The Shot Heard 'Round The Township

By now most of you have probably heard that long-time township manager Joe Dunbar was unexpectedly and unceremoniously dismissed from his duties late last week by the current Board of Supervisors.

Well, by most of them, anyway (Rick Brown, Chris DiPaolo, Don Thomas voted in favor). Mrs. Eckman voted against it. Mrs. Altieri didn’t even know it was coming;  she left after the public meeting adjourned and before the evening’s second executive session commenced. It wasn’t on the agenda, and apparently no one spoke to either of the women beforehand, so they appear to have been ambushed by it as much as Mr. Dunbar was.

There are all kinds of rumors swirling around as to why.  Officially, it was due to ‘personal reasons’ per the Times Herald. I don’t know or have any evidence as to whether any of those rumors are true or not, or what “personal” reasons are being referenced, so I’m not going to perpetuate them here. As with anyone who’s a public figure, you make friends and you make enemies in the course of doing your job, and Joe’s no exception.   Joe and I haven’t always agreed, but we did respect each other’s backgrounds and abilities and always remained friends over many years.

Personally, I doubt any alleged ‘personal’ reasons were to blame. Those stories were circulating long before Joe’s contract was renewed earlier this year, and those rumors did not prevent the supervisors from renewing it. Now we have to buy him out of his contract, for which two and a half years remain, AND hire someone else.  It just seems like a handy excuse to me. My guess is, Joe was dismissed purely to clear the position for a Rick Brown crony to take.

The timing is suspect to me, as is the ‘search committee’. 

With two new supervisors coming on board in a few short weeks, continuity is crucial, and Joe would have been the main person to help bring them up to speed on the processes and issues of immediate concern, educate them as to the practical rules and guidelines that apply to various scenarios, and ensure no balls are dropped during the transition.  

Then again, if you are expected to vote in unquestioning lockstep with the chairman, I suppose you really don’t need to know anything, or do anything other than answer your phone when called and told what to do. Independent thinkers need not apply.

The ‘search committee’ is comprised of not only both new supervisors (one of whom, Jill Zimmerman did not support the dismissal and one, Jason Sorgini, who did) but a supervisor (Chris DiPaolo)  who is not only stepping down in less than a month but who could not get re-endorsed by his own party to run again after the still-continuing fallout of the 2009 defamation lawsuit, in which court documents show he played a central role.  Why on earth is HE on this committee?

As to the timing, well, we just concluded an election less than a month ago in which I was a candidate, and I am all too aware of instances that got back to me where promises were made in exchange for certain people to do, or not do, certain things to advance my opponent’s cause, or to just stay home and not help me out, one of which was the promise of a particular seat on a particular township board if someone just changed their driver’s license address to their business address (which is located in LP).

The ‘bill’ for those favors comes due shortly.  It should be interesting to see who fills the vacancies.  It is, just as I said during my campaign, yet another example of putting personal agendas ahead of what – or WHO – is best for the Township, and whether you liked the guy or not, Joe WAS the best guy for that job.

As I wrote about in another post some time ago, the overwhelming consensus has been (both here and in other communities in our area) that Joe did an outstanding job as an ambassador for Lower Providence. Everywhere I went while campaigning this year, whether meeting with residents or business owners, with only one exception I heard nothing but rave reviews about him…how responsive he was to issues, how quickly he followed up, etc.  He is innovative and kept us on the cutting edge of best practices.  He was both knowledgeable and tirelessly devoted to his job and this community. He has great connections – something absolutely irreplaceable in an age where so many issues that affect us are regional -  and was a driving force in his ability to get things done. He’s a respected community leader and an excellent people manager, in my observation.  He knew how to motivate to get the best out of anyone, and the township staff was known to be exceptionally loyal to him.

 In short, if there is anyone more in love with this Township than I am, it would be Joe Dunbar.  We’ve had good ones and horrible one in our past, and a good township manager can really put you in the top tier of communities. Joe was one of those, and it’s truly a big loss for us.

Best of luck, Joe…our loss will be someone else’s gain.

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Last night I attended one of several 2011 budget review meetings held by our Township in their attempt to figure out how to close the expected gap in the General Fund between revenues and estimated expenditures. This meeting was unusual and by all accounts was something of a fire drill in that it was quickly put together and advertised, even though the budget process for this year is essentially over, with only 3 meetings left in 2010 in which to vote on its approval. The fact that it got to this point so late in the year is a direct result, in my opinion, of one of the supervisors not making the effort to stay informed all along, but I'll save that for another post.

It appeared after the budget workshops held earlier this year that the Board was in agreement as to where to make cuts and would work with staff over the next few months to further identify areas of potential savings and closely monitor expenditures (and in the meantime the hope is that some projects that may bear fruit will come to pass). However, my understanding is that last night's meeting was called at the request of supervisor Chris DiPaolo ostensibly to further explore whether additional cuts could be made or whether taxes need to be raised.

There’s a long backstory, but bottom line, we’ll be carrying a balance forward into 2011 in the General Fund of only about a quarter million dollars. That’s very little wiggle room.

As comparison, back in the day when there was heavy commercial & residential development, it was not unusual to have a couple of million in the General Fund to carry forward into the next year. Now, not only are we substantially built out in terms of residential development, but in this economy, there's precious little commercial development contributing any money into the coffers either.

All the supervisors have previously gone on record as stating that a tax increase for 2011 is not an option, particularly in the severe economic conditions we're experiencing (even a half mil increase in taxes would net approximately $800,000 for the Township). That leaves cuts, cuts beyond what has already been identified since mid-year, when the budgeting process began.

At last night's meeting, the township manager and staff walked the Board through various potential areas that could be cut, or cut further. While there was one big potential bright spot - the possibility of about $120,000 in savings due to a reworking of the employee healthcare contract - it's still not enough to close the gap.

Let me stop right here and make an observation. Frankly, since Chris called this last-minute meeting, you would think that perhaps he had some great idea(s) as to how to close the gap to share with the rest of the Board, the staff and the public, but apparently not. Not only did he seem to expect the township manager to lead the meeting, but also appeared to expect staff to come up with all the ideas. Shouldn’t this be coming from the top down?? Shouldn’t the staff be getting guidance from the BOS as to what are sacred cows and what budget line items the BOS is willing to get complaints about when cut? Putting the responsibility for avoiding a tax increase squarely on the staff isn’t fair to them – they are not elected to these positions. Leadership and direction is supposed to come from the top down.

Among the areas the staff mentioned as potential areas for savings were things like eliminating televising the township meetings and printing the annual report; instead of having the county animal control officer remove dead animals from our roads, doing it ourselves; foregoing our annual donations to the fire department, ambulance squad, and library, Methacton's post prom, Visiting Nurses and Victims Services; and cancelling the annual senior citizen's dinner. Retiring our 2 K9 police dogs was another area offered up. It was obvious that staff worked long and hard and creatively came up with areas in which we could get by with less, or do without something entirely. Some of the proposed cuts were line items costing as little as $1000 a year.

(A big line item? Legal fees for the BOS and the Zoning Hearing Board. I've been saying for some time now that the alarming and expensive propensity of some members of the BOS to file legal challenges and appeals (particularly against it’s own Zoning Hearing Board's decisions) or hire 'special counsel', has led to a ridiculously high legal spend - which was reflected in the budget as a significant line item - for a municipality our size, and in a budget year such as what we are looking at, is especially distressing to me when one considers in what ways that money could be better spent. Don't get me wrong; some of the Township's legal expenses are legitimate, but in my opinion much of it is frivolous and instigated solely and vindictively to punish someone, make a point or help out a political friend, despite the slim likelihood of success on the merits. We simply cannot afford this nonsense any longer...but I digress).

Even after all this, Chris DiPaolo and Don Thomas made it clear that they expect staff to go back to the well yet again, and find another 5, 10 and 15% in cuts to present to them that could be made so that they can evaluate the impact if they enact those cuts - and if those cuts include staff reductions, so be it. Marie Altieri and Colleen Eckman were much less comfortable with the idea of staff reductions. And again, I think the staff should be getting their direction from the BOS and not the other way around.

Now, I understand that the BOS is trying everything they can to avoid raising taxes, and that is commendable. I wish our county and school district were so diligent, but they seem to find it quite easy to jack our taxes up regularly whenever they need more money. People are, even in this affluent area, losing their homes, experiencing long-term unemployment, and having their bills go up substantially. The last thing they need is to be taxed out of homes they are hanging onto by a thread.

  

However, I respectfully suggest that good leaders don't expect those who serve them to do things that they themselves will not do. One line item in the budget is the yearly stipends paid to each supervisor as token compensation for fulfilling their duties. None of our supervisors suggested that they themselves take a 5, 10, or 15% cut in their pay or, heaven forbid, forego the stipend altogether. Why is that?

As of 2005, when I was on the Board, said stipend amounted to $4000 per supervisor per year; it may be more than that now. Granted, it's not enough to support a family on and, if you are doing the job the way it should be done, it doesn't come close to fairly compensating you for all the hours you put in. However, to my knowledge, all the supervisors have regular paid employment that pays their bills or other long-term means of support.

If it were me, I'd forgo 100% of my stipend before even considering laying off so much as one police officer, public works, parks & rec or administration staffer, or asking them to work without the tools they need to do their jobs - especially since many of them have been doing the work of 2 or 3 people for a couple of years now. We're extremely fortunate to have such talented, dedicated and resourceful employees, and to punish them with layoffs when they've been taking it on the chin already - and are being asked to squeeze their belts some more - would be a real travesty. At a minimum, I'd cut my own stipend 15% before asking them for anything.

How about it, BOS?  Especially those of you who are suggesting that staff reductions should be considered, and who went on ad nauseam about how much you're personally aware of how our residents are suffering, what better opportunity to show us that you 'feel our pain' and that we're not the only ones who have to tighten our belts?