Gestrich Departs Lower Providence

After a four-year tenure in the Township, current manager Richard Gestrich has parted ways with Lower Providence. 

photo credit: LinkedIn

Board of Supervisors' chairman Jason Sorgini confirmed over the weekend that Gestrich's last day was Friday, April 8, and that 'the Board and Rich mutually agreed that our visions for the township had become disparate and that a new direction was in order. The assistant manager [Geri Golas] will be in charge as we begin a thoughtful and comprehensive process to hire a new manager."

Gestrich was hired in 2012 shortly after supervisors Sorgini and Jill Zimmerman won the 2011 supervisor's election and after being interviewed by a search committee that included both. 

He was known to be good friends with former LP supervisor Rick Brown, who was chairman at the time Gestrich was hired. The two allegedly had vacation homes near each other in Florida. (Brown's ideology was primarily that LP was a 'bedroom community'; he tended to have an unfavorable view of new business and development, and I presume his hiring decisions reflected that). The Township has been trying to get the message out that they are 'open for business' (again, supposition on my part) so perhaps this is the direction they did not share. 

Gestrich had previously served as township manager in Upper Makefield Township and Middletown Township (both in Bucks County) and for two towns in Florida.  At a starting salary in 2012 of $105,000, he signed an at-will employment contract with LPT that was not time limited. At the time, Gestrich noted that the agreement included a severance package consisting of one month's pay for the first six months, three months' pay after the first year, and six months' pay after the third year of employment.  

Gestrich succeeded township manager Joe Dunbar, who was dismissed in 2011 after 7 years with Lower Providence. 

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.

422 tolling/rail plan gets a failing grade

I spent last evening with residents from all along the 422 corridor who came out en masse to the tune of several hundred attendees to participate in a panel discussion at Pope John Paul II High School,  hosted by Rep. Mike Vereb (150th), on the subject of "fixing 422", how to pay for it, and whether a rail option should be part of the plan.  Our township manager, Joe Dunbar, and supervisor Colleen Eckman attended from Lower Providence.

Barry Seymour (DRVRPC), Commissioner Joe Hoeffel, Times Herald editor Stan Huskey, and Rep. Warren Kamp (R-157) (photo courtesy Pottstown Patch)

Panelists included Rep. Marcy Toepel (147th), Rep. Warren Kampf (157th), Rep. Tom Quigley (146th), Stan Huskey, editor of the Times Herald, Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Hoeffel, and Barry Seymour, executive director of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.

The forum allowed for residents to have an interactive voice, posing questions to the panel via card, and permitting panelists to elaborate on key provisions of the proposed plan. As several attendees told me afterward, they didn't like the plan as presented - which includes the possibility of tolling and takes into account a new regional rail line - and wondered aloud 'If this is Plan A, what's Plan B?"

Attendees first reviewed a Powerpoint summary of the current scenario.  The document indicated projected population is anticipated to increase 50 percent in the corridor region over the next ten years, bringing with it increased gridlock and delays. Financial data included the revelation that funds generated by tolls - about $60 million a year, increasing over time, of course,  would only cover about 25% of the money needed to operate and maintain 422 and the proposed rail line. Rep. Toepel later stated that 'the numbers don't make sense'. 

Pointing out that federal transportation funding will decrease 35% over the next six years and that PennDOT has $1 billion less to spend than it did four years ago, Seymour hoped that Gov. Corbett would seriously consider implementing the Governor’s Transportation Commission’s suggestions to increase transportation funding by $3.5 billion. If that happens, tolling may not be needed on 422 at all.

Residents questioned every aspect of the proposal, including, but not limited to, why 422 was singled out for tolling when improvements to 309 and 202 were not; what's happened to money already allocated for road improvements; how to keep the toll from being a permanent solution; what the potential costs of implementing tolling would be and what would the impact be on local jobs and roads; exploring other, more fair, avenues of revenue generation such as increased licensing and registration fees and increasing the gas tax - options which spread the cost to all state residents; and of course the train/rail line aspect. The sentiment of the vast majority in attendance was that legislators needed to find ways to do more with less and perhaps find ways to cut spending in other areas to pay for needed transportation improvements - and remove the rail aspect from the plan entirely.

The cost of the proposed rail plan is estimated at $370 million. Hoeffel said that figure could be eliminated from total cost of the project. Estimates indicated that it would cost about $750 million to improve Route 422 and replace the Betzwood Bridge, and pulling the $370 million rail line cost out still leaves the  project short by about $500 million. 

Many fear the creation of yet another 'authority' to supervise and (mis?)manage funds generated by tolling and view tolling as yet another way to divert transportation funds to chronically nonself-sustainable SEPTA.  As Joe Hoeffel observed, however, all forms of transportation are subsidized in some fashion by taxpayers - airlines, buses, and highways, so why not rail? (Hoeffel's repeated use of the word 'investment' in terms of this project did not endear him to any of the folks I talked to).  One resident cautioned planners "not to assume the revenue will be there", as  many commuters would likely choose to avoid 422 in favor of using free local roads even if they have to sit in traffic to do so.

The toll would be collected not via traditional toll booths, but with E-Z pass technology. Seymour said that those without E-Z Pass would be billed through the mail based on photos of their license plates. Some attendees questioned the costs of doing that.

One question submitted asked why this issue could not be put out for vote by referendum. Rep. Vereb observed that this had not been done since the open space referendum a few years ago and that there are considerable costs to put out a referendum; it was felt that a meeting such as this forum would elicit stakeholder feedback more quickly without incurring the costs.

While the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the plan (surprised? I'm not) the question was put out as to whether the local Montgomery county Chamber of Commerce had taken a position on the plan. New Chamber president Kathy Brandon was in the audience and contributed that while the Chamber had not taken a position, they had polled their  members and found no support for it, adding that there 'are too many unanswered questions' at this point.

Privatization was also raised as possibility and the panel indicated that this option may be a part of the ongoing discussion.

The panelists reiterated that "only the State can create a local tolling option", that nothing will happen without legislation being introduced, passed, and signed by the governor; currently there is no legislation proposed. 

Frequent applause and cheering at key points, along with a few loud audience members who shouted out comments, made it clear that the vast majority of the attendees were not in support of either a tolling option or a rail line.

You can see other articles from Reading, Pottstown, and Norristown publications containing more details and photos here,  here, here and here.

Not Your "Average Joe"

At the October 7 Board of Supervisors meeting, the supervisors came to final agreement on a new contract for our township manager, Joe Dunbar. Supervisors Chris DiPaolo and Don Thomas were appointed back in March of this year to conduct negotiations with Joe, but it is my understanding that it took them until August to even begin the process. 

Conscious of the financial limitations that the Township and its residents are facing, Joe offered to take no increase for 2011 and, as reported in the Times Herald, asked for a three-year contract with no additional benefits. I was a supervisor when Joe's original five-year contract, which expired Sept. 1, was negotiated. The original contract had a provision for accrued comp time above 90 hours per pay period, to be payable only upon termination, resignation, or retirement. Otherwise, it would go unpaid. This is a fairly standard option in employment agreements for executive personnel.

This new contract they came up with was a bit different. What's perplexing to me is this: why would Chris, who I understand was the lead negotiator, present a contract to his fellow Board members that calls for a payout of the comp time now, especially in these tight economic times?

Chris ultimately voted against the final version of the contract he negotiated. Now, I may be biased, since I've negotiated all kinds of contracts with all kinds of entities as a large part of my job for more than fifteen  years, but for Chris to arrive at a set of terms and conditions that he felt comfortable enough presenting to the Board and having their solicitor put in writing, only to then turn around and vote against it, makes it patently obvious to me that either Chris isn't a very good negotiator or he's running for re-election next year and wanted to be seen as not voting for any expenditures.  Or, quite possibly, both. 

He's quoted in the paper, citing the contract's provisions as 'too expensive'.  Was he intentionally trying to overstate the value of the contract to bolster his position? Maybe Chris can explain his logic at the next BOS meeting, but it seems like posturing to me.

I happen to think Joe is worth every penny in his contract. He's very effective, a proactive, big picture thinker who's also good with detail, and a class act who knows how to get the best out of staff. Ultimately, the buck stops with him when something goes wrong and he accepts responsibility, as a good manager should, whenever there's a problem. He has earned the loyalty and respect of staff as a result. He's also earned the respect of local municipal officials, business leaders and governmental agencies. As an example, earlier this year, Joe was the recipient of the "Excellence in Public Service" award from the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce. Montco Chamber of Commerce Spring 2010 newsletter

I can personally attest to the fact that the Township gets much more from Joe than just what he's obligated to do. During my time as a supervisor, it was obvious to me that he goes above and beyond on a regular basis. It wasn't unusual to get a phone call from him at night, early in the morning or on weekends.

I'm glad he'll be with us for another three years. He'll have served longer than any other Lower Providence Township manager, and longevity and stability can go a long way toward a municipality maintaining a favorable credit/bond rating. But, in my eyes, that's the least of the reasons his position with the Township is a good thing. Kudos to the BOS for getting the deal done, with or without Chris on board.

Thanks, But No Thanks

At any given time, there are residents who have a bone to pick with our elected township supervisors. Disgruntled residents file into the township building for any number of reasons, large and small, some legitimate concerns, others from people who complain about everything under the sun in general. That comes with trying to govern a community the size of, say, Lower Providence, with approximately 26,000 residents. There are bound to be problems, disagreements and mistakes made that need to be fixed. But, overall, I think Lower Providence is well managed by a terrific township manager in Joe Dunbar, an excellent staff of professionals at the top of their game, and five supervisors that more often than not make good decisions. We have, over the past few years, become a benchmark against which other townships measure themselves, progressive, proactive, and a leader among our local communities. We are, usually, at least a step ahead of everyone else.

 Imagine, for a moment, if that entity were gone or, worse, overruled and hamstrung by politics and government at the county level. We all read the paper. We know how dysfunctional that’s turned out to be. Think that’ll never happen?

Think again. It is a real possibility. Democrat Rep. Tom Caltagirone of Berks County recently introduced HB 2431 (link: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2009&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2431&pn=3570), which calls for a constitutional amendment to make the county the basic level of government. This radical plan would drastically change how we are governed, as it calls for elimination of townships, cities and boroughs, leaving the county to oversee all municipal functions such as land use and zoning, trash removal, police, park maintenance, road repairs etc. that townships like Lower Providence perform now. It would also determine what if any duties local municipal officials would perform.

And, counties would presumably be in charge of determining and reaping the rewards of all municipalities’ property and local taxes, including earned income tax, water and sewage fees and, also presumably, disbursement of same back into the communities within its borders. But what’s to say it would be disbursed equitably or fairly?

 Given the 3-ring circus that constitutes the Montgomery County commissioners’ office these days, about the scariest thing I can think of is the ‘dynamic duo’ of Jim Matthews and Joe Hoeffel calling the shots that affect us, and running the day-to-day operations of Lower Providence. It’s tough enough to weigh the concerns of Audubon versus those of the residents of Trooper, but just imagine where we might fall in the bigger picture, as commissioners weigh the concerns of a Lower Providence against those of Narberth, Worcester, Abington, or any of the other of the 62 municipalities that comprise Montgomery County.

 How would we like it if the county planned to put a sewage treatment plant in your neighborhood, and you had no local government to seek recourse from? Oh, wait, we’re already sort of ‘there’, what with a regional authority, the Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority, trying to jam a sewer interceptor project here, but at least residents have been able to get their local supervisors engaged to fight it. I can’t imagine where something like this would fall on the County’s list of “things to do”.

 As much as I dislike the whole idea, I think a municipality should, at least, be given the option of voting on a referendum to eliminate their local government and ‘opt in’ to this county option if they desire. To have it forced on local governments and their residents doesn’t make sense. I mean, where would it stop? Why not dissolve the states? Why not let the UN govern everything and dissolve countries? Absurd, of course, and this is, too.

 I hope that Rep. Caltagirone meant well. Certainly there are likely duplications of service and the potential for savings and efficiencies due to economies of scale in areas like sourcing and human resources, for example. Not that consolidating power is any guarantee that those efficiencies will be realized. All you have to do is look at any Federal government agency to see how bigger = waste and inefficiency. No, this seems much more like a blatant power grab by Democrats, especially when you consider that all of the bill’s sponsors are Democrats, and one is from Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) and another is from Philadelphia. Philadelphia, by the way, is listed as an exception to this bill. It would not have to worry about being governed by Philadelphia County.

 In my opinion, consolidating power is not necessary, especially when our local County government seems to be a never-ending episode of a bad soap opera, rife with obvious conflicts of interest and violating its own rules such as those governing how contracts are bid and awarded. The more local the government, the greater the opportunity of having an impact in your own community. Only local governments such as what exists already are the most accountable to their constituents and most committed to keeping the spending and taxation of their constituents – many of whom they know personally, and run into regularly at the gas station or grocery store – in check.

Consider contacting your local state rep (Rep. Vereb or Drucker, depending on where you live in Lower Providence) to tell them how you feel about HB 2431.