Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Warren Kampf

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

As We Enter 3rd Quarter of 2010 . . . Where Does the Township Stand Financially? Have 2011 Budget Discussions Started?

July 6, 2010
32 Comments

Back on December 13th, I wrote of the need for residents to fully understand Earned Income Tax (EIT). We are now in the 3rd quarter of 2010, and there is evidence that the 2011 township budget is going to face even greater challenges than this year’s budget. I went back and found the post; below is an excerpt. Nearly seven months later, I think it is important to re-visit the discussion.

Although some Community Matters readers may disagree, I continue to believe that an open, honest discussion with the public of all revenue sources needs to be an integral part of our local government. We can not afford to wait until November to begin the 2011 budget discussions.

At times misunderstood when campaigning, I often suggested that the township needed to explore Earned Income Tax (EIT) as a possible revenue source. There was (and continues to be) a lot of inaccurate information circulating about Earned Income Tax. An example of misinformation occurred at the last Board of Supervisor Meeting, when Supervisor Chair Warren Kampf indicated that those individuals who lost their jobs would pay Earned Income Tax (if Tredyffrin were to have an EIT). I hope that Mr. Kampf did not intentionally try to confuse the public with his words; the fact is that individuals receiving unemployment benefits would not pay Earned Income Tax; unemployment benefits are not subject to EIT.

I thought it might be useful to list examples of income which are not subject to Earned Income Tax:

  • Retirement Pensions
  • Disability Payments
  • Active Military Pay
  • Unemployment Compensation
  • Insurance Proceeds (non-business)
  • Workmen’s Compensation
  • Bequests
  • Stock Dividends (non-business)
  • Gifts/Lottery Winnings
  • Social Security
  • Interest (non-business)
  • Military Bonuses

Earned Income Tax is based on gross wages, salaries, commissions and other earned compensation. As stated numerous times, approximately $3 million is being paid to other municipalities by Tredyffrin residents. If an EIT were in place, this revenue would return to the township. Dave Brill, Township Finance Director, has offered that the potential township revenue could be as high as $8 million (should Earned Income Tax be instituted).

Assuming that we get through the township budget discussion on December 21 with the proposed draft budget more or less intact, I still contend that the 2010 budget is nothing more than a Band-Aid solution to a far greater financial problem. I believe that the township will limp along through 2010 with the budget in place. However, without financial foresight, this time next year the township will be faced with a far greater problem than the reinstatement of $20K to the Fire Department. The 3 new supervisors all campaigned (and were elected) on the ‘no new taxes’ mantra and they will probably take office on January 4 with that promise intact. However, it doesn’t take my London School of Economics education to believe that their promise will be short-lived. Financially the township is in a very precarious financial situation and we are going to witness firsthand the result of shortsighted financial planning.

I know that this posting of Earned Income Tax discussion will bring opposing comments, and I actually encourage the dialogue. Tredyffrin’s 2006 Tax Study Commission and voter referendum overwhelmingly were against imposing an EIT. Warding off that particular argument, clearly 2010 can not possibly be compared economically to 2006; it is a vastly different financial climate facing this township. I may have been one of the voters in 2006 who opposed an EIT; believing that the township at that point did not have severe financial needs to warrant that taxation approach. However, if in 2009 this township’s annual budget of $37 million can not fund $20K to our firefighters, something is dramatically different in this current picture. Each and every taxpayer needs to take a careful look at the proposed 2010 township budget — I believe the future is going to require more than simply tightening our belts as has been suggested by some of our township leaders, as a response to our economic problems!

Route 422 as a campaign issue for the State House 157 Drucker – Kampf race . . . a curious website notolls422.com surfaces . . . and thoughts from John Petersen

June 30, 2010
8 Comments

I received the following op-ed, ‘Support of tolling of Route 422 – and political courage’ from John Petersen. The opinion article will appear as a ‘As I see It’ in this week’s edition of Main Line Suburban newspaper. I recently discovered the website, notolls422.com and was confused. It is my understanding that the plans that are being discussed for Rt. 422 include 22 municipalities but in review of the website, it would appear that the proposed land development project only involved areas of the Pennsylvania State House 157 jurisdiction. There are many communities involved in the discussion of the 422 project, the majority of which are north of our community. Exploring the notolls422 website, I could not determine who was responsible for the website or specific contact information. In reading Mr. Petersen’s article, it would suggest that he similarly has questions and offers his own thoughts on the subject. Very interesting.

Support of tolling of Route 422 – and political courage
By John Petersen

To follow this argument will require some insight into logic. To begin this argument, I’ll start with a premise that I believe we can accept as fact – Route 422 has been and is a mess when it comes to traffic and gridlock. The 422 corridor that runs from Valley Forge (where 422, 202 and 76 intersect) all the way to Reading has seen massive commercial and residential growth over the past 30 years. And in that time, the road has remained unchanged with respect to the capacity it can handle. If you are not sure as to the veracity of this fact, travel westbound in the morning and look at the line of traffic. If you happen to be near the King of Prussia Mall around 4:30-5 on any weekday, you will see the gridlock spilling over to 76. Unfortunately 422 has become a bit of a political football. Here are two examples: notolls422.com and twitter.com/WarrenKampf/status/11965252784.

If you accept the premise that everything is a-OK with 422 and that we should remain with the status quo, then I dare say you are living in bizarro-world. Moving forward with the notion that something has to be done with 422, we then need to move on to the discussion of funding. There are basically three approaches, none of which are mutually exclusive: taxes, tolls and/or some type of public/private partnership (which is really just a euphemistic way of saying new taxes). The problem with taxes is that they are levied on everyone. Taxes go into a central bureaucratic pit. From there we have no clue as to where the funds go. Taxes are the mother’s milk of big government. That said, some level of taxation is required and ideally a government levies not one penny more in taxes than it needs. Another thing I think we can all agree on is that we are far from ideal taxation – whether it be local, state or federal taxes. Relative to what is levied, there is an impedance mismatch between what we pay and the services that are rendered. Taxing as the funding source for dealing with the 422 problem aggravates a problem that is getting worse.

On the other hand there is tolling. Tolling actually represents a very conservative idea. If you use a service, you then have to pay for that service. In the 157th race, we are confronted with a situation wherein Rep. Paul Drucker, the Democratic candidate, is advancing tolling, among many other ideas, for dealing with the 422 problem. Warren Kampf, the Republican candidate, has not advanced a position other than numerous tweets about door-knocking and simply being against what Rep. Drucker and the Chester County Planning Commission have suggested. It should be noted that tolling is one of many suggestions that are on the table. You can read the details of the 422 Corridor Master Plan yourself by following the following link: www.422corridor.com/page/us-422-master-plan.

What we need from our elected officials are alternatives – not feel-good statements that are motivated by election politics. We need officials who exercise political courage such that ideas that may not seem popular are not summarily taken off the table. Elected officials are duty-bound to consider all ideas. They are also duty-bound to consider the opinions of their constituency. What we don’t need are politicians who take the position of not having a position that leads to doing nothing. If that is all we needed from elected officials, then I dare say that a rock would suffice for our duly elected officials. A rock is equally capable of doing nothing.

The last several years in Tredyffrin Township have been dominated by election politics and questionable decision-making by some of our locally elected officials. One of those officials, Warren Kampf, is seeking to unseat our current state representative, Paul Drucker. It just so happens that 422 cuts through a portion of the 157th Legislative District. If there was an issue where we needed definite guidance on where candidates and elected officials stand, 422 is it. What we cannot have is election politics hijacking the conversation. Any candidate who does not have a definitive stance on how to deal with the 422 problem is, in my opinion, not qualified to hold an elected office that would be concerned with 422. With that, I encourage Mr. Kampf to get off the sidelines and join the conversation.

I have one last point that deals with the notolls422.com site. This site is precisely the problem with election politics I have cited. When I first saw the site, I was somewhat amused by the fact that the author cites the horrors that toll booths would inflict on 422. Here’s a news flash – it’s not 1955 anymore. We have something called EZ-Pass. If you go to the Washington, D.C. area or central Texas, you find modern roadways that can automatically levy the tolls and in some cases can adjust the tolls based on the time of day – peak vs. non-peak. While there may be some good guess, unfortunately, we don’t know the precise identity of the notolls422.com owner. Sadder still, sites like notolls422.com degrade the signal-to-noise ratio in these conversations. Sites like this do not advance the discussion one iota. My hope is the Kampf campaign has nothing to do with the site. It may be that the true owner will have to surface to clear things up. To the GOP that may find that such a site is OK, I have two words for you – Mr. Tredyffrin!

Tolls can be very effective. They have worked well for the PA Turnpike. The nice thing is that tolls are levied against those who use the road. What could be more elegant? And further, what could be more conservative? Let’s have an open and honest discussion about all of the alternatives. Yes, that includes taxes and the public/private partnership. My guess is that the latter will not pass muster. Regardless, let’s have the conversation. And finally, let’s encourage the candidates that it is OK to suggest alternatives. In any scenario, 100 percent of the people are not going to agree on 100 percent of the issues.

Supreme Court Ruling Expands Rights of Gun Owners . . . Will This be a Campaign Issue for Drucker & Kampf?

June 29, 2010
5 Comments

Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling of 5-4 may ultimately make it easier for individuals to own handguns in the US. Those that follow Community Matters know of my naiveté on the subject of guns and gun control so, it has been with more than passing curiosity, that I was interested in yesterday’s high court decision.

I know that many people own guns in this country (but only recently realized how many gun owners are here in Tredyffrin). I was not surprised to read that the United States has the world’s highest civilian gun ownership rate in the world but when the statistic was converted to actual numbers . . . I admit to being suprised to learn that our 90 million Americans own an estimated 200 million guns! Another surprising discovery . . . Americans spend $10 billion annually on guns and supplies.

The ruling yesterday from the Supreme Court will extend the right that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns – to all cities and states for the first time. The decision to extend gun rights will be a setback for Chicago’s 29-year-old ban on handguns, which will now face legal review and will probably be overturned. The Supreme Court ruling is expected to cause legal challenges to existing laws restricting gun use in other states and cities. The right to bear arms, under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, previously applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves, like Washington D.C., where the court struck down a similar handgun ban in its 2008 ruling.

Chicago had defended its law as a reasonable exercise of local power to protect public safety. That law, and a similar handgun ban in suburban Oak Park, Illinois, were the nation’s most restrictive gun control measures. The Supreme Court believes that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states and cities. The residents of Chicago have a fundamental right to bear arms under this ruling.

Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley was very troubled by the decision and responded to the high court’s ruling with, “”Common sense tells you we need fewer guns, not more guns,” Daley said.”When it comes to Chicago, the court has ignored all that has been done in the past decade to reduce the murder rate and violent crime.” Daley cited statistics detailing the nation’s level of gun violence: 100,000 people shot each year, eight people dying each day from gunshots, one million dead since 1968, the year Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated.

Does this Supreme Court ruling have any specific meaning to us in Tredyffrin Township? Coincidentally, I did read that at the last commissioners meeting in Radnor Township, approval was granted to change the signs in their township parks to permit guns. Radnor actually cited Tredyffrin Township for already making the changes.

If we take our personal feelings about guns out of the discussion, do you believe that the states rights should be governed by the Supreme Court? Should the nation’s highest court determine the rights of the individual states and cities?

Looking at the Pennsylvania State House 157 race, do we know how State Representative Paul Drucker and his opponent, Warren Kampf feel about states rights on gun control? As lawyers, would they uphold the U.S. Constitution on gun control? If that is the case, could that be extended to other states rights vs. Constitution issues? For example, would Drucker and Kampf support and uphold the U.S. Constitution on the ‘women’s right to choose’ issue? Would Drucker and Kampf similarly consider a woman’s right to choose a Constitutional matter for the high courts and not a decision for the individual states? As Pennsylvania State House candidates, I certainly would appreciate hearing Drucker and Kampf opinions on the subject.

Altercation at King of Prussia Construction Site . . . Speculation of Ironworkers Local 401 Member Involvement; How Can This Violence Help?

June 26, 2010
32 Comments

There was a violent incident this week in the parking lot behind King of Prussia Mall that I found particularly disturbing. As I understand it, when a crew of 5 steelworkers (non-union workers) in 2 construction trucks arrived from Lebanon around 7 AM on Wednesday to begin work at the new Toy R Us store, their entry was blocked by members of the Ironworkers Local 401. Instead of forcing through the picket line, they decided to call the police and wait nearby in the mall parking area.

Two or three minutes later, a black Chevy sedan pulled up and 4 men jumped out swinging baseball bats, yelling and shouting. Three of the men ran away but the other 2 run to get in each of the trucks. The attackers shattered the trucks rear windows with the bats. The steelworks jumped out of the trucks and tried to defend themselves but were no match for the 4 assailants who beat them with the bats. Although the men who were attacked did not tell police their attackers were union workers, they believe that to be the case.

The general contractor for the project, Kane Builders of Glenside says that the subcontractors on the site are both union and non-union. The site preparation subcontractor is union, as is the framing subcontractor. The ironworkers and masonry subcontractors are both non-union.

A representative for Ironworkers Local 401 are denying their members had anything to do with the attack. Their attitude is just because we picket the job site does not mean that we had anything to do with the altercation. Upper Merion Police have made no arrests in the case.

This would not be the first time there has been a serious union incident in the King of Prussia – Valley Forge area. Back in 1972, there was another incident of construction-union violence. On June 5, in 1072 about 1,000 men, many wearing hard hats, swarmed the construction site for a hotel and theater complex (now the Valley Forge Convention Center and a hotel). The union members stormed the Valley Forge site, overrunning a fence and destroying $400,000 worth of equipment and materials. There were 16 union members convicted and 11 jailed in that union incident.

Here we are nearly 40 years later. Times are difficult . . . people are out-of-work and desperate . . . but what can possible by gained by this level of violence?

Tredyffrin Democrats Submit 2011 Budget Proposal Suggestions to Republican Board of Supervisors

June 22, 2010
7 Comments

During the ‘New Matters – Citizens’ section of last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, the chair of Tredyffrin Township Democratic Committee Dariel Jamieson presented a suggested 2011 budget proposal on behalf of the Executive Board of the township’s Democratic Committee. Dariel provided a copy of the statement to BOS chair Lamina and offered that a copy would be emailed to all members of the Board of Supervisors. Here is a copy of the TTDEMS statement.

The township’s budget discussion has historically occurred late in the calendar year which adds a heightened level of stress to an already stressful situation. With that in mind, the TTDEMS have suggestions to address the 2011 budget process. Their recommendations included:

  • Complete review of BAWG’s 2010 budget recommendations
  • Public presentation of all options for increasing revenue & decreasing expenses
  • October timeline for reaching budget consensus

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).

‘422 Corridor Master Plan’ Overview is Coming to Tredyffrin on Monday Night

June 19, 2010
31 Comments

In checking the agenda for Monday night’s Board of Supervisors Meeting, I noted Chester County Planning Commission presentation of the 422 Corridor Master Plan. Not being quite sure exactly what this ‘master plan’ entailed, I did some background research. Here’s a link for the 422 Corridor master plan if you’re interested.

On a schedule since the first of June, representatives from the Chester County Planning Commission, Montgomery County Planning Commission and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission are presenting their 422 Corridor Master Plan outreach program to the various municipalities. They are bringing their draft master plan to Tredyffrin this Monday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. A new transit line, as well as tolls on Route 422 may be in the area’s future (albeit probably not in the immediate future). A possible train line is seen as an option to provide an alternative to travel by automobile — extending transit service beyond Norristown along an already-existing rail line.

The creation of the 422 Corridor Master Plan is to provide a comprehensive approach to planning development in the 24 corridor municipalities in Chester, Montgomery and Berks counties. The 422 Master Plan is a comprehensive land use and transportation infrastructure plan that looks at the entire corridor. An important element of the master plan is how to handle growth, development and the ever- increasing traffic on 422. The plan suggests the widening of 422 in addition to ramp and interchange improvements.

Since the tolling of Interstate 80 has fallen through, the financing required for the 422 Corridor Master Plan would appear to be a bit in limbo. Why does the fate of all local state improvement projects seem to lead back to I-80’s loss of tolling? It is my understanding that the tolling of 422 is still considered a possibility to help offset the major land developments costs contained in the 422 Corridor Master Plan.

The county planning commissions are taking the 422 plan ‘on the road’ to each of the municipalities hoping that elected officials and residents will provide comments. The township supervisors will be asked to consider adopting a resolution endorsing the master plan’s principles and strategies. Looking to have the municipalities work together in partnership with the county planning commissions is probably the premise behind Monday’s presentation at the Board of Supervisors meeting.

State Rep Paul Drucker is on record as supporting 422 tolling and, as I recall, was later criticized by his state representative opponent Warren Kampf for supporting the project. With the county planning commissioners seeking a partnership agreement with Tredyffrin’s supervisors for their 422 Corridor Master Plan, it will be interesting to hear Kampf publically voice his opinion.

On another note — the Board of Supervisors meeting agenda is the scheduling of the public hearing for student housing registration ordinance. This is a first step in the process to manage student housing issues in the township (specifically in the Mt. Pleasant community). I am glad to see some positive movement in this direction and look forward to some resolution for residents with student rental issues.

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.

Ray Clarke Provides Notes from TESD School Board Meeting & Budget Approval Process

June 15, 2010
14 Comments

My friend, Ray Clarke once again has not let us down with his detailed notes and commentary from the TESD School Board meeting. Posting the agenda from last night’s meeting, I noted its 101 pages so I have a feeling that last night was long and tedious. Which makes me all the more grateful that Ray attended, took notes and then provides us with his thoughtful remarks. Thanks Ray!

I was particularly interested to know that PSERS was discussed at the meeting. The large white elephant in the room, we’d all like to hope that PSERS goes away or somehow just self-corrects but we know that’s just wishful thinking. PA House Appropriations Chair Dwight Evan’s proposed legislation addresses PSERS, but appears to be a delay tactic where the major liability to the taxpayers remains. But I suppose one could say his bill is better than nothing . . . which is where we currently are on the subject.

At the end of Ray’s notes he asks for State House candidates Drucker and Kampf to weigh in, but my experience says that will be doubtful. Unfortunately, my discussions with politicians anymore seem to be laced with an ‘it’s off the record’ remark . . . but maybe these candidates will surprise us!

Read over Ray’s comments from the meeting and please provide your thoughts. Any other readers attend the meeting, if so, please weigh in with your comments.

The School Board passed:

  • The 2010/11 budget with a 2.9% property tax increase, as developed and communicated over the past six months
  • Issuance of $23.6 million of bonds at “record low interest rates” – but which will still cost $36.7 million to repay over the next 15 years. Part will be used to advance refund existing bonds, which will save $170,000 next year and have a total net present value savings of $377,000 over the next dozen years. Note that the savings are front-loaded, extra costs come in the out years (see later, re PSERS……)
  • A bid to demolish the ESC, leading to a total project cost of $450,000 – about half the working estimates, which is very good news. The work to take place at the end of the calendar year.
  • Modifications to the K-6 class sizing practice that will save three teaching positions next year and more later, while remaining in accordance with current staffing policy. The implementation enabled by more recent resignations than expected.
  • A bid for printing services to replace the print shop currently housed in the ESC. Important to note that the budget strategy to save $84,000 did not explicitly articulate the $52,000 cost for the outsourced services, although apparently that cost is included in the budget. There was an agonizing 15 minute discussion while the Board and Administration talked all around this without facing up to it.

Interesting update about PSERS: PA House Appropriations Chair Dwight Evans has introduced a bill to implement a Rendell plan to delay the increase in employer (= taxpayer) contributions to teacher and state employee pension plans. Basically this limits the rate of increase of contributions via “collars” on the percentage of payroll that the taxpayer would have to contribute. Here’s an analysis:
http://www.paindependent.com/todays_news/detail/alternate-state-pension-plan-would-cost-8-billion
From some of the numbers floated, I guess this would provide TESD with at least a $5 million annual expense saving (vs the current forecast) in the problem years coming up.

But of course, the liabilities are still out there, so, to quote another website:
http://www.pennsylvaniavotes.org/forum/forums/p/149/300.aspx#300:
“An actuarial note attached to the bill by PERC (the PA Public Employee Retirement Commission) estimates that the higher costs in later year will far outweigh the contribution reductions in earlier years – to the tune of an astonishing $52 billion over 30 years. That is an additional $52 billion that taxpayers – through higher state and school property taxes – will have to fork over to pay off the pension obligations, and this assumes an 8% annual return on investment.”

This bill is being compared to refinancing a mortgage, which is not a bad analogy. Continuing with that: the plan does of course completely fail to address the fact that the principal (the public sector pension liability) vastly exceeds the market value (= pensions valued at private sector levels). Not a thought being given to writing down that liability!

For how long will voters put up with the union stranglehold on the legislature? At some point the economic pain will become overwhelming. What do our current and would-be representatives think about this?

Tredyffrin’s Police Union Fundraising . . . a sign of the times?

June 11, 2010
53 Comments

All residents and business owners in Tredyffrin Township received a letter in the last few days from the Tredyffrin Township Police Association, the union for the police officers in Tredyffrin’s police department.

The letter from Kevin Moore (president of the local police union) stated that this was the first annual letter drive and that contributions were needed by the police for ‘local community programs’ and to ‘support our employee assistance fund’. Many thoughts went through my mind as I read the letter; I wondered about the authenticity of the letter and the fundraising effort by the police. Just a few weeks ago, our local firefighters had warned residents to be aware of professional solicitors asking for donations while claiming that they were raising funds for our local firefighters. Initially I wondered if this was a similar scam; the unsigned letter did not provide a contact telephone number or email address. Although I have been unable to authenticate the letter, I am going to assume that it is legitimate.

Since receiving the police solicitation letter, I have received a number of emails and phone calls from residents with comments, questions and concerns about the solicitation by Tredyffrin’s police union. In addition to wondering whether the letter from the police union was legitimate, I have been asked if this solicitation implies that the police force is not fully funded by our tax dollars. The letter stated the police would use the funds for community funds — what kind of programs and (if the programs are required) why are the programs not currently funded. Another comment I received from a resident, was in regards to the timing of the fundraising and would this resident and business solicitation somehow affect the volunteer firefighters funding efforts.

I am not exactly sure how I feel about the solicitation letter by our local police. I have a few questions about this fundraising effort; specifically, I would appreciate further details on the use of our contributions. Do police departments in our neighboring municipalities fundraise? Fundraising is a common practice by police departments in other areas of the country so maybe this is a sign of the times. I’d be very interested how others feel on this topic.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme