Censorship In Lower Providence

(updated 6/22/13)

For me, one of the most fascinating parts of attending township or school board meetings is the ‘public comment’ section at the end.  It’s totally unscripted and often contains more drama than your average soap opera. In the past we have had everything from an obviously off-medication resident accusing the Board of being Communists and shouting slurs about township officials or employees, to residents angry with the Board over unpaved roads or unplowed snow, to individuals using the bully pulpit and the apparently irresistible draw of cameras, videotape and a microphone to push a personal political vendetta against someone.  You just never know who’s going to show up and what will happen.

The May 16, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting was just such an occasion. Unfortunately, if you are viewing the tape of the meeting at home, you will not hear the same things that those attending in person did, because inconsistent with past practice, in the only instance this has ever occurred since taping of township meetings in LP was initiated, some comments were censored – deleted right off of the tape.  A digital version of the meeting can be found (here); the public comment section begins at marker 32:25.  The ones of particular interest to me begin at 52:30.

These comments also appear to indicate that an unelected resident may have inappropriately participated in private Board executive sessions.

What was said that was so offensive or incriminating, and who issued instructions to have those comments removed?

The individual whose comments were censored is resident Harold “Ted” Baird, whom I’ve written about previously, beginning at approximately marker 52:30. The deleted comments are at approximately markers 53:28, 60:34 to 60:46; 60:52, and 61:30.

As background, in March of this year, Baird lost the last of his court appeals of the 2010 Zoning Hearing Board decision regarding a commercial property adjacent to his. The ZHB decision regarding that property has been upheld multiple times by appellate courts. He is now out of options, by his own admission $125,000 poorer (58:24), and my understanding is that the Township, in parallel litigation against the same defendant, perhaps realizing it has thrown a lot of taxpayer money away on a lost cause (I’m still researching that tally) in their misguided attempt to fight their own ZHB’s decision over the past three years (a decision I was part of rendering, and a legal battle I believe was purely political as it was of no benefit to anyone other than Baird), Baird is understandably frustrated.  

Baird spends much of his on-camera time complaining about the amount of money he spent in pursuit of his appeals, and that the BOS isn’t doing anything to enforce alleged violations. I won’t get into the weeds as to the details and merits of the case at this time, as it’s not directly relevant for purposes of this post.

Sheridan mentions concern that Baird should be ‘careful of the choice of words’ and his use of ‘terminology’ he felt was inappropriate. However, no matter what is said, even if a resident goes so far as use curse words, I would argue that as a citizen, he has a right have his exact words become a part of the public record.
 
Who is Mike Sheridan, or the Board, for that matter, to decide whether something that’s said by a resident is ‘appropriate’ or not?

One point references township solicitor Mike Sheridan allegedly telling Baird that the lawsuits are over and they aren't going to do any more for him, which Sheridan then says is a 'mischaracterization' of what he said. Baird maintains that's essentially verbatim what he was told. I've maintained for some time that the Township was inappropriately helping this resident fight his legal battle for him, at taxpayer expense, but I guess the gravy train is over.

At another point Baird says “Rick, I know he’s your friend, but Mike Sheridan is incompetent”, accuses officials (who? The supervisors? The appellate judges? The LP Zoning Hearing Board? All of the above?) of being ‘in collusion’, that the ‘collusion is real’ (67:40) and then proceeds to provide a definition of the word. Despite all the court losses, in Baird’s world view, everyone else is wrong except him.

What I do know is that Sheridan and the Board can’t legitimately be worried about liability. At the beginning of every broadcast, a very clear disclaimer appears, holding the Township harmless for anything that any member of the public may say, so it’s really not up to LP to censor a citizen’s words from a public meeting. If you had been in attendance in person, you would have heard the comments as delivered by the citizen.  

In any event, in censoring Baird's comments, the Board is being inconsistent. I’ve heard disparaging things about people uttered in public comment many times before, with no chastising of residents and certainly no post-meeting deletion from tape. For example, Tom Borai loves to take every chance he gets, whether in public comment at a BOS meeting or from the ZHB dias, to put me down and magnify whatever he dislikes about me, but nobody’s deleting any of those comments, are they?  So only residents deemed ‘friends of the Board” are protected?

My gut feeling is that Baird said things which were true and damaging to both Sheridan and Rick Brown, and creatively editing the tape is to protect themselves. In my opinion, that’s really the only reason to censor it.  I’m told an unedited version of this meeting exists and I am working to obtain a copy. Will they deny the request? I guess we’ll find out. (update: my request was denied by the Township, and I have filed an appeal with the PA Office of Open Records. I subsequently won the appeal and the tape).

Baird had previously been installed as the president of the nonprofit activist group that supervisor Rick Brown created in the 1980's, the Lower Providence Concerned Citizens Association (LPCCA), which worked hard behind the scenes to defeat my bid for supervisor in 2011. Having dispensed with me, perhaps Baird is no longer needed.

It must be tough to realize you may have been played for a fool, apparently misled about the chances of success in litigation, and potentially used by one or more of the supervisors to gain political advantage, and come away with nothing to show for it.  

Another potentially big revelation: Baird also references being in 'executive board meetings'. (marker 52:54 and 53:37)....has Baird been present in private, supervisor-only executive sessions?? If he’s not an elected official or employee of the Township, he cannot legally be involved in such discussions which are where legal and personnel issues are addressed privately between the supervisors and the subject matter is generally that which cannot be made public. But, it’s a real possibility, given that at the same time Baird was pursuing his zoning appeals, the Township was also (in my opinion, frivolously) trying to litigate against the same party on substantially the same issues.

After the uncomfortable comments by Baird, the tape ends abruptly after this and the Board immediately heads into executive session. Without Baird this time, presumably.

I’ve heard rumors for some time now that Baird was functioning as an unelected “sixth supervisor”. Based on Baird’s comments in this meeting, maybe there was something to those rumors after all.

In the meantime, perhaps future Board meetings will be equally enlightening. Public comment is important to the principles of freedom and is perhaps the most important part of a public meeting; a public Board ought to realize that. 

 

 

 

 

It's Good To Be The King!

Unless, you’re not.

When candidates for higher office bang on our doors or send us mail asking for our trust and our vote, we are always wary, wondering whether the person is seeking election out of an altruistic and sincere desire to give back to the community, or whether it’s to exploit the position for personal gain.

You don’t have to look far to find instances of judges, senators, commissioners and even the president abusing their power or using their elected positions to line their own pockets. Chicago has become famous for it, and Pennsylvania has had no shortage of candidates for this Hall of Shame…the ‘pay to play’ scandal involving some elected and PA Turnpike officials that broke last month comes to mind as the most recent example. In that vein we feel justified in being skeptical about elected officials in general.

When a prospective business came to Lower Providence last year to investigate opening a branch on the Norristown Ford property, they said they were met with delays, discouragement and an attempt by a mysterious and unnamed “group of neighbors” to extort concessions from them before their plans could proceed. Feeling unwelcomed, frustrated, and facing the prospect of an expensive and time-consuming approval process with what they viewed as having zero chance of success, they took the jobs and tax revenue they would have generated and settled elsewhere. (Read more here).

It didn’t make sense. I was puzzled as to why any township such as ours, with an eroding tax base and escalating costs, would not make a serious attempt to work with any interested business, instead of chasing them away.  

As is often the case, the clarity of hindsight allows seemingly illogical things to make sense.  What I learned recently illustrated that it’s bad enough that the interests of one family were put over the interests of the entire Township; what’s more egregious is that the interests elevated and given priority were those of an elected official who swore an oath to serve the best interests of the Township.

Supervisor Don Thomas, and members of his family, own property right next to the Norristown Ford property.  Those mysterious concerned neighbors making demands based upon informal plans that had never been advertised for public hearing have never been named, but the description of their location fits none other than the Thomas family. Only those on the inside of 100 Parklane Drive – staff, solicitor and the supervisors - would even have known that  such plans existed.  

The focus became clearer at the March 28, 2013 Zoning Hearing Board meeting, wherein this same supervisor presented his application for a plan to convert an existing garage on his property into four residential studio apartments, for a total of five residences at that location.  Now it’s apparent why the “group of neighbors” with all the alleged concerns about Bestline wanted Bestline, among other things, to provide an electrical line run to what appears to be the same building as that slated to be converted to residences, residential units which, presumably, would be much harder to rent out if a bustling commercial business were immediately adjacent.  

Curiously, Mr. Thomas’ position as a current supervisor wasn’t mentioned once during the hearing. Anyone watching the videotape at home would just think he’s a typical resident.  In addition, since his election, Don voted to appoint 4 out of the 5 sitting ZHB members. Isn’t this a conflict of interest? Couldn’t Mr. Thomas wait until he was out of office to pursue this?

According to the application (Z 13-01 Thomas application), Mr. Thomas was seeking:

Z 13-01 Donald & Denise Thomas – 19 N. Trooper Road, Norristown, PA 19403

The applicant is requesting a special exception in accordance with §143-150 for the proposed change of a non- conforming commercial use to four residential units, consisting of one (1) bedroom each, with kitchen facilities, living areas and common storage and §143-147 and proposes change in use is more restrictive.  The applicant is requesting a variance from §143-71 to permit one (1) parking space per unit rather than the required two (2) parking spaces per unit.  The Applicant is requesting an extension of the six (6) month expiration period to obtain all permits in accordance with §143-170.

As a resident who lives in LP and drives past this location at least twice a day, I had questions for the applicant, as did other residents in attendance.

My concerns (as well as those of residents along Brant Road behind the subject property) included the intensity of use, too many proposed residents very close to an already-congested intersection, possible left turns by residents onto North Trooper Road, impact on property values, and parking issues, which were discussed extensively.  The Brant Road folks in particular wanted assurances that visitors or residents’ second cars wouldn’t be parking in front of their homes which have access to the back of the Thomas properties. 

Curiously, one argument advanced by Mr. Thomas as a reason his application should be green-lighted  was that this is “ ‘affordable housing’ for our community, and while that may or may not be a thing to be commended, Lower Providence already has a considerable inventory of affordable housing. We are home to three apartment complexes and three mobile home parks, in addition to an assortment of town and carriage homes. In fact, the Thomas family owns numerous rental properties in the area, including the Sunnyside Mobile Home Park on Ridge Pike.  One of the Brant Road neighbors, realtor Mary Van Trieste, testified that placement of such rental housing is known to lower surrounding property values, not raise them. 

Alas, contrary to longstanding past practice by our ZHB of allowing any concerned resident to question or comment during a ZHB hearing, I was not permitted to question Mr. Thomas about much of anything (the owner of the Norristown Ford lot had also given me written permission to ask questions about the project on his behalf, as he did not know about the hearing and was out of town, but that was not permitted either).   You can view the hearing (here).  

Prime among the questions I had went toward clarifying another puzzling discrepancy (see story, here), which was “Exactly what business ARE you running out of that location?”  It’s a valid question of an applicant for zoning relief since the number and types of uses on a given property are relevant when considering granting relief.

As I reported previously, Mr. Thomas holds a current township ‘business license’ for the ‘business’ he allegedly runs out of his home/subject of the application. The license is in the name of Earl Thomas Heating Oil Co.,  (2013 business license) yet that was supposedly the business sold to Jay Gress in 2010 and by whom Mr. Thomas is now employed.  Mr. Thomas’ own 2009 campaign material stated that he’d sold his business, in order to persuade voters as to why he now had the time to do the job of supervisor.

My belief is that there is no business use there now and hasn’t been since at least 2009 or 2010, but that he continued to pull this license to keep active the claim that he is exempt from complying with the Township’s trash code as it allows him to select his own hauler instead of – as all other Township residents must - using the Township’s contracted trash company.  At the hearing it was made clear to Mr. Thomas that if his application were approved (and it was later that evening), the nonconforming use that permitted the business will go away and along with it, the trash privilege.

ZHB member and perennial political retread Tom Borai was openly hostile and rude to me and others in this public forum, letting his emotions get the best of him. Apparently he doesn’t like that I write this blog and accused me of being there to cause a three-ring circus.  I guess he’s all for transparency as long as he’s the guy holding the flashlight.

Typically, an applicant asks for more than what they want, knowing it will be negotiated down or that the ZHB will approve something more reasonable, and it gives one wiggle room. However, those same 4 people that Mr. Thomas appointed (Nancy McFarland, Tom Borai, Joyce Clueley, Bob Hardt) approved his application in toto, with minor conditions; Eric Frey voted against granting the application.  Personally, I would have expected, based on past experience and practice, for the ZHB to have approved perhaps 2 additional residential units, which would also negate the need for the requested variance on parking, but Mr. Thomas got every single thing he asked for.  

About that campaign mailer I retrieved from storage? On it Mr. Thomas claims that, not only was he now better able to serve “with my business sold (emphasis added) and my children grown ….” But that he “will represent you with honesty, fairness and dignity”.  Based on my observations, that may well be true, as long as he can protect his own business interests and personally profit at the expense of a business entity whose presence here would have benefitted all LP residents.

Mel Brooks couldn't have said it any better. It’s good to be the king.

from "History of the World Part I", 1981

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.