the article, Rich Llgenfritz explains that the newspaper filed an open records request with Tredyffrin Township asking for all information pertaining to DiBuonaventuro’s letter on the township website. However, it is interesting that MLMN only received one record; an email from DiBuonaventuro to Patricia Hoffman, executive secretary for Tredyffrin Township.

I am grateful to Llgenfritz and Main Line Media News for their continued interest in this matter. If you have followed Community Matters since DiBuonaventuro’s September 5 letter to the citizens appeared on the Tredyffrin Township website, you have read the September 7 email from former Township Manager Mimi Gleason to me. Following the email, there was a conference call on September 14 from Gleason and Police Superintendent Tony Giaimo, with no stated purpose except to continue to harass. (Click here for Community Matters post of September 18 which includes my personal statement and video of the September 17 Board of Supervisors meeting) As a result of DiBuonaventuro’s letter, Gleason’s email and telephone call, I sought legal counsel with attorney Sam Stretton.

One of several troubling unanswered questions in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s personal use of the township website, is did he act alone? Or, … was there discussion (approval) from the other members of the Board of Supervisors. In her response to my question on this matter, Gleason stated the following in her email dated September 7:

“ … In answer to your question, it is unusual to post a statement from an individual Supervisor, but given the inaccurate and derogatory statements and innuendo publicly made about John DiBuonaventuro, I decided to approve the posting of the letter on the Township website. In this case, he was the subject of baseless public speculation simply because he is a Tredyffrin Supervisor. The circumstances justified the use of the website to publicly defend him, carrying with it the implicit endorsement of the Township to the accuracy of his statements. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the Township Solicitor agreed that it was appropriate for the letter to go on the website.”

Gleason’s email states that the use of the government’s website by DiBuonaventuro carried with it the “implicit endorsement of the Township”. She further states that the Chairman [Kichline] and the Township Solicitor [Vince Donohue] agreed the letter was appropriate for the website. But did Kichline really see the actual letter? During the conference call with Gleason and Giaimo, Gleason maintained that Kichline had seen the actual letter. I argued with Gleason that she was incorrect … that Kichline had personally told me that she did not see the actual letter but that she gave her OK to DiBuonaventuro verbally for the letter on the website, as long as the solicitor Vince Donohue had read and approved it.

Subsequent to DiBuonaventuro’s letter going on the website, there has been no public statement from the other 6 supervisors on this matter, except by Kichline who said that the Board would work on a website policy. Why the silence from the other supervisors? Privately, some of the supervisors have told citizens that they never saw the letter and some have stated that they would not have approved of the letter on the government’s website. Why don’t the supervisors own these opinions in public? If I was being accused of harming the First Amendment rights of a citizen (especially one that I was elected to serve) and had not approved (or even seen) the letter in the first place, I certainly would not remain silent. Are these other supervisors afraid of doing what’s right or are they perhaps afraid of retaliation from DiBuonaventuro … or, the political party they all represent? Where’s the independent thought?

Going back to Llgenfritz’s MLMN article – the only piece of communication that was provided through the Open Records request, in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s letter on the website, is the following brief email from DiBuonaventuro to Pat Hoffman, executive secretary for the township:

“Pat, this is a confidential email. This letter has been approved by Michelle and Vince. Please put it on the township letterhead and make three copies for Kristen [Mayock], Michelle and I to review when we get in this morning. We will give you distribution directions once a final review is done. Thanks and see you around 8 or when you get in. JD. [John DiBuonaventuro]

This email clearly states that the Michelle Kichline, BOS chair approved the letter, but did she? If Kichline approved DiBuonaventuro’s letter, then that would mean that she lied to me. And I don’t believe that she lied. So which is it?

Another interesting thing to note on this email is that there was a private meeting of 3 supervisors – DiBuonaventuro, Kristen Mayock and Kichline. Why was Mayock involved but none of the other supervisors? As chair of the BOS, I understand the rationale behind Kichline attending the meeting but it is unclear if she actually attended or not. Mayock and Kichline are the two attorneys on the Board – was that the reason behind their request to attend this meeting? And it should also be noted that DiBuonaventuro states in this email, that he has approval from the solicitor Vince Donohue for the letter on the website. Everyone seems to be in agreement that Donohue saw and approved the letter – DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Gleason all state that Donohue approved the letter. Interesting that this short email is all that is contained in the files in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s letter. Just interesting.

Last Friday I posted the letter (click here to read) that my attorney Sam Stetton sent to members of the Board of Supervisors in regards to DiBuonaventuro’s personal letter on government letterhead on the government website. As follow-up to my posting Stretton’s letter, Llgenfriz had a phone interview with Vince Donohue, the township solicitor. It was alarming to me to see Donohue discuss the legal situation between myself and the township in the local newspaper. He furthered stated that he had sent a response to Stretton and that it would be up to me whether or not I made it public.

At last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, strangely there were three of the seven supervisors missing. I do not think I have ever been to a BOS meeting where two supervisors were missing, let alone three! Missing supervisors were Phil Donohue (stated reason for the absence was still recovering from surgery), Chair Michelle Kichline and Vice Chair John DiBuonaventuro — the stated reason for their absence was ‘personal’.

Supervisor Mike Heaberg read a statement in regards to the website policy which suggested that there would be a policy presented at the November 19 Board of Supervisors meeting. It was unclear whether or not the public would be permitted input into the website policy. Public input could prove important when you read the response from the township solicitor Vince Donohue to my attorney Sam Stretton below:

November 2, 2012

Samuel C. Stretton, Esquire
301 South High Street
PO Box 3231
West Chester, PA 19381
Re: Tredyffrin Township

The Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors is in receipt of your letter dated October 25, 2012.

As an initial observation, I read Supervisor DiBuonaventuro’s letter as a reaction in his official capacity as a Supervisor to Ms. Benson’s blog entries regarding, primarily, Township issues. This Board does not quash public discussion about Township matters. To the contrary, this Board’s emphasis on transparency and encouragement of public input is evident in all of the initiatives it undertakes. As to Ms. Benson specifically, I would point out that she actively continues to maintain her blog and participates during the public input portion of the agenda at virtually every Township meeting without censure or objection. Accordingly, neither the contents of the letter nor its posting on the Township website constitute an attempt to suppress, or a breach of, Ms. Benson’s First Amendment rights.

Second, it is important to note that the Board of Supervisors, as an entity, never endorsed nor rejected Supervisor DiBuonaventuro’s letter that was posted on the website. Accordingly, the Board believes that the issue involving the letter is one between Ms. Benson and Mr. DiBuonaventuro as an individual supervisor.

Nonetheless, this incident has highlighted the need for a policy governing use of the Township website and other Township-managed social media outlets as a means of communication by the Board and by each Supervisor (or group thereof). All seven members of the Board are entirely supportive of the initiative to enact such a policy, which has been under way since mid-September. It was discussed at the last meeting of the Board by chair Kichline.

The primary purposes of the policy will be threefold. First, it will document what the Supervisors already practice: that communications on the Township website, letterhead or other Township-managed social media outlets shall pertain to Township issues. Second, the policy will ensure that the reader is clear about the source of the communication – i.e., whether the source is an individual Supervisor, the Board as an entity, a subset of Supervisors, etc. Third, the policy will delegate certain communication responsibilities to certain senior Township staff, depending on the nature of the content of the communication (Township Manager, Superintendent of Police, etc.). This policy will cover not only the website, but also Township letterhead and other Township-sponsored social media outlets. The purpose of the policy is not, however, to restrict any Supervisor’s ability to communicate with Township residents on matters each deems appropriate.

Crafting the right policy is not a task to be rushed. The Board is diligently pursuing the finalization of this policy, but intends to be thoughtful in this ongoing process to ensure that the resulting policy addresses existing needs and avoids unintended consequences. The Board intends to complete this process soon and updates will be provided at each Board meeting until it is enacted.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss. Thank you,

Very Truly Yours,

Vince T. Donohue
Lamb McErlane, PC

Several things are interesting to note in Donohue’s response. He speaks of the transparency of the Board of Supervisors. Based on the issue of DiBuonaventuro’s letter alone, I’d suggest that this Board if far from transparent. Clearly, we still don’t know who saw the letter or who approved it. Donohue states that the Board never endorsed nor rejected DiBuonaventuro’s letter on the website, yet Mimi Gleason’s email to me clearly stated that the use of the township website for DiBuonaventuro’s letter, “carried with it the implicit endorsement of the Township”.

Donohue is saying one thing, Gleason is saying another, and I would suggest thirdly, that by using the government letterhead, which has all members of the Board of Supervisors listed looks like compliance to me. Obviously, if during the last 2 months, any of the other six supervisors had chosen to ‘distance’ themselves from DiBuonaventuro and the letter, that would be different … the problem is that they all “stood by their man”.

Nowhere in the letter does Donohue address the intimidation tactics used in DiBuonaventuro’s letter or Gleason’s email and phone calls towards me. Donohue however suggests that the Board believes this is a personal matter between DiBuonaventuro and me – two problems with that logic. First, DiBuonaventuro does not limit his personal attacks to just me, he also goes after the First Amendment rights of the press, specifically Main Line Media News. Second, if Donohue and the other supervisors view this as some kind of personal matter that DiBuonaventuro has with me and Community Matters, what business does a personal matter have on government letterhead and government website. How can Donohue claim the contents of DiBuonaventuro’s letter is Township business when the tirade includes my 2009 supervisor race?

Now look at what Donohue claims the township website policy will include –

  1. Document the communications on the Township website, letterhead, social media outlets that pertain to Township issues.
  2. Ensure that the reader is clear about the source of the communication – whether an individual supervisor, the entire board or some subset
  3. Delegate certain communication to Township Manager, Police Superintendent, etc.

Then you have this sentence in Donohue’s letter, “ … The purpose of the policy is not, however, to restrict any Supervisor’s ability to communicate with Township residents on matters each deems appropriate.” The way I read it, is DiBuonaventuro (or any other supervisor) gets carte blanche to continue to use government website as their personal ‘bully pulpit’ whenever the mood strikes. Looks like to me, that if you are a supervisor all you need do is label your communication to the public ‘Township business’ and the website is yours to use. I guess the policy needs to protect the rights of DiBuonaventuro to use government resources whenever he feels threatened by the local news media or Community Matters. As a citizen of Tredyffrin Township, I certainly will not find this website acceptable if approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme