Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Warren Kampf

In a Show of Union Solidarity – Pennsylvania Teachers Unions Joining Forces with AFL-CIO

March 28, 2011
1 Comment

We have watched the Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker and his battles with state employees over legislation to take away collective bargaining rights. Walker’s actions hit a cord across the country; public employees are drawing the battleground in Ohio, Florida, from coast to coast. Now we see it in Pennsylvania.

The proposed $1 billion budget cut to public education by Gov. Tom Corbett has driven three teachers unions in the Lehigh Valley area to organize. Because of school district budget deficits and state funding cuts, hundreds of teacher jobs are on the chopping block in the Lehigh Valley . . . the teacher unions are fighting back. In a show of solidarity, 3,500 teachers in the Allentown, Bethlehem Area and Easton Area school districts have voted to unite with union members from the Lehigh Valley Labor Council and Pennsylvania AFL-CIO. The teachers are joining forces with their brothers and sisters in the manufacturing, building and service unions to fight Harrisburg. The AFL-CIO membership in Pennsylvania has 900,000 union workers. Together, the unions believe they need to take a stand for the working middle class family in Pennsylvania.

With organized labor getting behind the teachers, one could guess that means additional financial support to help fight Harrisburg. Union members believing that Corbett’s budget is an attempt to balance the budgets on the backs of the working class, these 1.1 million voices are saying ‘no’ to the Governor and his proposed budget cuts for public education.

Exactly what these ‘voices’ have in mind for Harrisburg is yet to be seen. And I wonder if the TESD teachers will decide on a similar path to the Lehigh Valley teachers as the school board works to balance the district budget and as the calendar moves closer to contract negotiations.

State Rep Kampf Supports Teacher Furloughing for Economic Reasons

March 21, 2011
8 Comments

In today’s Main Line Media News, Alan Thomas writes an article on our state representative, ‘Warren Kampf thinks he knows how to get the Pennsylvania Family back on track”. Thomas was able to get our state rep to offer some remarks on various topics.

On House Bill 855, teacher furloughing . . .

We learn that Kampf supports the bill that would permit the furloughing of teachers for economic reasons. Current legislation only permits school districts to lay off teachers only if enrollment declines, districts consolidate or if a program is eliminated.

The proposed legislation, House Bill 855 would permit ‘economic’ as a reason to furlough teachers. The Pennsylvania School Boards Association and the state’s largest teacher union, Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) are at odds over this proposed legislation. Among some, there is fear this proposed legislation could be open the door to teacher layoffs. House Bill 855 would allow furloughs to occur without regard for an employee’s seniority and experience.

According to Kamp, TESD is able to “reduce by 15 [the number of teachers] by going from five to six [teaching] periods a day. However, the law prevents furloughing.” Kampf supports the furlough legislation and thinks that it may pass before school budgets are due.

On the State’s pension problem . . .

Kampf’s solution is to “go to a defined-contribution plan for new hires, a percentage of payroll for employees, but that’s the end of it for the taxpayer . . . “

On taxing natural-gas production . . .

Kampf is OK with taxing natural gas production, as long as it is a low tax at the well-head, citing substantial revenue as the reason.

Kampf makes an interesting remark at the end of the article, referencing the taxing of the natural gas production — “The governor campaigned on no tax. My prediction – not going to happen.” Apparently, Kampf believes that Corbett is going to have to reverse his campaign promise and tax the companies conducting the drilling. Could taxing those companies involved in national gas production have an effect on job growth in those areas? I don’t have an answer, just asking the question . . .

Outsourcing of Custodial Services Would Save T/E School District Almost $1 Million . . . Should this Cost-Cutting Measure be Considered?

March 15, 2011
42 Comments

Last night was the T/E School District’s Finance Committee Meeting. One of the solutions offered to help close the looming deficit for the 2011-12 school district budget is the outsourcing of the custodial services. Outsourcing of the custodial service is expected to save the school district an estimated $950K in the budget. Last night, several members of the district’s custodial union (many of whom are township residents) attended the meeting to make the case to preserve the current custodial arrangement.

From Pete Bannan’s article in today’s Main Line Suburban newspaper on TESD Finance Committee Meeting, Pete reports:

” . . . All the school-board members were present for the meeting and the pleas during the public comments did not fall on deaf ears. Finance chair Kevin Mahoney said the school board wasn’t doing this to save money but is required by state law to balance the budget.
“The options are evaporating,” said Mahoney. “The governor’s budget turned a $2.2-million shortfall into a $3.6-million shortfall. It’s simply a matter of economics.”
Mahoney said no decisions had been made. The proposal is due April 4 and the board has 120 days to review it. Mahoney also said the school board is open to ideas and constructive ways to reach its goals. He suggested the public contact elected state officials, such as State Rep. Warren Kampf, State Sen. Andrew Dinniman and Gov. Tom Corbett, and ask for real pension reform. . . “

Ray Clarke attended the Finance Committee meeting and offers the following notes for Community Matters readers. As always, I am grateful for Ray’s attendance at school district meetings, his analysis and then for sharing them with us!

Monday’s Finance committee meeting vividly illustrated the problem TESD finds itself in.

Very many TENIG (Tredyffrin Easttown Non-Instructional Group) members and others spoke about the value of the current system with experienced, stable, professional and flexible staff, compared to the risks of a possibly cheaper, but high turnover, less trustworthy, and less committed external provider. There was also commentary about the impact on diversity. There was much talk about membership in the T/E Family, and a wise – but unfortunately innocent – CHS student suggested that a family would sit down and work out a fair solution for all its members, rather than focusing on one group. (No prizes for guessing the elephant in this particular family room!)

The out-sourcing analysis does offer a glimmer of hope, though. The district has issued an RFP, responses due May 4, which then must be given to TENIG by May 11. TENIG is allowed 120 days to respond. Let’s assume that out-sourcing would really save the $950,000 estimate. Now, the district has already identified overtime and substitute strategies that would save $150,000 with the existing staff. Is it wishful thinking that the staff could use their professional experience to identify further cost-saving practices, and offer compensation roll-backs and benefits adjustments that could move the impact over 50% towards the expected cost savings? Taxpayers might be very willing to pay a premium for service assurance.

After 90 minutes the committee got down to a review of budget projections. The $1.3 million impact of the PA budget was confirmed, with the $1.1 million reduction in Social Security reimbursement to the 15% “aid ratio” being the real surprise. Apparently it has been at 50% for as long as anyone in the room could remember. I would think that this might be subject to lobbying: where is Kampf on this one? It apparently squarely targets districts like TE that have a low aid ratio.

There was agreement to move ahead to crystallize a number of strategies listed with low or moderate impact on the education program. The biggest ones:

– Change the prescription provider: Impact $250,000
– Eliminate raises for all non-union staff: $395,000
– Integrate Applied Technology into Elementary Core: $300,000
– Plan for a 5% increase in medical costs (vs previous 10%): $412,500
– Fees for extra-curricular activities: $80,000

The result of all of this is $2.3 million of fairly solid strategies (including all the above except the last) and $0.45 million of more speculative ones (including the last). The current scenario assumes $0.15 million of the specualtive ones, for a total of $2.4 million of strategies. Add in Act 1 and Exception tax increases of $3.2 million (3.8%), subtract the $1.3 million state cuts, the $8.9 million deficit comes down to – a mere – $4.6 million.

Board policy does place some limits on use of the Fund Balance, but one obvious use is to pre-fund approved programs implementation-limited by contractual attrition rules. There was an example presented of how $1.1 million could be designated in this way in 2011/12. (I worry that there might be a little double counting with the above $300,000 AT elimination – does that need attrition?).

It’s fairly clear that the $29 million Fund Balance could absorb the $4.6 million draw down, but beyond that the picture is bleak. Annual deficit projections of $10 million or more (after Act 1 tax increases, driven by benefits) show that the district can not afford even flat TEEA salaries without the fund balance being wiped out in 2 years.

Here’s where the State House Bill to allow teacher furloughs to balance the budget comes into play. According to Dr Waters, that would allow action even with a CBA in place. However, Dr Brake reported that although the bill was up for Committee hearings, those hearings were abruptly cancelled (!). But the legislative process does continue, apparently.

We know that there are some actions involving furloughs that are already approved as having minimal educational impact. Others, like modest increases in class sizes, might be similarly low impact. Getting to $10 million can hardly be done without real impact, though. When it comes down to students and jobs versus union compensation, we might find out who is really part of the TE Family.

Our State Senator Andy Dinniman Votes in Favor of Pennsylvania’s School Voucher Bill, Awaiting Response from State Rep Warren Kampf

March 3, 2011
Comments

We now know that State Sen. Andy Dinniman (D-Chester) supports the school voucher bill. As a member of the Senate Education Committee, this week Sen. Dinniman cast his vote in favor of the proposed legislation. I have been contacted concerning State Rep Warren Kampf’s opinion of the school voucher program and sent the following email this morning asking for a statement. I look forward to Rep. Kampf’s response and will post it when received.

Dear Rep. Kampf,

You recently introduced a bill that would reduce costs for school districts by exempting them from prevailing wage requirements for public works contracts. Your proposed ‘School Construction Cost Reduction Act’ indicates an understanding of the economic issues facing many of the state’s school districts. As Pennsylvania’s school districts struggle to balance their budgets, legislation that supports schools and taxpayers is appreciated.

There has been much discussion about the proposed school voucher bill S.B.1. which would help the state’s poorest children from the lowest-performing schools by providing options of attending public, private or parochial school. This week the Senate Education Committee voted 8-2 in favor of the bill and the proposed legislation will move forward in the process.

It is important for constituents to know where our elected officials stand on all important issues, including the school voucher program. State Senator Andy Dinniman (D-Chester) serves on the Senate Education Committee and voted in favor of the proposed school voucher legislation. As our State Representative, could you please offer your thoughts on the proposed ‘opportunity scholarship’ legislation? In your response, please address specific issues including the plan’s estimated price tag of $860 million, the constitutionality of the proposed legislation and the issue of funding parochial schools with taxpayer money.

Thank you and I look forward to your response.

King regards,

Pattye Benson
Community Matters
www.pattyebenson.org

State Representatives Receive Committee Appointments

January 25, 2011
Comments

Harrisburg has announced the committee appointments for state representatives. The following is the announcement from State Rep. Kampf’s office. According to the release, he will be using his experience as Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors on his Local Government committee appointment.

Rep. Warren Kampf (R-Chester/Montgomery) has been appointed to the House Labor and Industry Committee, as well as the Local Government, Consumer Affairs, and Urban Affairs committees for the 2011-12 legislative session.

“Now more than ever, we need to free job creators and businesses from over-burdensome regulations and tax policies that stifle, rather than stimulate, growth in our economy and job markets,” Kampf said. “I will use my position on the Labor Committee to help clear the path for entrepreneurship by reigning in practices that work against job growth.”

Kampf’s experience as a Tredyffrin Township Supervisor will make him an asset to the Local Government Committee, which reviews bills dealing with the municipal codes by which local governments operate. “As a former local official, I witnessed firsthand how some state laws, regulations and mandates increase costs to local taxpayers,” said Kampf. “From the Local Government Committee, I will listen to and work with local officials from across the state to help reduce these burdens and control property taxes.”

Kampf’s responsibilities on the Urban Affairs Committee will dovetail with his work on the Local Government Committee, as many of the issues being dealt with (including manufactured housing, building codes, urban redevelopment and enterprise zones, and sprawl) have components which are addressed by both committees.

Are Tredyffrin Supervisors Politically-Motivated over Land Development Authority . . . Is it all about St. Davids Golf Club?

January 21, 2011
11 Comments

I attended Tredyffrin’s Planning Commission meeting last night. The last agenda item was “Draft Amendment to the Subdivision & Land Development Ordinance”.

As one who understands the importance of community volunteers, it saddened me to listen to the discussion on changing final land development authority from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commissioners are experienced, skilled and committed residents who spend countless hours in this volunteer position. They are dedicated to working together, collaborating with developers, architects, builders, etc. and making nonpartisan decisions. These volunteers are now discouraged and confused by the motive of the Board of Supervisors to take away their final land development authority. Regrettably, many believe that the desire by some supervisors to take back land development authority is politically motivated and personal.

One commissioner reported that there has only been one unhappy applicant in his many years of service on the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, the one unhappy applicant is St. Davids Golf Club. Three times this applicant came to the Planning Commission and each time the commissioners voted in favor of the land development plan, including the sidewalk.

The Planning Commissioners are not necessarily opposed to the Board of Supervisors taking final land development authority; but all seemingly question the ‘timing’ and the political motives behind the need to change the ordinance now. Although there is a liaison assigned to the Planning Commission, it was reported they have rarely seen their supervisor-assigned liaison attend a meeting. Which begs the question, if there is no interest in attending the Planning Commission meetings, why do they want to take on the entire job of land development review?

Do the supervisors have any idea the length of time that land development reviews will consume? Although Mimi Gleason pointed out that the township is about built out, as the economy improves there will be an increase in commercial redevelopment plus the significant Paoli Transportation Center land development project on the horizon. The Planning Commission has experienced professionals volunteering their time – planners, real estate developers, attorneys, etc. Our Planning Commissioners are volunteers with the specific skill set and willingness to commit the necessary time to the process . . . do we have supervisors with similar profiles?

Planning Commissioner Bob O’Leary has concern that changing the land development authority to the Board of Supervisors is going to increase staff time and the staff is already understaffed. If the ordinance is changed, an applicant will first go to the Planning Commission for review and then the applicant will have a second review by the Board of Supervisors. This double review procedure would be for both preliminary and final land development approval; doubling the work and expense of township staff. In addition, doubling the efforts of all land development applicants.

Tory Snyder, Planning Commissioner and a member of the Sidewalk Subcommittee will be making the Sidewalk Subcommittee’s presentation on Monday to the Board of Supervisors. The supervisors know that the sidewalk at St. Davids Golf Club is on the subcommittee’s map as a recommended site — part of the Green Routes Network. Three supervisors, Phil Donahue, Michele Kichline and EJ Richter were members of the Sidewalks Subcommittee. All three supervisors attended the last meeting of the subcommittee and voted in favor of the committee’s recommendations, including St. Davids Golf Club sidewalks.

Planning Commissioners believe that the Board of Supervisor’s desire to change the land development authority is directly related to their St. Davids Golf Club decision. As Bob Whalen, chair of the Planning Commission said, ‘We voted on the issue three times unanimously; we didn’t vote on what was political, but voted on what was right”. Whalen said that he does not intend to waste any more time on the ordinance. He views the proposed ordinance change as a “Slap in the face to the Planning Commission. I know the difference between right and wrong.”

I hate the thought that the Sidewalks Committee and the time and efforts of the volunteers was nothing more than a charade . . . all leading up to the St. Davids Golf Club decision and Board of Supervisors change to the land development authority. No doubt, some supervisors expected the Sidewalks Committee recommendations would echo their desires; making it easier for these supervisors to deliver good news to the country club. These supervisors probably thought that by handpicking the members of the Sidewalks Committee would somehow guarantee the appropriate outcome.

I salute the members of the Sidewalks Committee who engaged community members through public meetings, accepted input from interested citizens, created maps and conducted a township-wide survey to get a consensus on sidewalks, bike trails and paths needs throughout the township. However, their thorough, thoughtful and independent analysis did not deliver the outcome desired by some supervisors.

Another group of volunteers ‘on hold’ is the Sidewalks, Trail, and Path (STAP) committee. If there is sufficient support from some members of the Board of Supervisors, the time and talents of these volunteers may also no longer be needed.

There is a curious element to the land development authority discussion that cannot yet be calculated. I was told by several sources that the current vote is 3-3 among the supervisors on the question of land development authority. Three supervisors want the authority to remain with the Planning Commission and three supervisors want the final authority to shift to the Board of Supervisors.

However, here’s the interesting twist . . . The Board of Supervisors will appoint a supervisor to fill the supervisor vacancy prior to the March public hearing on the land development authority. With the current supervisor vote count at 3-3, that new supervisor could be the tiebreaker! Wonder what supervisor candidates John Bravacos, Kristen Mayock, Eamon Brazunas and Mike Heaberg have to say about the land development authority? I think that would make for a very interesting question at next week’s candidate interviews.

In summary, the Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, January 24, 7:30 PM is important. Please plan to either attend or watch from home.

What do these things have in common . . . St. Davids Golf Club, Planning Commission, BAWG, Sidewalk Subcommittee, land development authority, STAP, Board of Supervisors?

January 20, 2011
22 Comments

What do these things have in common . . . St. Davids Golf Club, Planning Commission, BAWG, Sidewalk Subcommittee, land development authority, STAP, Board of Supervisors?

In looking at Tredyffrin’s Planning Commission agenda for tonight’s meeting, I discovered an interesting item listed under ‘new’ business — “Draft Amendment to the Subdivision & Land Development Ordinance”.

To understand the Planning Commission agenda item, you will need to recall a Board of Supervisors motion from this past December. At that meeting, Supervisor Bob Lamina questioned whether the Planning Commission should continue to have land development authority in the township . . . he thought that authority over land development should revert to the supervisors (as was the case many years ago). However, to make an ordinance change requires a public hearing, which is scheduled for February 28.

Here’s the significance of the Planning Commission agenda item . . . the Planning Commissioners are expected to draft the amendment that will relieve them of their land development authority and give that authority to the Board of Supervisors.

There are more connections. How many of you remember the community discontent and hostility over St. Davids Golf Club and the recommendation contained in the BAWG report suggesting the township accept $50K in lieu of building sidewalks. Even though there was a signed contract between the township and St. Davids requiring the sidewalks, the Board of Supervisors pushed through a motion to return the $25K escrow money to the country club; removing the sidewalk requirement. After much media publicity, many letters to the editor, accusations of Home Rule Charter violations, claims of deal-making and resident outrage, the Board of Supervisors reversed their earlier decision.

The reversal of the Board of Supervisors decision to return the escrow money had an interesting caveat attached. St. Davids escrow money and the decision to require the construction of sidewalks was put ‘on hold’ pending the outcome of the Sidewalks Subcommittee recommendations. At the same time the supervisors reversed their decision, they created a Sidewalks Subcommittee whose goal was to adopt a formal sidewalk policy to recommend to the Board of Supervisors. Members appointed to the joint subcommittee were supervisors (Phil Donahue, EJ Richter, Michele Kichline), Planning Commissioners (Tory Snyder, Bob Whalen, Trip Lukens) and representatives from Sidewalks, Trails and Paths ‘STAP’ (Sean Moir, Beth Brake, Jim Donegan).

If you are interested in the St. Davids Golf Club-BAWG report background, go to the top right of Community Matters and enter the words, St. Davids in search. Or for a particularly passionate post, read St. Davids Golf Club Decision Reversed but, . . . Was There Full Disclosure, Transparency, Deal-Making and the corresponding 68 comments. (click here for that specific post).

The Sidewalks Subcommittee began meeting last spring. I attended most of the meetings and was impressed by their efforts. The committee engaged community members through public meetings and accepted input from interested citizens. They created maps and conducted a township-wide survey to get a consensus on sidewalks, bike trails and paths needs throughout the township. Their analysis was thorough and thoughtful.

At their last meeting (which I attended), the Sidewalk Subcommittee summarized their findings in preparation for a presentation at the upcoming Monday, January 24 Board of Supervisors meeting. Chair of the Sidewalk Subcommittee and a Planning Commissioner, Tory Synder will make the presentation and deliver the committee’s recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

Are the supervisors going to take the recommendations of the Sidewalk Subcommittee or will their efforts be ignored? Will the St. Davids sidewalk requirement currently ‘on hold’ affect the supervisor’s decision to accept the Sidewalk Subcommittee recommendations? Will the signed contract between the country club and the township remain intact?

Supervisor Michele Kichline is an attorney and served on the Sidewalks Subcommittee . . . Michele knows contract law; how will she guide her fellow supervisors?

Here’s the million-dollar question – Does the proposed ordinance change to remove land development authority from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors have any relationship with the St. Davids sidewalk issue? Remember, the Planning Commissioners required the sidewalks as part of country club’s land development project.

Do some of the supervisors think that if they take back land development authority, they can override the Planning Commissioners decision to require St. Davids to build the sidewalk?

Why change the land development ordinance now? Just coincidental timing or is the ultimate goal to release the country club from their contractual agreement with the township.

The St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk business was a very hostile time in our local government’s history. When elected officials go behind a closed-door and make decisions, the perception can be as bad as the fact. Let’s keep the door open! Here is one resident who does not want to see another similar watershed moment . . . the citizens of Tredyffrin deserve better.

_______________________________________________________

Important Dates:

  • Planning Commission Meeting, Thursday, January 20, 7 PM
  • Board of Supervisors Meeting, Monday, January 24, 7:30 PM
  • Land Development Ordinance, Public Hearing, Monday, February 28, 7:30 PM

Tredyffrin’s Supervisors Mysteriously Extend Deadline for Interim Supervisor Resumes . . . Why the Intrigue?

January 3, 2011
8 Comments

Due to Warren Kampf’s formal resignation at Board of Supervisors meeting on December 20, a vacancy for an interim supervisor exists. From early December, there was a notice on the front page of the Tredyffrin’s township website, suggesting interested candidates send their resumes to the township manager by December 31, 2010.

Fast forward to tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting. The meeting was over in less than 30 minutes and for the most part, uneventful except for one thing. Chairman Bob Lamina (elected tonight by the other supervisors as chairman and Paul Olson as vice chairman) announced the supervisor vacancy (I thought the vacancy was announced at the last supervisors meeting with Kampf’s letter of resignation). Lamina then told the audience that the Board of Supervisors had decided to extent the deadline for interim supervisor resumes from the previously stated (and advertised) December 31, 2010 deadline to January 10. Why did the supervisors decide to extend the deadline? Don’t know and no explanation was offered. It is my understanding that a number of prospective interim supervisor resumes have been received . . . so why extend the deadline? I have to believe that there must have been at least one qualified candidate among the admissions. Very strange.

Lamina further explained that after the application deadline ends on January 10, each person will be interviewed by the supervisors. The intention is that the interim supervisor will be announced at the February 7th Board of Supervisors Meeting.

Not sure how many interim supervisor candidate resumes are needed, but . . . if you are interested, you now have an extra week to send your resume to Township Manager, Mimi Gleason, mgleason@tredyffrin.org

Filling Tredyffrin’s Interim Supervisor Vacancy

January 3, 2011
1 Comment

Tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting agenda is now available online. In reviewing the agenda, I have a couple of questions.

At the last Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, December 20, former township supervisor Warren Kampf tendered his letter of resignation at the end of the meeting. Because of the November’s election results and Kampf’s election to the State House, his supervisor resignation was no surprise. Anticipating his resignation, a notice on the township website asked those interested in the position to submit their resumes to Township Manager Mimi Gleason; I wrote of the notification on December 3.

I understood from the Home Rule Charter that the Board of Supervisors has 30 days to name an interim supervisor. My understanding was that the 30 days would commence from the announcement date of the vacancy (December 20). However, on tonight’s supervisors meting agenda, I noted an item ‘announcing the vacancy’. Understanding it is semantics, I assumed that the clock started ticking on December 20 rather than 2 weeks later, on January 3.

Below is the section in the Home Rule Charter that deals with supervisors vacancies. Reading HRC 205.C.2 confuses me – one way that I read it agrees with my theory that the clock started ticking from December 20 but it could also be interpreted that the clock starts at the next supervisor meeting after the vacancy is announced – which would be today, January 3.

I have another question about the vacancy process as based on the Home Rule Charter. If I understand the process, those interested in the supervisor position were to send their resumes to the township manager. The township manager would then pass the resumes to the supervisors for their review and appointment decision. The identity and resumes of those applying for the vacancy are not provided to the public . . . correct? Am I interpreting the Home Rule Charter correctly . . . the decision of the interim supervisor appointment is the choice of the Board of Supervisors.

I could use some help with interpreting the Home Rule Charter. If there are any municipal legal authorities reading this post, I welcome your comments.

205. VACANCIES.

A. The office of a Supervisor shall become vacant upon death, resignation, removal of place of residence from the Township (or, in the case of a District Supervisor, from a District represented), legal certification of mental disability, or forfeiture of office as authorized by law or this Charter.

B. The office of Supervisor shall be forfeited if he is declared by any Court of this Commonwealth to lack any qualifications for the office as prescribed by law or is convicted of any crime classified as a misdemeanor of the second degree or higher under the laws of this Commonwealth, or is convicted of any comparable crime under the laws of any state or of the United States.

C. Whenever a vacancy exists in the office of Supervisor, the vacancy shall be filled under the following procedures:

1. At the next election, primary, municipal or general, which takes place sixty days or more after such vacancy occurs, a special election to fill the vacancy for the balance of the unexpired term will be held. The special election shall be conducted in accordance with election laws of this Commonwealth. The person elected to fill the vacancy shall assume the office on the day following certification of the election results.

2. The Board shall, at its first regular or special public meeting after the vacancy occurs, give notice that a vacancy exists and shall state that it will make an interim appointment to fill the vacancy at its next public meeting which occurs not less that thirty days from the meeting at which the vacancy is announced. Following such notice, the Board by a majority vote of its remaining membership shall appoint a qualified elector of the Township, and in the case of a vacancy in the office of District Supervisor, a qualified elector of the District in which the vacancy exists, to fill the vacancy until a duly elected successor is sworn into office.

3. If the Board shall fail to fill a vacancy within sixty days after the vacancy occurs, the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, upon petition of any individual Supervisor, or upon petition of ten or more qualified electors of the Township, shall make the interim appointment to fill the vacancy until a duly elected successor is sworn into office.

4. In the event that sufficient vacancies exist so that the Board lacks a quorum necessary to do business, the remaining members of the Board shall immediately make an interim appointment or appointments to fill sufficient vacancies in the position of Supervisor from the Township at large to form a quorum. Thereafter, the remaining vacancies shall be filled as otherwise provided herein.

5. In the event that all of the positions on the Board should become vacant, the Court of Common Pleas shall immediately, upon petition of ten or more registered voters of the Township, make interim appointments to fill the offices of Supervisor from the Township at large. Thereafter, the remaining vacancies shall be filled as otherwise provided herein.

State Rep Paul Drucker Exits Harrisburg . . . Thank you for your service!

December 29, 2010
6 Comments

What was the voter’s message in November? Does this signal an acceptance, or rejection, of either party? Does this message play similarly in Pennsylvania . . . and in the local 157th district?

With “the economy, the economy, the economy,” being chanted by people across the country, many were engaged in the political system during this voting season . . . some for the first time. We have now elected and re-elected many different types of people across our country. The impact of our choices is already being felt. Democracy needs the relentless participation of its citizens to be most effective. With the electorate’s intense anger reverberating across the country, the anti-Washington, anti-establishment sentiment rejected many incumbents in November, including State Representative Paul Drucker.

It does seem like our political problems should have clear solutions but often times do not. Consider how hard it must be for someone to get their name on a primary ballot, win that primary, and then win a general election. People holding any political offices are effective achievers who have support of family and friends but also have convinced a large group of strangers to believe in them. Paul Drucker was that person in 2008 and in November, voters of the 157th district chose differently. Were the election results reflective of Drucker’s job performance in Harrisburg? No, I think the vote spoke more to the intensity of the anti-Washington sentiment. A personal defeat for Drucker when the votes were counted, his loss was not a statement to his personal accomplishments in Harrisburg.

Although I am a proponent of looking forward, I believe that there is merit to reflecting on one’s past. Much can be learned from life’s experiences and this week, Alan Thomas for the Mainline Suburban Life interviewed Drucker. The article, ‘Drucker reflects on work done and work not finished in House term’ is an exit interview . . . an ‘introspective’ of sorts. (Click here for full article).

Much like his re-election campaign platform, Drucker points to his list of most important concerns in the 157th district as jobs, education and transportation and sees the issues as inter-connected. Drucker strongly supports fixing the state’s infrastructure and getting people to work. He views the Paoli Transportation Center plan as a project to spur economic growth and as a means to create new jobs in the community. With a new Republican Governor-elect Corbett at the helm in Harrisburg, Drucker voiced concern for the Paoli rail yard project. With sign-off on the project required by Corbett, the future of this transportation center remains in peril.

When Thomas asked Drucker what changed during his two years in the House, his reply was, “Well, it’s changed me, I made a lot of new friends, new contacts. I certainly have a good perspective on state government. I haven’t decided what I’m going to do. I’m going to stay active and involved in what’s important to me. I’m still recharging my batteries. It’s a 24-7 job. I have never worked so hard in my life.”

For the long hours and reduced pay that many candidates receive when elected, we need to stop and thank those that have served. I thank Paul Drucker for serving as State Representative of the 157th district. And I thank him for his commitment to important issues and for caring about the residents of our community.

Community Matters © 2025 Frontier Theme