Gooooood Moooorning Lower Providence!!

With all due respect to the movie 'Good Morning Vietnam", no one will ever mistake my voice for that of a manic Robin Williams first thing in the morning. Anyone who knows only the most basic details about me is well aware that I am a creature of the night. I'm probably one of the deepest sleepers EVER, and I.hate.mornings.

Seriously, it's like I'm in a coma. I've often said someone could break into my house in the middle of the night and rob me blind, and I would be none the wiser (one more reason I'm really glad we are now Rottweiler owners). My family loves to regale me with tales of crazy things that have happened while I slumbered - stuff that should have had me standing straight up on my bed, like the time a squirrel somehow got in the house and everyone was chasing it around with brooms and jumping on chairs - but which I had no knowledge of until told the next morning.

My biorhythm is such that I have a really hard time waking up, MUST start the day with a strong cup of coffee to even be somewhat coherent, and I don't really mentally wake up til around 11 am.  This does have its advantages, however. I'm just hitting my stride around 4 pm when everyone else is dragging, and I really get wind in my sails around 9 or 10 pm.  Many people I deal with on a regular basis know they may awake to emails from me sent at 2 or 3 am. And, this anomaly of nature - being a night owl, that is  - was definitely a plus as a candidate, when a lot of the work of campaigning - knocking on doors, strategy meetings, fundraisers, meet & greets etc. - is done in the afternoon or evening.

I've had periods of my life wherein I had to be a (very) early riser. I didn't really like it, but I did it for long periods of time when I absolutely had to. It's definitely not my preference  though.

So, when my good friend and newly elected Upper Providence Township supervisor Lisa Mossie asked me to consider taking over her slot doing the 7-8 am shift of our local Fox affiliate radio station, co-hosting "Live and Local" with Barry Papiernik, I was both excited and torn. I've been in full night owl mode for some time now, like having time to myself late at night while everyone else is sound asleep, and I wasn't sure I wanted to give that up.  Life had just gotten back to normal after last year's bruising campaign for supervisor.

If you don't know, "Live and Local" is conservative-oriented talk format which focuses primarily on local politics, issues and current events, but also touches on state and national concerns, especially if they'll have a local impact. Some mornings it's silly; some it's serious business.

Sometimes, we interview guests, such as elected officials or candidates for local office so you can get a better feel for who they are and where they stand (I was a guest about a year ago to talk about improvements to the 'Bud's Bar' property that I was able to accomplish during the primary). Just last week, county commissioner Bruce Castor joined us to talk about how well things are going with his new co-commissioners down at the county courthouse.

While Lisa did the show five days a week, Monday through Friday, I initially committed to two or three days a week, and given my disdain for early mornings, reserved the option to do the show in my pajamas (just kidding). We've now fully transitioned, and I've enjoyed it so much that I've willingly and happily gotten up at the crack of dawn every day to be there and will continue to do so as long as they want me. It's proven to be a GREAT way to wake up and start the day, and I hope you'll think so, too. Even better, Lisa will continue to join us from time to time.

I remain a staunch advocate for Lower Providence, and I'm sure to mention the fine institutions, landmarks and businesses of my hometown whenever appropriate. I hope you'll tune in, consider taking out a reasonably priced advertisement block, or pitch an idea or topic you'd like us to consider or community event to mention. Find us online at http://www.1180wfyl.com/.

Disclaimer: my appearance on WFYL and any comments made by me on-air represent my personal viewpoints and are in no way intended to be representative of any of the employees or elected officials of Lower Providence Township, the Times Herald or my employer.

The View From The Edge

"I want to stand as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center". ~ Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

No question, running for public office requires putting yourself out there. This year, I did just that.

I called Jason Sorgini Tuesday evening and conceded the supervisor's race, congratulating him and wishing him well. We had a good and productive conversation and I sincerely offered my help if there was ever anything he wanted to know more about or way I can be of service.

While our efforts fell short yesterday (due to all kinds of things which I will write about in the coming  days) it certainly was a learning experience on several fronts. Yesterday, I saw things from my fellow Republican committeepeople and some of our elected officials that I thought I'd never see...that I was very disappointed to see. Bottom line, it left many of my fellow Republican voters ashamed, disgusted and embarrassed.

But, I'll save that for another day. And for those of you who may be worried (or hopeful), no, I haven't jumped off a ledge either. I'll instead use this space for thank-you's.

• Thanks to all my dedicated and fierce pollworkers who had to spot and fight dirty tactics used on the front lines yesterday and deal with numerous conflicts and confrontations. Each of you had the same grit that I do, and for that, I'm grateful.
• Thanks to MCRC for having my back when our own local party thumbed their nose at the voice of our voters, and largely wasn't there for one of its own candidates.
• To the drivers who drove me and my running mate as we knocked on hundreds of doors to meet voters. You helped us cover a lot of ground despite weather that didn't always cooperate and kept us pumped up. It can be a boring and tedious task for drivers, but you made it fun. Thanks for your time, knowledge of where every road and house is, and details about each voter that made it easier to do our job.
• To the sign crews who distributed a combined 500+ yard signs in public areas and to private homes that requested them, and by the time this is posted, will have picked up most of them.
• To my campaign staff, for all the wisdom of their experience, phone calls, conversations, looking up people on lists, emails, guidance, advice, fundraiser planning and the miscellanous minutiae of running a campaign. It's a huge task, but we got a lot done, and I'm so proud of the innovation, creativity and work ethic that you all brought to the table. I know we had the best team out there and it gives me great personal satisfaction to know that because they couldn't win on the issues, we made our opponents' backers get their rear ends off the sofa and work hard to beat us.
• To my employer, my boss and my coworkers: thank you for believing in me and supporting my efforts. The flowers and card you sent today really touched my heart (and thanks to everyone who sent me flowers and dropped off tokens of appreciation).
• To my running mate, Jill Zimmerman. Congratulations and best of luck. You will need it.
• To the voters who supported me. Over 2400 of you believed in me and my message, and I'll continue to fight for your interests. I'm not going anywhere. I will continue to do what I do best, which is try to hold those in office accountable and expose any shady things they do. 
• Last, but certainly not least, thank you to my children. It was tough having mom away so much or having people dropping in at our house all the time, but your belief in me, the roles you took on, and pride in what we were doing kept me going. It all meant so very much to me to have your support, and I am so blessed and proud to call such terrific people my kids. You inspire me more than you'll ever know.

Notes from the campaign trail

You might have noticed I haven't posted anything in about six weeks, and there's a good reason for that. Running for elected office of any kind is, if done correctly, time consuming. Let me just say that my home needs a thorough cleaning, the laundry pile needs tackling, and my grocery list is approaching the size of the federal tax code, so you know I have been focused on the race!

One thing my running mate, Jill Zimmerman and I did was sit for interviews with the Times Herald. While I was misquoted and/or quoted out of context in a couple places, overall I was happy with how it went. I believe the print version is available today.

Just knocking on hundreds of doors to introduce yourself to voters and ask for their support takes every spare hour you have, but it's so important. How else do you have any idea what is on people's minds? Jill and I have spent the last 8 weeks or so traversing the ten voting districts that comprise Lower Providence. We believe that elected officials should listen to, not dictate to, its residents.

My understanding is that during the primary, one of our opponents, Jason Sorgini considered this a 'waste of time' and that he 'doesn't see the value in it'. Even though he claims he’s knocking, not one home out of the hundreds we've visited has ever mentioned that he had been by, which is unheard of in a contested race. We've not seen so much as one of his door cards. We have actually crossed paths with the other candidate, Kelbin Carolina, however and seen evidence that HE’S been hitting the pavement. I have to wonder why Sorgini doesn't want to hear what issues are of concern to ALL our residents, not just those he surrounds himself with.

Anyway, some miscellaneous observations from the campaign trail:

• If I and Jill are elected, it will be the first time in Lower Providence’s 200+ year history that we’ve had a three women to two men majority on the Board. Not that this is a reason to vote for us, but I have a funny feeling that we ladies can get a lot more positive things done than the guys have.

• I’m aware of emails going around to voters from sitting supervisor Rick Brown, encouraging voters to support his candidate by bullet voting for him and claiming that I have ‘duped voters once again’. Rick, if anyone is duping voters, it’s you with your never-heard-from-before-2011 candidate trying to dupe voters into thinking he’s ‘dedicated’ and ‘committed’ (yes this is the same guy who’s so dedicated and committed he can’t manage to find time to attend township meetings or knock on doors). Heck, half of what comes out of his mouth came off my campaign literature or website. Why buy the copy when you can have the original?

• Several contested races have generated a ton of mail, and this one is no exception. If the stakes weren't so high, some of it would be laughable. Sorgini attempted to frame legal opinions rendered after hearings he did not attend & has no personal knowledge of as somehow faulty, and it's clear to me he has no idea what he's talking about. Perhaps he needs to add one more degree to the three he already has – a law degree.

For example, one case he referenced in his latest mailer hinged on several legal issues, one of which was the legal definition of abandonment. Even though he attended none of the public hearings and heard no testimony upon which to arrive at a conclusion, he attempts to blame me alone for a decision arrived at by a board of five after hours of painstaking hearings, mountains of evidence and oral argument, and exhaustive review of applicable case law. Mr. Baird and his buddy Rick, at taxpayer expense, appealed this decision twice; it was denied twice and is now on appellate review that is substantially narrower in scope on only one of the several issues initially raised.

 Try asking Sorgini what any of the other complex legal issues raised in this particular case were. I bet he can't name one without first getting it, and regurgitating it, from someone else.

 In another case regarding billboards, it’s important to note that state law prohibits a municipality from legislating against specific uses such as billboards, adult entertainment, cell towers or mobile home parks. Bottom line, our zoning must accommodate these things.

The case we were presented with raised the issue that our ordinance was defective because it constructively did not provide for billboards at all. We had to cure the ordinance and rule on the application. We elected to allow them on the outskirts of the township along 422 where the least number of our residents would be subjected to them, rather than adding more along Egypt road, where a larger number of our residents WOULD have to look at them.

We have a duty on our boards and commissions to be fair to the applicant property owner and surrounding residents, and, in the instance of the Zoning Hearing Board, can only render decisions that comply with state and municipal law and case law, based on what's entered onto the record, or we risk being overturned on appeal. The resident who was on the losing end of this particular decision, Ted Baird, has (besides sour grapes) a powerful friend – Rick Brown – who’s arguably backing Mr. Sorgini for his own political survival – and Baird and Brown are undoubtedly where this version came from, since Sorgini himself was never there. No decision I was a part of rendering was ever overturned.

Sorgini’s arguments about the rest of the cases he mentioned – including the sewer lawsuit – is similarly defective. Yes LP was sued by the regional sewer authority, but it sued the sewer authority first. The regional sewer authority countersued.

• Some may wonder why my running mate and I declined to attend the candidate forum held on Oct. 24. From my perspective, any event sponsored by a group started in the early 80's by supervisor Rick Brown, (who has come out publicly in support of Sorgini), and which is a group populated by Mr. Brown's cronies (some of whom were on the losing end of the above-referenced case, among others), cannot possibly be UNbiased.

Instead of asking the League of Women Voters to sponsor such an event, this group clearly only held the event to turn it into the Jason Sorgini show, and when you also consider:

• it was held on township property (when the township has historically been apolitical)
•  that long-standing policy against political broadcasts was thrown out the window to allow for rebroadcast of the forum on our cable channel
•  AND that it was all paid for using taxpayer funds

               it was definitely something we did not want any part of.

Anyway, win or lose, it’s been an adventure that’s been both rewarding and trying at times. There are other aspects I’ll write about after Tuesday. Either way the best part for me has been getting to know our residents and our community better, and I’ve made some terrific new friends as a result.

Whoever you support, wherever you are, whichever party you identify with, come out and vote on Tuesday.

Winning!

Yesterday's local election resulted in my earning one of two positions that cleared the primary to run in the General Election in November on the Republican ticket for Lower Providence Township supervisor.

Of course, although it's my name that's out front on the ticket, nobody gets to victory alone. Although there were far too many individual contributors in ways big and small to list here, special thanks goes:

First and foremost to my family - my parents and my children. They each were there for me in tangible and intangible ways, and their support of something I love doing so much meant the world to me, especially since their lives were impacted the most by my campaign. Of course, I am now on the hook for a new dog, which my kids extracted from me as my first campaign promise that I must deliver !

To each and every friend of mine who worked the call list hard, wrote a letter or sent an email supporting me, put a sign up in their yard, came to my fundraiser, gave valuable advice or moral support, worked long into the night on my behalf, or did something else on a long list of things that had to be done. My longtime friends were there for me, and I made some wonderful new ones, too. I love you all, and from the bottom of my heart, thanks.

One of those newer friends is Lisa Mossie, who was just elected township supervisor in our sister township, Upper Providence. We bonded last year over blogging and politics in general, and share similar sensibilities and work ethic. We collaborated, shared resources and lent each other moral support this election season, and I am looking forward to working with her on things that may impact both our communities.

Thanks to my employer for allowing me the flexibility of time and location to get this done and still carry my workload. Their support of my passion is one thing that makes me work harder for them, and they know it. I appreciate their belief in my talents and allowing me to follow my dream.

Extra-special thanks to all my poll workers who stepped up to do this tough job, and happily got it done in the trenches - in the rain, no less. No matter if they worked a few hours or all day, they delivered big. They kept us from being in the position of having run a great campaign only to fumble the ball on the goal line - so thanks for your dedication, perseverance and work ethic.

With nothing but All-Star players and a bench loaded with talent, I couldn't lose.

Last but certainly not least, thanks to each voter who took the time to talk with me at the door, to read my literature, to research who I am and what I've done, to call me with questions, and to trust me with your vote. It's something I hold precious and pledge not to lose sight of going forward. You will always know where I stand and be able to find me to talk.

 ~ Janice Kearney

And They're Off!!

This year in the election cycle is a year in which we elect our next county commissioners and our row officers (everything from sheriff to register of wills to clerk of courts, treasurer, prothonotary, etc). In the last such election, the Democrats in Montgomery County made some inroads, scoring some of those seats.

This time around, the Republican Party is locked, loaded and taking aim to win them all back. Some seats are running unopposed in this spring’s primary (May 17); some have several people competing on both the D and R sides of the ticket for the slot. To see a full list of Republican candidates, check out my district website at www.lowerprovidence2-3.com, or the county MCRC site at http://www.montgomerycountygop.com/ . For a full list of Democrat candidates, check http://mcdems.org/.

This is also the year in which we in Lower Providence, a Second Class Township, elect two supervisors. Supervisors are the equivalent of a smaller municipality’s mayor. A total of five hold staggered terms so that every couple years, one or two seats are open. Because so many people have asked me to consider it, I have decided to run for one of them. If I don’t already have it, I hope to win your support.

So, if I’m not posting here much over the next few weeks, it’s because I’m out knocking on doors, holding fundraisers, and putting out signs. As a Republican, I’ll only be knocking on those doors - Pennysylvania has a closed primary, so only those registered in one party or the other can vote for their respective candidates - but if you’re out when I stop by, or you just have a question or comment to relay, I’d be happy to hear from you. You can always reach me at my email (lowerprov2-3@yahoo.com) or my home phone (610-539-5175).

My campaign website is located at http://www.kearneyvictory2011.com/.

And Now A Word From Our Sponsor

Earlier this month, I did something I haven't done in a really long time....I missed attending a Board of Supervisors' meeting in person. Oh, I know, it shouldn't be a biggie, because we can usually catch the broadcast later, at home (I say "usually" because lately our community broadcast channel has, more often than not, experienced technical difficulties). Nevertheless, sometimes life gets in the way of the things we want to do with our free time, and I had to work late. In this economy, that's a good problem to have.

I don't know if he was emboldened because I wasn't present, but I heard that Audubon resident Tom Borai decided this was a good opportunity to criticize me and this blog on camera, and some of the topics I've chosen to write about.

 I respect his right to his opinion. of course. If you don't know Tom, he's not only a former supervisor and former-and-recycled ZHB member. He's also a frequent "letter to the editor" writer and self-described 'town watchman". He's also someone who befriended me when I could be useful to him back in 2002 when plans were submitted to build the Walgreen's in Trooper, and he was going door to door trying to get neighbors on my street stirred up to fight it. And he did get me involved. I credit him with being the guy who got me attending BOS meetings regularly for the first time since the mid-90's. Ever since, though, he's decided I'm the enemy. Why? Who knows. My guess is that it's most likely because during the course of my political involvement I have not always agreed with him or his associates on the BOS.

I think he's a little bit of a loose cannon, and frequently misguided, but generally harmless...I think he means well, most of the time, although sometimes some of the things he'd say during public hearings during ZHB meetings were things that made me cringe because they could create liability for the Township (or himself). It appears to me that those in power like to use him from time to time as an audience plant at BOS meetings to bring up issues in which they themselves do not want to get their own hands dirty, but hey, who am I to judge if he likes playing that role?

I realize politics on every level is full of players like this. Still, it's amazing to me how many people - people you've had in your house, worked on a project with, had a beer with or talked to in your front lawn - once they realize you can't be controlled by them, and that you think for yourself and educate yourself instead of relying solely on their prepackaged brand of gossip, viciously turn on you. Or if you, heaven forbid, commit the mortal sin of disagreeing with them.

I grew up part of a large, extended Irish-American family. Somebody is always disagreeing with someone about something. I learned pretty quickly that people can think differently without being 'bad' or 'wrong' and that you don't have to toss an entire relationship with someone in the trash just because you disagree in one or two areas. I don't know about you, but I appreciate differing perspectives - have often learned from them - and am very much an 'agree to disagree' kind of person. What wisdom I've been able to assemble in my years on this planet has taught me that most hills just aren't worth dying on. I wish that people like Tom, and others, shared the same value. 

I’ve had to tolerate several forms of harassment from a few local residents over the years because I dare not walk in lockstep with the powers that be. The details of that are a story for another day, but suffice it to say I found out through a highly placed, credible source that Tom was the driving force behind one of the harassment campaigns. Disagreement, I'm fine with; harrassing someone (usually anonymously) because of it shouldn't be acceptable.

I'm a big girl. I realize that if one is opinionated and outspoken and candid, and especially if you tend to point out an issue or disagree with the public spin that's put out for public consumption by those in power, or call out a discrepancy - some people - usually those people with an agenda, or something to hide - aren't going to like it. How often throughout the annals of history have we seen those in power going to extremes to silence opposition, to crush resistance, to disenfranchise some portion of the population (usually folks who disagree with those in power)? To thwart efforts to shed light? I have learned to expect nothing different from some of those running the show in LP. That's just how the world works.

Last I heard, the First Amendment was alive and well. I realize my style isn't for everyone, and some people are just plain uncomfortable with assertive women in general. That's OK...to each his own.  Like it or not, you'll always know where I stand, and where you stand with me. Most people tell me that's refreshing, especially in politics. One only has to look at the surging popularity of politicians such as NJ Gov. Chris Christie to illustrate the point. The guy is the closest thing to a rock star the Republicans have going at the moment, largely due to his incredible candor and willingness to go after his detractors. I wonder how Tom feels about him?

What I do with this blog is not all that uncommon anymore in local politics. There are many local bloggers reporting on politically charged situations and people in their communities, as I do. There are now a number of us in Montgomery County, PA alone. Some have even gone on to elected office. A good friend of mine, a prominent local blogger, was just endorsed by her municipality's Republican Committee. Blogging has become an acceptable way to bring to light and discuss issues our local papers don’t have the time, resources, or interest to cover.

One of my favorite quotes is this: “The art of life is to show your hand. There is no diplomacy like candor. You may lose by it now and then, but it will be a loss well gained if you do. Nothing is so boring as having to keep up a deception." - E.V. Lucas, English author and critic, 1868-1938

And, as the quote on my profile says “You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something in your life." ~ Winston Churchill. I think Winston is onto something.

If standing up for something – a concept, an issue, a principle – and being candid in talking about it – means making a few enemies out of people who may have a less-than-above-board agenda, well, I guess that's the price that has to be paid, but the upside is that so many more people value candor than despise it.

Conduct Unbecoming

Typically local Planning Commission meetings are usually only slightly more exciting than watching paint dry, but they serve a necessary function in that the board members review land development plans submitted to the Township for approval, and make recommendations about them to the Board of Supervisors for action. The PC doesn’t have any binding authority but is merely an advisory board.

Their normal reorganization meeting having been cancelled due to snow last month, one of the items on the PC agenda February 23 was to appoint a new chair and vice chair for 2011. Longtime chairman (18 years) Warren Schlack had not sought reappointment.

Nominations were put on the floor to appoint Mike Comroe or Jill Zimmerman (a local attorney and candidate for supervisor this year) as the new chair. Before a vote could be taken, PC member Bill Brooke asked for the floor. He informed the other PC members that Mr. Comroe had called him back on January 24,  stated that the supervisors wanted him to be named chair, that they expected him to ‘clean house’, and threatened that if Mr. Brooke wanted to be reappointed in two years, he’d better support him for chairman, but that Mr. Comroe further indicated he ‘didn’t really need his [Brooke’s] vote anyway', begging the question as to why Comroe even bothered if this was the case.

Mike Comroe

Both supervisor liaisons to the PC, Colleen Eckman and Chris DiPaolo, were present, and Mr. Brooke took the opportunity to ask them point-blank if what Mr. Comroe had said were true, since he’d claimed to be speaking for them. While Mr. DiPaolo had nothing to say (or if he did, it could not be heard by the audience) Ms. Eckman went on at length, stating that she didn’t feel it was the supervisor’s place to tell a board or commission who their chairs should be. Neither supervisor directly denied Mr. Comroe’s assertion, however, nor did they indicate that they felt Mr. Comroe was out of line in speaking on their behalf.

Mr. Brooke said he was outraged and offended at Comroe’s attempted ‘muscling’ of him, and noted for the record that Mr. Comroe, an Army veteran, has a criminal record and has admitted guilt in at least two incidents involving the Township in the recent past.

One incident was theft/destruction of a campaign sign belonging to a 2009 candidate for supervisor – which he committed in front of an off-duty state trooper - and another was more serious, involving hacking into the Township’s email accounts and impersonating the township manager (the police reports are on file with the Township). In light of this, Mr. Brooke called on Mr. Comroe to resign; Comroe declined. When asked to respond to Mr. Brooke’s statements, Mr. Comroe only said that on the advice of his attorney (hopefully not the supervisors’ solicitor), he could not comment, and did not deny Mr. Brooke’s accusations.

When the vote was taken, Mr. Comroe was appointed chair by a vote of 5-4. PC members Satterwhite, LaPenta, Baird, Supplee and Comroe voted in support of Comroe; members Kuberski, Endlich, Brooke and Zimmerman supported Zimmerman (4 of the 5 who supported Comroe were appointed since 2010 by the current BOS). Upon the conclusion of the vote, PC member Tom Endlich, who has served approximately 15 years on the PC, got up and left the dias, stating ‘that’s it…I resign…I’m done…this is ridiculous’.

The PC then moved through the rest of their short agenda. Before the meeting concluded, former chair Schlack asked to speak. Among his comments, he said "this board has become political, loaded with political appointments" and is in his opinion "unable to do its job"...that it's 'sad and absolutely pathetic'.

New appointee Harold (Ted) Baird responded, stating that ‘there are no political appointments here’. Personally, I find that laughable – Mr. Baird, a retired plumber, is arguably the poster child for political appointments in Lower Providence. This is the same Mr. Baird who has gotten the Township to fight his zoning appeal against the DeLuca property on Pawlings Road (which you can read  more about here, here, and here ) for him, at taxpayer expense and who was instrumental in getting out the vote in Audubon for candidates Eckman and Thomas in 2009.

Mr. Baird opined that ‘it doesn’t matter who is the chairman’, and, if all members are equal,  I have to agree.  If it doesn’t matter, why then did Mr. Comroe feel the need to strong-arm a board member? (it was unclear whether Comroe had tried to reach, or did reach, any of the other three who supported Zimmerman and made similar threats). It’s customary if you want to be chair to call around to members and ask for their support. It’s certainly not customary to bully or threaten them for it. I do think, however, it does matter who's chair, in that it doesn’t send a great message to the community to have an apparently ego-driven bully with the lack of character Mr.Comroe evidently has on a board or commission at all, let alone in a position of leadership.

It should be obvious that anyone who's a bully and who has demonstrated that they do not have the best interests of all the Township’s residents at heart over their own vested interests does not belong on a commission making recommendations about anything to the governing body (nor does someone with a criminal record of offenses against the very community he’s supposedly serving), but lately it seems that these may be prerequisites for consideration. Regrettably, Mr. Baird is hardly the only recent board or commission appointment that’s political in nature; there are others. Several recent appointees in LP are or were involved in litigation against the township – a blatant conflict of interest if ever there was one.  Indeed, Mr. Comroe was reappointed to the PC last year by the current board in a 4-1 vote (from the minutes  of that meeting; Ms.Altieri voted against); presumably Ms. Altieri was not the only supervisor aware of Mr. Comroe's history.

For a BOS who supposedly wanted to do away with alleged ‘cronyism’ in the past, it seems rather hypocritical. It would appear that people who have been politically useful, regardless of qualifications, integrity or conflict of interest, are fit to do the business of the township and represent its interests.  And that is the face that the majority of our township’s leaders want to put forward to its residents, businesses, and community neighbors.

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?

Over The River and Through the Woods, To The Interceptor Project We Go

Unless you live along riverfront property, you may not have heard much, if anything, about something called the ‘Interceptor’. No, we’re not outfitting our police department with the snazzy new 2012 souped-up Ford Crown Vic street-legal hotrod of the same name (that I know of, anyway). This is something a little less glamorous.

Bottom line, it’s a sewer project. A complex, multi-municipal, three-part sewer project, and the third and final phase of the project is what has Lower Providence in a twist. Even though it's been in the works for almost ten years, and two of the three sections are either done or underway now, neighbors near the planned  'middle' portion just recently started showing up and protesting it, even though a number of them had been asked to sign releases for easements to facilitate construction some time ago, and many had already executed them. Why are they protesting now?

To make a fair assessment, I like to hear both sides of an issue and to date, the Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority (LPVRSA) has been virtually silent in the press as to why they’ve chosen to complete this project in the way it's proposed. My understanding is that they don't intend to stay that way. I was able to get them to sit down and talk with me recently so I could try to understand and convey their position.

Begun almost ten years ago in 2001, LPVRSA, which comprises Lower Providence, Upper Providence, Skippack and Perkiomen Townships and the boroughs of Collegeville and Trappe, began plans to build a second sewer line (interceptor) in order to meet anticipated increases in the need for sewer capacity among the LPVRSA’s member communities. Increased need was attributed to known or expected growth in commercial and residential development, and expansions such as the prison in Eagleville, among the member communities.

The project, comprising three parts or segments (Upper, Lower and Middle) has moved along fairly quietly since 2001. The lower section has already been built, and the upper portion is being constructed now. That’s what all those pipes and excavation equipment that recently appeared at the Collegeville Inn’s parking lot are for – the section that runs from above Graterford down to the Collegeville Inn.

The middle and final section connecting the whole thing together – from the Collegeville Inn to the Arcola Road area near the former Proffit home (which LPVRSA now owns) - has been planned from the beginning. It’s going through the permitting process now, with construction expected to begin in 2013. Although our Township, across a couple of administrations, surely has known about this section and how it will run right through a portion of the riverbanks on the Lower Providence side (even though the existing section is on the Upper Providence side), there was never any fuss made about it until after the election last fall.

While affected residents now claim nobody told them that this project was coming, LPVRSA counters that all plans have been advertised over the years and there have been ample opportunities for public participation up to this point, from the time it was proposed right up through the permitting process, some of which is still underway. In 2005 property owners were notified about the impending archeological and engineering studies to be done in conjunction with permitting, and notified again in 2008 when application was being made for $16 million in H2O PA grant funding ($2.5 million of which was awarded and used toward construction costs on the upper portion of the project). I'm told occasionally someone would call and ask a few questions, but other than that, there was no public opposition to the project.

Originally, the plan was to build the new middle interceptor section alongside the existing aging interceptor pipes, which is located on the Upper Providence side of the river. However, according to LPVRSA, the notices the residents received as early as 2005 noted that the new interceptor might not be placed on the same side of the river as the existing one (translation: it might wind up on the LP side).

Starting in 2004, easements were obtained from adjacent residents for both the upper and lower portions via Declarations of Taking. In 2009 a different approach was taken in that LPVRSA decided to negotiate with property owners for easements to construct the middle portion. Certainly this could account for some recent opposition.

Also late last year, residents started showing up at township Board of Supervisors meetings and asking for help in fighting the project. They asked for alternatives; however, alternatives were looked at in 2003-2004 at Lower Providence's request. For various reasons – cost, practicality, physical limitations - all were rejected at that time.

For example, the residents say one alternative could be to place a pumping station on the Wyeth/Pfizer property in Upper Providence, instead of the middle interceptor, but there’s one small problem with that option – you don’t really need to pump water downhill. Gravity takes care of that nicely, for free. Earlier this year, Lower Providence again requested LPVRSA conduct another study to provide alternatives to the existing plan, and LPVRSA again complied. This second study, which was done at a cost of approximately $7500, was paid for by LPVRSA and  delivered to the Township August 2 for review and comment.

Among the five options looked at were the placement of a pumping station at 1st Avenue in Collegeville, a pump station at Yerkes Road in Upper Providence, a pumping station at Wyeth/Pfizer in Upper Providence, placing the interceptor along the trail on the Upper Providence side of the river, and the current plan to place the parallel middle interceptor on the Lower Providence side. An  open records request for a copy of the 2010 alternative study reveals that placement on the Lower Providence side is significantly less expensive than the other four options, with a minimum cost of $17.3 million and maximum of $19.3 million. The next least costly option was the Yerkes Road pump station, at an estimated minimum cost of $25 million and maximum of $28.9 million.

While you might say 'what's spending a little more money if it saves natural beauty and resources', the LPVRSA's first responsibility (as with any public utility) is to its ratepayers, and ratepayers want low cost. The first half of their mission statement is 'to anticipate the needs of the communities served and expand treament facilities when feasible; and ' to provide the best service to those municipalities and/or municipal authorities while maintaining the lowest possible rates through sound management, financial, and engineering practices".

LPVRSA maintains they determined that installing the new interceptor next to the existing one on the Upper Providence side isn't viable, partly because there isn’t enough room to put a new pipe in the same trench - the width of the right-of-way is simply not wide enough - and partly due to the steep slopes along that side of the river. To attempt to co-locate the pipes would require extensive excavation, disruption of the Perkiomen Trail,  incurring additional costs to purchase additional land, pay for the additional construction expenses (including the extensive excavation), and result in additional maintenance expenses.

It would also require construction of a permanent wall and a bypass wastewater pump during construction for 4-6 months, with 'significant risks' of a pump station outage during that time, resulting in a 'pollution event'.  Putting the middle portion on Lower Providence's side of the river was viewed by LPVRSA to be the least intrusive in terms of pollution and ecological disturbance, as well as being the most cost-effective for the ratepayers (that's any of us who connect to the public sewer system).

Lower Providence officials feel that the majority of the extra capacity that will be added will primarily benefit the other member communities. Lower Providence is largely built out, and with the economy putting most new commercial and residential construction at a standstill (and, frankly, a BOS that arguably seems to discourage any new development at all), that’s probably a reasonable viewpoint. LPVRSA admits that as things stand today, that is true. However, it won’t stay that way forever. Additional capacity will eventually be needed by Lower Providence, too, especially once the new prison addition comes online. Lower Providence officials dispute that, but it stands to reason that if you add more facilities and increase the population, the usage will rise. I have to believe that the opening of Skyview next to Arcola Middle School will also increase our usage.

In any event, the entire system needed to be upgraded to eliminate known weaknesses in the existing 40-year old system resulting in 'inflow and infiltration" - stream water leaking into, and sewage leaking out of, the existing interceptor pipes - so in that respect, it does benefit Lower Providence now, if for no other reason than to maintain the safety and low pollution levels of the river.

Naturally, the residents are upset that this work will disturb the natural beauty, animals, resources, vegetation and recreation in the area. Also, there is the possibility that there are archaeological finds that could be disturbed. LPVRSA says a review of digging in and disturbing such areas is a part of the permitting and review processes and is done in conjunction with the rest of the application. If there is any reason found by DEP not to continue with the project for archeological reasons, it will surface at that point in the process.

Now, I've spent some time with some of the residents who are fighting the interceptor along the creek, and they seem like sincere, nice folks. I sure wouldn’t want this in my backyard either, and they are doing what they feel they must. No matter what side of the river it ends up on, it's going to involve a certain amount of noise and disruption. It does seem strange that there is such  angst about it now, years after notice has been given, easements signed away, and the project has been under way for some time - after many of them already signed off on it.

For now, the pressure is off the Township and its residents. A technical mistake on the regional Act 537 plan LPVRSA submitted to the Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) - an aggregate of all the member communities' 537 plans, put into one plan at DEP's request - appears to LPVRSA to have been blown up into more than it really is – some say by Lower Providence officials – and has held up the issue of the permit for this section. While LPVRSA intends to file a corrected plan/application, the project can’t move forward until that’s resolved. Lower Providence's Board of Supervisors is doing its best to listen to the affected residents and advocate on their behalf, but at the end of the day there isn't a lot that is ultimately within the BOS' control.

In the meantime, I've learned, and sources have confirmed, that LPVRSA has filed a Right To Know request with Lower Providence for records which would presumably illuminate to what extent, if any, Lower Providence officials have stirred up resistance to undermine the long-established plans at the eleventh hour. Lower Providence Township has filed a reciprocal request for LPVRSA's records seeking documents pertaining to the development and analysis of the options, and how and why the option selected and submitted to DEP for review and approval was determined.

At the July LPVRSA meeting it was revealed that there had been recent, significant vandalism discovered at one of the meter pits located in Collegeville. Due to the nature of the damage and specific equipment required to produce it, it was felt that it was not random or committed by kids, but rather done by 'people who knew what they were doing'. A report was filed with the police and with Dept. of Homeland Security. Hopefully, it is unrelated to this controversy.

Where’s Rep. Mike Vereb when you need him? Now that he’s fresh off his success working out a compromise for Norristown School District and their stadium, perhaps he can work his magic here before it escalates any further. And I'm sure Sen. John Rafferty could be of help as well.  I think both sides have valid points and are willing to listen, and my hope is that they will be able to work together to mitigate the concerns of all parties without escalating it into yet another expensive legal battle. It's a classic case of 'the needs of the few versus the needs of the many". 

The meter is running...(Part II)

Back in March I posted about our lawyer-happy Board of Supervisors (BOS) and how they are practically singlehandedly keeping the legal profession afloat in our area.

One reference I gave as a shining example of frivolous litigation and needlessly wasting your tax dollars was Chairman Rick Brown & Co.'s directing their solicitor for the BOS, Mike Sheridan, to enter the Township's appearance into and intervene, against any reasonable likelihood of success, in a neighboring resident's appeal of a December 2009 LP Zoning Hearing Board ruling. That ruling pertained to a property on Pawlings Road in Audubon that did not go the way the neighbor would have liked, despite the decision being painstakingly researched and deliberated by the ZHB after months of hearings, exhibits and testimony.

The Township's appearance in the case was authorized by the BOS despite the neighboring resident, having already spent a hefty amount of his own cash on the original zoning challenge over six months, deciding to appeal the ruling (and fund it) on his own. He apparently had the resources and the will to keep the meter running without the Township needing to get involved. 

Or did he? From what I've heard and observed, this particular resident was quite helpful in getting the vote out for Rick's handchosen candidates for supervisor last Fall, resulting in a change in control of the BOS. I'm not saying this resident was promised anything or even expected anything in return, but the appearance of some kind of deal is troubling to me. Usually, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... 

As I mentioned previously, the Township wasn't aggrieved. A longtime problem property was vastly improved, and there was ample evidence that the Township had screwed up along the way, giving the landowner/applicant incorrect information that he relied upon. So, it would seem counterintuitive that the Township would want to fight a decision that they were arguably at fault in causing.

Anyway...intervene in the appeal the BOS did. And earlier this week, the matter was scheduled for argument in front of Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge DelRicci. Mike Sheridan was present, representing the Township. The Township's motion to transcribe the oral argument was denied. Their argument to supplement the record with additional testimony and take depositions of people who already testified on the original zoning record was also denied.

Additionally, the original applicant/landowner's motion to quash the BOS's appeal and deny the right to intervene (which the ZHB also had to join to defend its decision) was denied in part and granted in part. The bottom line is that the BOS  may not have a separate appeal and they cannot intervene to oppose the decision of the ZHB.

The only way Chairman Rick and the BOS can intervene in the case at all would be to support its own ZHB's decision as rendered which, of course, he wouldn't want to do, because you can't appease a special interest by telling them what they don't want to hear or supporting something a special interest is against.

Hopefully, this is as far as this waste of tax dollars will go  - unless, of course, the BOS continues to exhibit substantial arrogance and continues to fight the judge's ruling.

It would be comical if it weren't for the fact that all the briefing and motions and oral arguments and court appearances just cost our taxpayers a nice chunk of change (to the tune of several thousand dollars, I'm sure) that could have been used for other things. Something tells me, though, that Rick - the same guy who tried to question and delay paying  the ZHB attorney's legal bills a few months back - will probably rubber stamp Mike Sheridan's bills for this wild goose chase without discussion.

The meter is running

If you are an attorney practicing municipal law in Montgomery County, you might want to float your resume in front of Lower Providence's new Board of Supervisors.

Not content to have the customary one firm appointed as solicitor representing the interests of the Township, they saw  fit to hire an additional, 'special' counsel, to 'review' (read: attempt to undo) the December 7 award of the latest five-year trash hauling contract to J.P. Mascaro & Sons.  Rick Brown and Chris DiPaolo were the only two of the five-member Board who discussed documenting the resolution that was put in front of all five for a vote that evening.  Rick, Chris and new member Don Thomas (who, judging by the deer-in-the-headlights look that always seems to be pasted on his face, probably had no idea what he was looking at) voted for the extra legal hire. The ladies voted against it.

All this 'reviewing' has a price tag of approximately $150/hour for nonlitigation work and $175/hour for litigation in addition to the charges our regular solicitor, Michael Sheridan, charges.

And this is a litigious group of people, our new Board of Supervisors. Between them, as of the last time I looked at the various dockets, Chris, Colleen, and Don have 10 (10!) attorneys working for them on other matters, and that's not counting the ones they just hired with your tax dollars.  That total doesn't include the guy Rick Brown hired last year to file his 'friend of the court' brief in the American Revolution Center case - which he filed AFTER they decided to leave and despite his position already being put on the record when he testified as a witness in the case. Oh wait...I think that was filed by Mr. Sheridan, before he became solicitor this year.  Geesh, I can't keep track.

Mrs. Eckman even sued the lawyers that originally represented her in the Mascaro case, seeking to have other attorneys permitted to represent her - rumour has it, a relative - and lost. She's appealing that decision...of course. She is, after all, one of the folks that helped chase the American Revolution Center out of town, so this is probably a walk in the park for her.

On top of that, the Board of Supervisors just directed Mr. Sheridan to intervene in a recent Zoning Hearing Board case in order to appeal it, because, allegedly, our new Board of Supervisors did not agree with it. This, despite the fact that one of the neighbors who originally opposed the applicant's plans (and by his own admission bankrolled the hefty cost of his litigation himself to the tune of $60K and counting)  has already filed an appeal of his own. He certainly doesn't need the Township to sue on his behalf.

This is all the more outrageous because the Township really isn't aggrieved; a lot that had been an eyesore and a longtime public nuisance was cleaned up, junk hauled out, buildings that were in disrepair were rehabilitated. It appears to be more or less an attempt to appease yet another special interest down in 'the Thumb'.

In fact, the irony  is that because errors or oversights were determined to have been made by the Township relative to the history of that property, and the applicant in the zoning case relied upon them, the Township could be culpable. The Township, in intervening, may actually be making the applicant's case for damages against the Township for him should he lose on appeal.  They certainly didn't get involved to defend their staff.  Bottom line: your tax dollars may well wind up being being spent to lead to more of your tax dollars being paid out in damages.

And let's not forget the lawyers. They make money no matter who wins or loses.

I can't imagine how much money Lower Providence will shell out in legal fees for what are arguably frivolous lawsuits over the next six years if this pace continues. As the rest of the county is painfully aware, we are in a severe recession and can ill afford to waste precious resident tax dollars - dollars that aren't flying into the coffers like they used to - on contracts that were lawfully awarded, unnecessary appeals and redundant briefs.