I couldn't have said it better myself - Trash Talk Part II

This letter to the editor appeared in today's Times Herald about the recently awarded trash bid in Lower Providence being reopened for review by 'special counsel' appointed on January 4, 2010 by the new Board of Supervisors.

The outgoing board felt that since Eckman and Thomas (via those involved in their campaign, esp. Chris DiPaolo) made the trash bid an issue in the 2009 supervisors' race, they would make the decision on whether and to whom the bid would go as one of their last official acts, rather than waiting & allowing the new board to do so. This 'special counsel' is the new board's attempt to spend money 'examining' something that they really can't do much about.

Also, the special counsel was appointed as the result of one of two resolutions voted on that evening that not all the sitting supervisors had heard of, seen or even discussed prior to the meeting, and while 'appointment of special counsel' was on the last-minute published agenda for that evening, the purpose of the appointment - challenging the Mascaro contract - was not - so that any residents with an interest could appear and question it.

What happened to the 'open, transparent government' promises by Eckman and Thomas during their campaign?

The link to the original article that appeared in the Times Herald appears here, written by Carl Rotenberg) (see link, http://www.timesherald.com/articles/2010/01/05/news/doc4b42d6af7f749669788773.txt).

As the Times Herald doesn't have online links to their Letters to the Editor,  I am reposting the exact text of the letter, verbatim, with attribution to its author, Kevin Davis:

HIRING A LAWYER TO REVIEW CONTRACT A BUNCH OF TRASH

"I am writing this letter to express my disgust and disapproval of the decision by Mr. Brown, Mr. DiPaolo, and Mr. Thomas for the unnecessary expense of hiring a lawyer to review the trash contract. I am thankful that Ms. Altieri and Ms. Eckman voted against the unnecessary expense of a lawyer. I wish the board would consider the taxpayers' money instead of wasting it to hire a lawyer to review the trash contract that was awarded in December 2009. The trash contract was already reviewed once by your lawyers to make sure the bid was adequate. The original concern of the board was the cost of the contract.

If cost was a concern, then how does one justify spending taxpayer dollars on a lawyer (again)?

Hiring a lawyer to review the JP Mascaro & Sons contract seems to be more of a personal vendetta gainst JP Mascaro & Sons that the residents should not be required to fund. It is also a conflict of interest for the three of you to question the contract, as there is a lawsuit pending against you for defamation against JP Mascaro & Sons. If you want a lawyer to review the contract, then the cost should be paid out of your own pocket, and not the pockets of the township residents. Residents do not pay taxes to fund your personal battles.

It is appalling that this board is wasting my money in a time of economic crisis while other townships are cutting programs and laying off staff and police officers due to lack of money.

Your lack of ethics is evident in the way this entire situation was handled. You need to ask yourselves what end result you are hoping for, and who will benefit, as this board clearly does not have the interests of the taxpayers in mind.

I hope the board doesn't continue to waste the taxpayers' money on frivolous expenses through the rest of their term. Maybe the residents should hire a lawyer to examine the legality of your actions.

Kevin Davis - Lower Providence"

When Mascaro's attorney raised the issue of whether DiPaolo, Eckman and Thomas should have recused themselves from voting on anything relating to the trash contract, Mr. DiPaolo responded that he'd received an opinion from the Board of Supervisor's prior counsel, David Onorato, that he was 'not conflicted' and therefore felt it was appropriate for him to vote on it. Mr. DiPaolo apparently so valued this counsel's opinion on this (and apparently other issues)  that he effectively fired him when he voted to appoint the new solicitor, Mike Sheridan, as their new counsel. If you don't value the advice you were getting, why are you taking it?

Either that, or the former solicitor, the firm of Kerns Pearlstine Onorato, et al (yes, the same Bob Kerns who is the chair of the Montgomery County Republican Committee) was let go because of the perception that they were associates of the former BOS, rather than the quality of their counsel. Either way, something stinks, and it's not the trash.