Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Warren Kampf

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

April 22, 2010
21 Comments

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

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

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

Tensions Mount in Tredyffrin

By Blair Meadowcroft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 21, 2010
51 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 20, 2010
41 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ . . . Trust Board Members –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

902. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judy DiFilippo Officially Endorses Ken Buckwalter for 157th State House District’s Republican Primary

April 15, 2010
8 Comments

For those who follow closely, a couple of days ago, Judy DiFilippo’s endorsement of Ken Buckwalter for the 157 was on Community Matters briefly and then removed.  The confusion has been resolved — here is her endorsement.
____________________________________________________________________

Former Tredyffrin Township supervisor and candidate for the 157 State House District seat herself, Judy DiFilippo has decided to formally endorse Ken Buckwalter of Phoenixville in the Republican Primary.  Below is Judy’s endorsement statement:

The 157th State House District includes Tredyffrin, the Borough of Phoenixville, Schuylkill Township, and 6 precincts located in Lower Providence and West Norriton Townships in Montgomery County.  Two qualified candidates were recommended by the members of the Chester County Republican Committee in this District for our consideration in the Primary Election.  As voters, we must now do our part and choose the person whom we believe will best represent the Republican Party in the General Election and then serve the citizens of the 157th District.
 
This is not a ‘Tredyffrin seat’ nor is it a ‘Phoenixville seat’.  As candidate – and now U.S. Senator – Scott Brown said, “It is the People’s Seat!”  It is my belief that Ken Buckwalter is running for the People’s Seat.  I have observed that he is guided by principles, not politics.  He has shown his ability to garner support from voters across ‘party lines.’ On behalf of taxpayers, he is capable of making tough decisions about budgets and quality of life issues.  Though in the minority, he has worked with his fellow elected officials for the ‘greater good’ of the community.
 
As a small business owner, he has first-hand knowledge of how the economy affects jobs and our families.  In addition, he understands the benefits of volunteer organizations and has been a volunteer himself.  Ken has reached a place in his life where he can devote himself fulltime as a Legislator. All of these attributes deserve our consideration.
 
While each candidate is qualified, after long and careful thought, I have made my choice.  On May 18, 2010 I will cast my vote for Ken Buckwalter in the Republican Primary, the candidate who will represent the 157th District in the People’s Seat.

Judy L. DiFilippo

Berwyn Fire Company Weighs in on Status of Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Fund Drive

April 12, 2010
9 Comments

If you recall, at the December 22 Board of Supervisors meeting, there was a Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Fund Drive announcement and cardboard check’ presentation by Supervisors Kampf, Lamina and Olson. The check in the amount of $23,200 was well documented on the local news channels, in the newspaper and here on Community Matters. This check was to represent the township’s 2010 budget cut to the fire companies. Although Paul Olson has called me periodically to update me on the Holiday Fund Drive, there had been no official word from either the fire company nor the supervisors. Last week I sent an email to Rip Tilden, president of the Berwyn Fire Company and copied the Board of Supervisors asking the following questions:

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

Rip graciously supplied me with a detailed response to my questions. Accompanying his letter to the community was a wonderfully supportive note which I much appreciated. Below is Rip’s open letter to the residents of Tredyffrin Township. As I expected, Rip reports that it has been the policy of Berwyn Fire Company not to provide donor information, preferring to turn that responsibility over to the supervisors who were in charge of the solicitation (Kampf, Lamina, Olson).

I am going to send a copy of this letter to the Board of Supervisors and ask that the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Fund Drive be added to next week’s supervisors meeting agenda. The Holiday Fund Drive has successfully achieved their December goal, and much like it was important to publically announce the solicitation drive with the ‘cardboard check’, I likewise think it is important that the community have closure on this matter. I will ask for an official update from the Board of Supervisors and their response to my questions, including the list of donors.

Berwyn Fire Company response to questions from Pattye Benson

April 10, 2010

Dear Tredyffrin Community,

On behalf of the three fire companies that service Tredyffrin Township (Berwyn Fire Company, Paoli Fire Company, and Radnor Fire Company), I can report that we have received $24,400 as a result of the Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Holiday Fund Drive effort. We understand that one or two additional donations may still be coming to us, which would make the ultimate total greater than that amount. The donation money will be divided among the three fire companies based on coverage area (each fire company will receive the money donated by individuals and companies who reside in their coverage areas). We plan to distribute the money to the other fire companies this month (each of the presidents of the fire companies agreed to wait to distribute the funds until all the money was received).

These funds will be included in the annual fund drive totals at the fire companies, which means we will use them to help fund our general operations. We encourage members of the community to donate directly to the fire companies through the direct mail fund drives that are currently in progress. The funding needs of all three fire companies are substantial. For example, the annual operating budget for the Berwyn Fire Company is approximately $1.5 million, with about 18% of our funding needs in 2010 covered by municipal support (your tax dollars). We must fund the other 82% of our operating expenses through our own fundraising efforts, billings for ambulance calls and other sources (grants, rent, etc.). The Berwyn Fire Company responds to approximately 3000 calls a year (fire and ambulance calls) with a team of 65 volunteers and 9 full time employees (firefighter/EMTs and firefighter/Medics).

We have long had a policy of not releasing the names of donors (either individuals or companies) who make contributions to the fire company, unless they specifically ask us to do so. No one has done so in this case. We feel strongly that we should respect the privacy of our donors. We thank those who have coordinated this fundraising effort and we feel we should allow them to handle any questions as to donor information.

We thank the members of our community for their support during the budget discussions last year, and for their financial contributions. When it comes to our funding needs, your support is invaluable.

We are now focused on working through the Tredyffrin-Easttown Fire Task Force to put in place a long-term funding solution that will ensure that all of the fire companies that serve these townships can continue to provide the superior fire/EMS services that we have come to expect in this community. We look forward to working with both Boards through the current Task Force to achieve this goal in 2010.

Sincerely,

Rip Tilden, President
Berwyn Fire Company

Countdown to May 18 Primary . . . Can we escape negative campaigning?

April 10, 2010
15 Comments

Days are beginning to countdown to the Pennsylvania Primary on May 18 and then on to Election Day on November 2. As the campaign season prepares to get in to full swing, I want to publically state my strong opposition to negative campaigning. Recalling my own experience in last year’s campaign cycle, I know all too well the personal effect of negative campaigning.

On a local level, based on past performance the potential exists for negative campaigning in the Pennsylvania State House 157 race. The Primary has Ken Buckwalter and Warren Kampf seeking the Republican nomination; and incumbent Paul Drucker as the endorsed Democrat candidate. I have had a conversation with two of the three candidates to express my concern that this campaign season not take us down the negative path.

I think that negative campaigning can backfire in local political elections. Poll after poll has shown that voters severely dislike negative campaigning. Ask almost anyone and they will agree: one of the most distasteful things about political campaigns is when a candidate decides to “go negative’ on an opponent. Often times it seems that the definition of “negative campaigning” really depends on which candidate you’re supporting. Many consultants and campaign managers like to call negative campaigning “comparing” or “contrasting” candidates by showing the voters the clear differences between their choices. If your candidate starts “comparing” himself with his opponent, then you’re more likely to look at it as completely acceptable. If, on the other hand, the opponent does the same with your candidate, then it becomes “negative campaigning.”

In our local election, where many of us may know the candidates personally, going strongly negative and personal in the campaign can end up costing you our respect, and ultimately our vote. Sending out a negative mailer about a candidate who everyone knows and thinks is a fairly nice guy probably isn’t going to make us change our opinion of him. It’s much more likely to get us angry at you, instead. I look at this way: if a candidate is severely flawed, then odds are that other people know plenty about his shortcomings. If, on the other hand, the candidate is a generally well-liked person with a clean record, then trying to convince his neighbors otherwise with a negative campaign is a losing battle. Let’s stick to the candidate’s actual voting record and history on issues. An opponent may claim to support a tax cut, for example, but his voting record may show a number of previous votes in favor of tax hikes . . . that would be fair game in a campaign. But personal attacks on an opponent’s private life, name-calling and mudslinging are unnecessary and not OK, and will likely not be favorably rewarded on Community Matters.

If you’re a candidate in a local election who is thinking about “going negative” on your opponent at some point during the campaign, I hope that you will reconsider. The stuff that really wins elections is called Hard Work . . . and if you’re really putting the necessary effort into running a great campaign, you won’t have time to waste on spreading rumors about your opponent, anyway.

Here is a preview of Ken Buckwalter’s campaign mailer for the State House 157, which is going out next week. Ken is taking the ‘high road’ with his campaign strategy, here’s hoping that the other two will follow suit.

In Forty Years There Have Been Many Changes in Tredyffrin – Unfortunately Some Things Never Change . . . Fire Company Funding

April 7, 2010
48 Comments

This topic is Community Matters at its best. I received an email yesterday with an attached Suburban and Wayne Times newspaper article dated Thursday, July 15, 1971. A reader was cleaning out his attic and came across this article and forwarded it on to me. No comment or request to post on Community Matters . . . he just thought I might find it of interest. The title of the article is, “Volunteer Firemen’s Financing is Critical”. (A link to the article at the end of this post.)

The article is based on local volunteer fire companies along the Main Line and Valley Forge, including Radnor, Berwyn and Paoli. What is both fascinating (and sad) at the same time is the plea for the volunteer firefighters funding in 1971 is exactly the same as in 2010. The tone of the article begs that more support needs be offered by the municipalities served. In discussing firefighter funding, a fire chief is quoted in the article as saying, “It has to be done on a municipality basis. It’s the township’s or borough’s responsibility to provide protection for persons and property. . . . They don’t take the responsibility . . . The volunteers do it.”

In 1970, Tredyffrin supervisors allocated $15,750 to the Berwyn fire company. Forty years ago, the Berwyn Fire Company had a deficit $1,632, due to lack of volunteer firefighter support. With populations exploding on the Main Line and aging equipment in 1971, all the fire companies were appealing to the local governments for adequate funding. There was agreement among the various fire companies, that greater support was required from the service areas. Here’s a fascinating 40-year old quote, when talking about residents, fire chiefs observed, “Many encounter surprise from new residents that the fire company isn’t a municipal service. Some persons have never even heard of a volunteer fire company, particularly those from metropolitan areas.” I am guessing that our local fire companies still encounter the same kind of remarks in 2010!

There is discussion in the article as to “What can residents do to back the volunteer fire companies”? The response was “Join!”. In 1971, the yearly dues were $1 for the Valley Forge company, $2 in East and West Whiteland, $5 per family in Berwyn and $12 per family in Paoli (which included family and ambulance service).

This post should be more than simply a walk down memory lane. It needs to be a wake-up call to the supervisors and residents. Although I have posted that Paul Olson called and told me that his solicitation committee (which included him, Lamina and Kampf) have made good on the cardboard check they presented to the Berwyn Fire Company in December, . . . there has been no official statement from the Board of Supervisors on the subject. If you recall, the cardboard check of $23,200 represented the amount the supervisors removed from the fire companies in the 2010 budget. Guess my question is where do we stand on the 2011 budget process . . . will the fire companies see their total budget reinstated? And if the township reinstate the contribution to the fire companies in the 2011 budget, what will the supervisors cut from the budget to make that happen?

We are in to the 2nd quarter of the year; has the Finance Committee begun working on the 2011 draft budget? I’m thinking that there are associated winter costs (snow removal, stormwater problems, repair of potholes, etc.) that could be considerably higher than was forecasted for in the 2010 budget. The 2011 budget process needs to be underway or there is going to be major problems come November. With the loss of Dave Brill as the township finance director, I am assuming that the supervisors need to take a very active role in the economic forecasting.

Here is a link to the 1971 newspaper article, if you would like to read it in its entirety. Funding of our fire companies is an important issue and a topic that needs to remain at the top of our priority list. Comments from the readers . . . ?

Mt. Pleasant Update . . . 1 house demolished, 3 still standing

March 28, 2010
5 Comments

Here’s an update on the vacant houses on Henry and Fairview Avenues in Mt. Pleasant, the site of the new townhouse development. Mt. Pleasant resident Christine Johnson notified me that Maizie Hall’s house on Henry Ave was demolished yesterday. I’m not sure exactly what motivated the developer yesterday to start the demolishing process (could it have been the wide circulation of my photos?) but I’m impressed!

Not knowing the status on the other 3 houses (2 are on Henry Ave. and the house is around the corner on Fairview Ave.) I drove over to Mt. Pleasant this afternoon. I found quite the pile of rubble where Maizie Hall’s house stood a couple of days ago. In addition to the rubble, 3 other houses remain on the property that are slated for demolition. Three large pieces of equipment are on site, so I am assuming that these houses will be coming down in the next few days. If you would like to see photos of the other houses that remain on site, click here for a slideshow. To see the individual photos in Mt. Pleasant, click here.

All that remains of Maizie Hall's childhood home.

These crumbling steps are located at 985 Fairview Avenue . . . they lead to an abandoned, vacant house on the site of the new townhouse community coming to Mt. Pleasant. Maizie Hall’s house was demolished yesterday and I am assuming that the big heavy equipment that is on site will be removing the other 3 houses, including the Fairview Ave. house.

While I was at Mt. Pleasant today, I met the next-door neighbor of the planned townhouse development. He was glad to see the abandoned houses coming down but pointed out that 2 of the houses that are still standing, have actually been vacant and abandoned for at least 5 years . . . apparently the developer purchased those 2 houses at a foreclosure bank sale. To leave his house for the last 5 years, this Mt. Pleasant neighbor has had to go past these rundown, abandoned houses. I guess he is glad to see some movement on their demolition.

Pennsylvania Legislators can use Tax-Free Per Diems for Home Purchase . . .What about taxability issues or fraud possibilities?

March 23, 2010
1 Comment

I tripped across an interesting article in the Pennsylvania Independent about a fascinating perk that is available to our Pennsylvania senators and representatives. Did you know that our legislators can use their per diem ($154) towards an investment home purchase?

I wonder how many of our state legislators have taken advantage of this apparently ‘legal’ perk? Using government tax-free per diem for home purchase leaves me wondering about the taxability issues . . . and what about fraud possibilities? Interesting to have this discussion as the state’s General Fund budget of $29 billion is expected to pass today. Remembering last year’s late budget which took a catastrophic toll on thousands of Pennsylvania’s residents, makes you wonder about this perk of our elected officials, doesn’t it?

Per Diems Can Be Used to Purchase Homes

By Darwyn Deyo

Despite the budget deficit facing the Pennsylvania legislature this year, representatives and senators are able to use tax free per diems to cover the cost of their housing, even if they live within 50 miles of the Capitol.

“If you live within 50 miles of the capitol you’re not eligible for the housing per diem. There’s nothing in the regulation that says you’re eligible for a second mortgage,” said Eric Epstein, coordinator for Rock the Capital. “Per diems were not designed to underwrite home mortgages or provide equity. If per diems are being used as an investment vehicle then we need to look beyond ethical lapses and explore tax fraud because they may be eligible. If they use the money as an investment and are accruing interest, that should be a taxable event. If they are harvesting an interest break off a mortgage payment, that’s a taxable event.”

Per diems can also be used by legislators who live within 50 miles of the Capitol but travel beyond that for committee meetings.

The Internal Revenue Service’s daily per diem limit for Harrisburg is $154, which would cover the cost of a hotel in the area, but some legislators, including State Reps. Todd Eachus (D – Luzerne) and James Wansacz (D – Lackawanna), purchased homes near the Capitol. While a per diem for housing at a hotel would cover the cost only of each night at the hotel, applying a per diem to a mortgage creates a commodity the owner can re-sell at a later date. Per diems, for example, can be used for travel expenses but not for the purchase of a new car. Mr. Wansacz also spoke with high school students last week as part of a forum on youth and government at Keystone College, where the representative answered questions on putting in for per diems for take-out meals.

Beyond the housing-as-investment use of per diems, however, lays the taxable element. Whereas a non-legislator is required to pay taxes on their income and then budget for items like housing, meals, and travel, a legislator using tax free per diems to pay for housing, meals, and travel essentially receives a supplement to their legal salary, a supplement controlled by rules set by legislature itself.

In an interview with the Scranton Public Policy Examiner, Mr. Wansacz said “There is nothing illegal about accepting per diems. I can tell you, the House and the Senate would have to change that next session. If that comes up for a vote, I would have no problem changing that. I have to show that I have living expenses. What I can tell you is that I’m not making any money off this. I’m not a wealthy individual. The only income I have is my salary.”

But Mr. Epstein said per diems are rarely denied and the legislature doesn’t even require receipts or vouchers to reimburse. Pennsylvania taxpayers cover about $2.7 million a year in reimbursed per diems. If taxed at Pennsylvania’s current income tax rate of three percent that would put $81,000 back into the General Fund.

Township Park Ordinance in Violation of State Law . . . so says resident and member of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association

March 20, 2010
7 Comments

A couple of days ago I received an anonymous comment from gunrights-tredyffrintownship. This was an interesting comment for several reasons. Those of you who have been following Community Matters will recall my fascination and naivete over the recent firearms in national parks legislation. That discussion extended to a broader discussion of gun control in the community. Of all the issues that have been discussed on Community Matters, I think this topic generated more dinner table conversation and heated debate than anything else. Recently I met someone for the first time and they brought up the gun control discussion on Community Matters . . . go figure.

This brings me to today’s posting. Below you will find a series of email exchanges between gunrights-tredyffrintownship (an anonymous Community Matters commentor using that name) and the Board of Supervisors and discussion with Tom Hogan. At issue is the signage in our township parks in regards to guns. When it comes to the ability to carry guns in our township parks, apparently Tredyffrin Township’s park ordinance and signs are in violation of Pennsylvania state law. I never read the small print on our township park signs but I guess I will the next time I visit. This person has all of his/her emails with the township posted on the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association forum, located at: http://forum.pafoa.org. It appeared that the email trail ended with a conversation with Tom Hogan late last year. There was an addendeum to the comment that stated the resident was waiting for a further update in regards to the park signage, but so far in 2010 has not received anything further.

There is a cost to changing the signs (the commentator offers suggestions) . . . what do you think? Should our park signs be corrected? From the timeline of this email discussion, it would suggest that this person has been waiting for an answer. Do you think that it should be addressed at a Board of Supervisors meeting?

Preemption Violation – Tredyffrin Township

Dear Board of Supervisors,

I am a resident of Tredyffrin Township and a member of an organization called The Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association. I would like to bring to the attention of the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors a township ordinance that appears to be in violation of state law. I became aware of this issue when I recently visited Louis D’Ambrosia Park and read the park rules sign posted there.

Further research led me to Chapter 138 of the Township Code, Parks and Playgrounds, Section 3 Regulations, Subsection J, which states the following:

“No person, other than township active duty police officers employed in the execution of their duties, shall carry or possess or discharge or use firearms or weapons of any type in a township park. [Amended 6-1-1998 by Ord. No. HR-270]”

This law is in violation of Title 18, Chapter 61, Subchapter A (otherwise known as The Uniform Firearms Act), specifically §6120 (a) that states:

“General rule: No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this commonwealth.”

The preemption statute I quoted was passed in 1995. I am unsure when regulation J was passed. It may have been in place before 1995, explaining why it could have been overlooked. Unfortunately there was no grandfathering of existing limitations when The Uniform Firearms Act was passed. Regulation “J” as it stands today is invalid with regards to the carrying or possessing a firearm in a township park.

I know some people might want to know why someone would want to carry a firearm in a township park. The answer may be as simple as they carry a firearm daily. I know I do. But that question is not really the issue.

The preemption statute I quoted is very important for Pennsylvanians that legally carry a firearm, in that it removes the problem of a traveling citizen running afoul of a myriad of local laws prohibiting where you can and cannot carry a firearm. In other words, licensed or otherwise legal carriers of firearms in Pennsylvania can carry everywhere not prohibited by state or federal law.

Of particular interest to Tredyffrin Township is that since this rule is unenforceable, there could be negative consequences should an unknowing person, or even one choosing to ignore the rule knowing it is null and void, happen to be cited or otherwise confronted. If a police officer were to enforce such rule or ordinance, wrongful arrest and other charges could be laid on the officer, the police department and Tredyffrin Township– not an inexpensive proposition.

I respectfully ask that the Board of Supervisors look into this matter. Please let me know how you and your colleagues will proceed with bringing Tredyffrin Township in compliance with state law. A copy of §6120 is also attached.

Awaiting your response, I remain,

Most respectfully yours,

I sent the first letter on September 22nd. After receiving no response, I sent the following e-mail to the Chairman on October 7th.

Quote:

From: xxxxxxx xxxxx [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx@verizon.net]
To: Warren E. Kampf
Subject: Initial correspondence

Warren,
Several weeks ago I sent a letter to you and your fellow supervisors
regarding a township park ordinance. As of today I have not received a
response. Did you receive my initial correspondence?

Thank You,

Today I received this reply:

Quote:
Warren E. Kampf wrote:
we did and we are looking into it.

My response tonight was:

Quote:
Warren,
Thanks for getting back to me. I assume the Township Solicitor will be in touch with me when he is complete?

Thanks,

Since they meet twice a month, every other Monday, it shouldn’t be difficult to attend a meeting if I fail to hear from the solicitor soon. I also was contacted by a local newspaper reporter and have been keeping him in the loop regarding progress. I will continue to update as things move forward.

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

________________________________

Update, 6 days ago the Chairman sent me this reply:

Quote:
Warren E. Kampf wrote:
we did and we are looking into it.

My response to that was:

Quote:
Warren,
Thanks for getting back to me. I assume the Township Solicitor will be in touch with me when he is complete?

Thanks,

Yesterday I received this:

Quote:
Either he will or someone from township will.

Nice one sentence responses I get from the Chairman. You would think the least he would do is properly address the person he is communicating with and maybe sign the end of the e-mail.

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

——————————————————————————–

That lets you know how important you are, in his eyes. Perhaps it’s time to start campaigning to elect a new chairman?
__________________

Re: Preemption Violation–Tredyffrin Township–Chester County

___________________

Good news to report here. I received a letter on Friday from the township solicitor, Thomas Hogan, requesting I call him to discuss the letter I sent the supervisors. Around 2:30 pm I called his office. After exchanging greetings with him, the first words out of his mouth were, “I’m in receipt of your letter, and am in complete agreement with your legal position.” I almost fell off my chair.

After reading threads about defiant townships, boroughs, etc, this is not the answer I expected. He also informed me he made a call to the Chief of Police, Andy Chambers. He said he would probably speak with him over the weekend and inform him that the department could not enforce the ordinance because it violates the state preemption law. I almost fell off the chair again.

In the next few minutes of our discussion, Mr. Hogan asked me if I had any immediate concerns, upcoming events in a township park, or if I was worried about this particular ordinance. I reiterated what I said in my letter to the supervisors about gun carriers dodging a myriad of local regulations and if someone were falsely arrested due to this ordinance it would not be right.

I then told him I was happy to see he was in agreement with my concerns and stated the next steps needed to be a repeal/revision of the ordinance, and modifying the signs in the township parks. He said he would speak with the supervisors about how they would like to handle the ordinance part of my concerns. Then came the sign issue. He went on to say the township has a lot of parks and signs and the cost associated with changing all the signs would be an expensive proposition, but next time they change the signs they could modify them.

I told him they could either cover up the part about firearms, or heat up the stick on letters and peel them off. He said he would contact the public works department for how to handle this. Since he was very cooperative and understanding of my concerns, I didn’t want to press him too hard on the sign issue yet. He seems dedicated to addressing these two issues and bringing them to a resolution that is to my satisfaction, so I will continue to work with him. He said I should hear back from him in about one week. He said I might need to appear before the supervisors with him and ask for the ordinance to be repealed/modified. This depends on how the supervisors wish to handle it.

This is how all of the preemption violations we contest should be handled. Mr. Hogan’s professionalism was very refreshing. While many of us are quick to fire off letters and e-mails to persons who infringe on our rights, we should also thank those who work with us in the preservation of those rights and follow the rule of law.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme