Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors Meeting, 2-8-10 . . . YouTube Video Part II: Christine Johnson

One of the most moving moments of the Board of Supervisors Meeting was when Mt. Pleasant resident Christine Johnson took her turn to speak.  Christine eloquently spoke of her community, Mt. Pleasant as not being a sidewalk to nowhere as is often referred to by Supervisor Olson.  Christine is a research librarian and she put hours in to research, providing copies of minutes from Board Meetings, Planning Commission meetings, STAP meetings, etc. Please watch Christine’s passionate delivery of information . . . and please watch as virtually no response is offered from Chairman Lamina. 

Please watch this video clip:  YouTube Video Part II: Christine Johnson

Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors Meeting, 2-8-10 . . . YouTube Video Part 1: The Apology of Lamina, Kampf & Richter

The Board of Supervisors Meeting on February 8 was important for many reasons. I wrote about the meeting in my post, United in their Resolve, Residents Speak Out.  Many residents attended that Board of Supervisors meeting and I know that many watched at home.  But I thought it was important to capture some of the important commentary of that evening, so my husband Jeff has kindly put together sections of the supervisors and citizens comments from that meeting and is in the process of uploading them to YouTube.  As they are uploaded I will post them on Community Matters.  I added a new page to the front-page of Community Matters,  If you look across the top, you will see a tab for YouTube Videos.  Going forward, you will be able to locate all relative videos by clicking on that tab.  Hopefully, this will make it easier for residents to review.

YouTube Part 1: Tredyffrin Township Supervisors Apologize . . . Lamina, Kampf & Richter   Supervisors Lamina, Kampf and Richter make their apologies for the vote of January 25.  Their apology is followed by citizen comment.  First to speak is Dariel Jamieson, newly elected chair of the Tredyffrin Township Democrats.  Ms. Jamieson speaks to the issue of Supervisors Olson and Lamina speaking disparagingly of Democrats in the newspaper, in emails and also at the January 25 board meeting.  Supervisor Lamina had little response for Ms. Jamieson in regards to his actions.

Attorney-Client Privilege . . . Understanding the Relationship Between Elected Officials & Township Solicitor. . . Where Does that Leave the Residents?

I know that many residents in the audience at the February 8 Board of Supervisors Meeting were confused and frustrated when they would pose specific questions to our elected officials and receive no response.  The supervisors would turn to the Township Solicitor Tom Hogan for an opinion on a legal question and he would say that he could not answer, invoking attorney-client privilege.  In conversation with residents since the meeting, there has been much discussion on the attorney-client privilege shared between Mr. Hogan and the supervisors.  I know Tom Hogan personally; he’s one of the good guys and I need to believe that he would have given the residents his opinion (if permitted).  But the fact remains that the public has legal questions in regards to St. Davids Golf Club, the return of the escrow, precedent set by the vote, ongoing liability to the township and its residents, etc. 

If we cannot receive answers from our elected officials or township solicitor, where do we take our unanswered questions? Do community members have to hire their own attorney to receive answers?

I was greatly interested to received the following information from a reader, JudgeNJury on the subject of attorney-client privilege. I do not know the identity of this reader, but I am guessing that he/she could be a municipal attorney. An interesting read.

JudgeNJury 2010/02/10 wrote:

Under an opinion issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Jan. 29, it is far from clear that Hogan’s invocation of attorney-client privilege is correct. A link to a detailed article discussing the case follows, but this quote from the article is the main point: “The court issued a per curiam order in Nationwide v. Fleming Friday, upholding a Superior Court ruling that attorney-client privilege only applies to information given to the attorney by the client, not the other way around.”

(http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202441905939&Pa_High_Court_Justices_Cant_Agree_on_AttorneyClient_Privilege_Dispute).

In other words, there is a good argument to be made that the Supervisors can invoke the privilege to refuse to answer questions about what they told Hogan, but Hogan cannot invoke the privilege to refuse to answer questions about what he told the Supervisors. Personally, I think the court’s decision is absurd. But the law is the law.

Main Line Suburban Reporter Blair Meadowcroft writes . . . “Tredyffrin Residents Blast Supervisors Over St. Davids Vote”

Main Line Suburban reporter Blair Meadowcroft’s account of Monday night’s Board of Supervisor Meeting is published today (article below).  Sometimes when you are in the midst of a situation, you can loose your objectivity . . . but after reading Blair’s account of the meeting, I am convinced that the residents were right in their united message.

I do need to recognize the ‘Citizen Supervisor’ of the night . . . John DiBuonaventuro.  Supervisor DiBuonaventuro heard the residents, agreed with them and stated, “I’d like to reverse the decision, start over and follow by the rules.”  The problem of course is that he could count on Supervisors Kichline and Donohue votes to reverse the decision, but we know that Supervisors Lamina, Kampf and Richter still don’t get it!  For the record, Paul Olson was not at the meeting but it is clear how he would not have supported a vote to reverse the decision (considering, he is the one who made the original motion). 

I still remain convinced that with help (and encouragement) from the public, township manager and township solicitor, we will see our elected officials back on track at the February 22 meeting.  I’m looking forward to seeing St. Davids Golf Club on the meeting agenda, and the re-institution of policy and procedure for Tredyffrin Township’s government.

   Tredyffrin residents blast supervisors over St. Davids vote

By Blair Meadowcroft

At the Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors meeting Monday night, three of the board members took to the microphone in an effort to apologize for their previous actions.

Since last meeting’s whirlwind vote was approved in favor of releasing $25,000 from an escrow account to the St. Davids Golf Club, residents have been expressing their confusion and dislike. In response, and after discussion with various members of the community over the last two weeks, three of the four board members who voted in favor of the motion in question publicly apologized. The fourth board member who voted to pass the motion for St. Davids was Vice Chair Paul Olson, who was not at the Feb. 8 meeting.

“All here tonight acknowledge that the process utilized was less than perfect,” said Chairman Bob Lamina. “I could have done a better job; I could have insisted on more public comment, or agreed with Supervisor Michelle Kichline to table the issue. The board plans to learn from this and we plan to figure out a better way in the future of dealing with this sort of issue.”

Supervisors Evelyn Richter and Warren Kampf agreed, echoing Lamina’s sentiments and adding a few of their own.

“I should have agreed to a delay; there was no rush on this,” said Richter. “And this should have been put on the agenda. I’ll work towards not allowing this to happen again.”

“A lot of thought has gone into this and in hindsight the motion to table the issue should have been considered, and announcing this in advance should have been done,” said Kampf.

While their apologies were appreciated by those in attendance, the three board members quickly learned that an apology would not be enough. Member after member of the community came to the microphone during a public-comment session to express their disgust at what had been allowed to happen at the previous meeting, questioned what sort of example the board members were setting, and demanded an answer as to what would be done to fix the problem.

“I want to understand how the meeting and the vote made does not set precedent for the future,” said Pattye Benson. “Township Manager Mimi Gleason said that it does. What will stop another developer tomorrow from saying no to doing something they once agreed to do? What you did was absolutely outrageous. You made an apology but that does not right the wrong.”

Agreeing, Matthew Valocchi, vice president of the Berwyn Fire Company, said that while the apologies were nice, there is still a “big problem” that needs to be taken care of. “This has been a heated political issue and it is a problem when a vote like this gets rushed by,” said Valocchi. “The letter of credit was a guarantee that something was going to be done. There was no request from St. Davids for this exemption and the board did not refer the matter to the township engineer before taking the vote.”

As the night went on, regardless of the decision made previously by the board members, the residents in attendance continued to fight for the sidewalks in question. They explained how they were necessary, how they would not affect trees or add to storm- water issues and that if put in place they would not be “a sidewalk to nowhere.”

“When the Sidewalks, Trails and Paths Committee put together their plan it was to allow residents to walk carefully through the township,” said one resident. “That part of the path was put there specifically to help that purpose. The question is what do you want Tredyffrin to be like in the future? If you want it to be walkable, we need the sidewalks to be put in.”

Although various points were made in their defense Chairman Lamina explained that in his opinion the sidewalks weren’t necessary and that was why he voted the way he did. “Who are we to insist a sidewalk go somewhere that a community doesn’t want?” asked Lamina.

As the meeting unfolded, residents asked repeatedly in a variety of ways for the township supervisors to reverse their vote, put it on hold, discuss it more in depth, anything to undo what was done. One supervisor voiced his opinion and agreed with the residents. “Maybe there is a way to start over and do this the right way,” said Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro. “I’d like to reverse the decision, start over and follow by the rules.” While the residents’ comments were heard, along with DiBuonaventuro’s request for a reversal, by the end of the meeting no change had been made to the previous vote.

While those in attendance were disappointed, the conversations remained calm throughout the meeting until John Petersen, Tredyffrin resident and one-time supervisor, approached the microphone. After asking the board members a few questions, including one to Kampf, the response he got started a heated argument.

 “The audience in this room needs to know who this man is at the microphone,” said Kampf. “He sent an e-mail to each member of the board today saying, ‘You’ve asked for war, and war is what you will have. I’m going to get you. I am coming after you.’ I think his attacks are personal.”

The discussion that followed involved Petersen criticizing Kampf on his leadership skills and on the board’s actions in general. “Instead of defending your actions you are attacking me,” said Petersen. “You have no defense; you broke the faith and all you can do is hide. You are held to a higher standard and it is about time you started acting like it.” In response to his comments, Lamina ended the discussion by telling Petersen “You will no longer be recognized here.”

In other news at the BOS meeting, the supervisors thanked the public-works team for their efforts put forth to handle the weekend’s snowfall as well as to prepare for the upcoming storm. “This was the second largest snowstorm in Tredyffrin Township’s history; we got 20 inches,” said public-works director Steve Norcini. “The public-works crew did a fantastic job. They worked nonstop from 5 p.m. Friday until 3 a.m. Sunday. And as soon as that ended, they started preparing for the next storm, which we are ready for.”

 Additionally, DiBuonaventuro commended the local fire companies for their courageous work done to fight a three-alarm fire that took place at Strafford Station Apartments Saturday, Jan. 30 at 9:25 a.m. The fire caused $1.2 million in damage and was determined to have been started by a fire in the utility closet at the complex. Along with thanking the firefighters, DiBuonaventuro thanked the local churches, the Red Cross and T&E Care for their efforts in helping and temporarily adopting the affected families.

United in their Resolve, Tredyffrin Residents Speak Out Against Actions of Supervisors Lamina, Olson, Kampf & Richter

Last night’s Board of Supervisor meeting represented a victory for the people. 

‘New Matters from Board members’ of the meeting kicked off with Supervisors Lamina, Kampf and Richter making apologies to the community in regards to the St. Davids Golf Club motion and vote to return escrow which occurred at the last Board of Supervisors meeting. They took responsibility for their actions, admitted that procedure had not been followed and stated that they would try to ‘do better’ in the future. Mention was made that everyone makes mistakes and that they had learned from theirs.

As I listened to the apologies, I thought to myself . . . OK, they made a mistake, admitted their mistake and now they will just ‘fix it’.  But no, there was no offer of correction, no suggestion to ‘reverse the decision’, nothing.  Were they thinking that the community would just accept their apology, move on and act like the ‘mistake’ never happened?  I don’t think that they were prepared for what was to come next . . . it was the residents turn to speak.

I cannot remember the last time I was so proud of this community.  Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democratic life.  And one after another, residents took to the floor.  People came from all over the township . . . Chesterbrook, Malvern, Berwyn, Strafford, Mt. Pleasant, Wayne.  It did not matter if the speakers were Democrats, Republicans or Independents, there was no political party agenda.  They were firefighters, lawyers, retired citizens, members of township boards, one after another, each passionately saying the same thing over and over.  Separately, the residents spoke, but united their message. Each person in his or her own way sought justice from the Board of Supervisors, appealing for the ‘wrong’ to be made ‘right’.

The ‘sidewalk’ became a symbol for something much larger . . . it represented how four individuals (Lamina, Olson, Kampf, Richter) thought they could be allowed to just make the rules and break the rules, without consequence or intervention for their actions.  What I heard loud and clear  was the powerful voice in this community of intolerance to their actions; residents are standing together.  Were the supervisors listening?

In the words of Martin Luther King, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.”  Speaking out, many in the audience eloquently spoke of their distrust in our elected officials.  We elect these people because we believe that they will serve our best interests.  We entrust them to govern according to the rules . . . to follow the policies and procedures as set forth by the Home Rule Charter.  We rely on them to make the best decisions in our interests.

In the end, there was no resolution to ‘righting the wrong’ of the vote to return the escrow to St. Davids.  Not last night, but I believe that this matter is far from over.  I believe that between now and the next Board of Supervisors meeting, a way must be found to resolve this matter.

Trust in our elected officials must be restored.

Tredyffrin Twp Board of Supervisors Meeting Tonight . . . St. Davids Sidewalk Issue, a Photo Essay

Tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting is shaping up to be one for the history books.  It would appear that some of our elected officials have become entangled in quite the spider’s web.  The actions taken at the January 25 Board of Supervisors meeting, the resulting vote to return St. Davids escrow, the newspaper articles, Letters to the Editor, discussion on Community Matters, etc. have left many residents pondering the state of our local government.   

I have remained consistent in saying that the sidewalks are not the issue; however, I believe that many people probably do not understand the bigger picture and the ramifications of the Board’s actions to our township and its residents.  Having said that, I think it would be helpful for people to look at this photo essay.  Thank you to the local TTDEMs for helping the community better understand through photos and description this section of the township, which Supervisor Olson consistently refers to as ‘sidewalks to nowhere’.  A special thank you to Sean Moir for his mapping skills, which clearly show the section of the St. Davids sidewalk.

Here is the Board of Supervisors agenda for tonight’s meeting.

Home Rule Charter Violations . . . Legal Cases from Philadelphia and Erie County

I received fascinating information (see below) from JudgeNJury citing 2 examples of cases of violations to Pennsylvania’s Home Rule Charter.  It is reassuring to know that others have fought the battle (and won) using the basis of procedures contained in the Home Rule Charter.  This supports the notion that a declaratory judgment action rendering the St. Davids Golf Club escrow vote null and void would be successful.  My question is would an individual have to file (and win) a declaratory judgment to force the supervisors to follow the Home Rule Charter.  If the Home Rule Charter states that supervisors must publicize all agenda items at least 8 hours in advance, shouldn’t that be followed?  Why do we have to spend time and money to force Home Rule Charter procedure to be followed?

We know that Chair Lamina believes, and states to the Main Line Suburban Life newspaper, that  “Under our current rules, any supervisor is free to offer any motion he chooses at any time, . . . It is not unusual at all for board members to offer unpublished motions during discussions at our meetings and I believe it’s reasonable and appropriate for our board to have this flexibility where needed in its proceedings . . .” 

I would hope that with review of the Home Rule Charter, counsel from the township solicitor and the citing of Pennsylvania cases, that Chair Lamina and Supervisors Kampf, Olson and Richter would acknowledge their ‘miss-step’.  I think that it would bode far better for them and the residents of this township, that our elected officials could just ‘fix’ their mistake without requiring a declaratory judgment action.  Perhaps township solicitor Tom Hogan could review the procedures contained within the Home Rule Charter and offer guidance to our Board of Supervisors.  Based on the actions taken on January 25, and the prevailing attitude of Chair Lamina, no motion is off-limits, including those not publicized. 

Please take the time to review these cases below provided by JudgeNJury:

JudgeNJury, on February 6th, 2010 Said:  

Here are two cases worth reading. Neither is directly on point, but they both provide some flavor:

City of Philadelphia v. Weiner (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15768620678301027768&q=550+A.2d+274&hl=en&as_sdt=800000000002): Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter contains a provision requiring the City to give public notice when it intends introduce a bill. The Philadelphia City Council introduced a bill to amend the City’s real estate transfer tax. However, City Council did not give public notice of the new proposed tax rate contained in the bill and the new rate never was discussed at a public hearing before the bill was adopted. Several parties, including a consumer group and an association of realtors, sued to enjoin the City from enforcing the bill because City Council did not follow the procedures set forth in the City’s Home Rule Charter. The trial court granted the injunction, and, in the opinion cited above, the appeals court affirmed the injunction.

Here, like the City of Philadelphia in the Weiner case, the Board of Supervisors did not follow the procedures in its Home Rule Charter. Specifically, the Township did not include the escrow motion on the agenda for the January 25 Board meeting. So the Weiner case would seem to support an argument that the Township can be enjoined from acting on the motion (assuming it has not already).

County Council v. County Executive (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3165189562536297706&q=600+A.2d+257&hl=en&as_sdt=800000000002): The Erie County Home Rule Charter (apparently – the case is less than crystal clear) contained a provision requiring the County to conduct a performance review of any County employee before it could increase that employee’s salary. The Erie County Executive increased the salary of a County employee without conducting a performance review. The Erie County Council brought a declaratory judgment action seeking to declare the Executive’s action null and void because it violated the Home Rule Charter. A month after Council filed its suit, the employee whose salary was increased retired. Arguing that the retirement made the case moot, the Executive asked the trial court to dismiss the case, which it did. The appeals court, in the cited opinion, upheld the dismissal.

The ultimate result of the Erie County case, obviously, is not helpful from the perspective of those who would like to challenge the Board’s actions here (though the mootness issues in the Erie County case seem much different than any that might arise here, so the result itself may not be that significant). What is significant, however, is that the case suggests that bringing a declaratory judgment action to declare null and void an action taken in contravention of a Home Rule Charter is the proper procedure in this situation

Tredyffrin’s Lamina, Olson, Kampf & Richter . . . Another ‘Legal Loophole’? . . . Maybe not!

I had an interesting comment that arrived overnight in regards to the St. Davids escrow vote from the Board of Supervisors meeting.  I’m thinking that the person who sent in this comment (posted below) is probably an attorney (and quite possibly a municipal attorney).  Give this a read and see what you think.  It appears that based on the Home Rule Charter, the St. Davids escrow vote was indeed null and void because it was not listed on the agenda. 

When the supervisors take their oath of office, they pledge to uphold the Home Rule Charter and the Administrative Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is obvious that this information is not known (or if known, not followed) by Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter.  In this week’s Main Line Surburban Life, Chair Lamina defends the St. Davids Golf Club motion not appearing on the agenda.  “Under our current rules, any supervisor is free to offer any motion he chooses at any time,” said Lamina. “It is not unusual at all for board members to offer unpublished motions during discussions at our meetings and I believe it’s reasonable and appropriate for our board to have this flexibility where needed in its proceedings. . . ” 

So the residents are left wondering, when the supervisors take their oath of office to uphold Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter, doesn’t that oath matter?  Don’t they ever read what it is they have agreed to uphold?  If they don’t have a personal copy of the Home Rule Charter, it is on the www.tredyffrin.org website.  Apparently based on his comments in the newspaper, Lamina has been working under this misconception for some time.  How long has he served as supervisor?  Do I want to believe that Olson who has served as supervisor for 30 years still doesn’t know what the Home Rule Charter says? And let’s not forget Supervisor Kampf (remembering he is also an attorney) didn’t he feel compelled to read the Home Rule Charter that he took an oath to uphold?  And Ms. Richter, newly elected supervisor . . . does she take an oath of office to uphold the Home Rule Charter without a peek at its contents? 

I do not attest to being a legal authority, but my guess is that the residents of Tredyffrin Township have real grounds to ask that this latest motion be thrown out on procedural error.  But I am betting that when the ‘spin doctors’ read this post, they will try to wrangle a legal loophole! (Here’s hoping that it may not be possible). 

I know that we had a ‘substitute’ township solicitor from Lamb McErlane serving at the last meeting, and I also understand that the solicitor serves at the pleasure of the board but wouldn’t it be the responsibility of the solicitor to point out the procedural error of Olson’s motion (and the 4-3 vote to approve)?  Perhaps Township Solicitor Tom Hogan could have a look at the Home Rule Charter before Monday night’s meeting and offer his opinion to the supervisors. 

The way I read it is the motion to return escrow to St. Davids Golf Club  (and vote to approve the motion) don’t count . . . and the supervisors cannot make a new motion on Monday night because it would have to be placed on the agenda.  The St. Davids vote should simply be thrown out. If after further discussion with the township solicitor, a supervisor decides at some future meeting to make a similar motion, it needs to be placed on the agenda at least 8 hours in advance.  Comments?

JudgeNJury, on February 5th, 2010 wrote,

Tredyffrin’s Home Rule Charter requires the Board of Supervisors to list all matters to be considered at a Board meeting on the agenda for the meeting: “The Board shall cause to be prepared for each regular meeting an agenda of matters to be considered by the Board at such meeting, including pertinent background, which agenda, along with a copy of financial and other activity reports, shall be distributed to the public at the start of the meeting. The agenda shall be available at least eight hours prior to the start of the meeting.”

Township of Tredyffrin Home Rule Charter § 211(C) (http://www.tredyffrin.org/pdf/ordinances/home-rule-charter.pdf).

It seems to me that there is a good argument to be made that introducing and voting on the escrow issue without including it in the agenda violated the Home Rule Charter and, therefore, the vote is null and void.

All we’d need is a plaintiff with standing (a Township resident who would benefit from construction of the sidewalk might be the best bet) to file a lawsuit against the Board. The plaintiff could request (i) a declaration from the court (“declaratory judgment”) that the vote is null and void and (ii) an injunction prohibiting the Board from raising or voting on non-emergency matters that are not specifically included in the agenda for a meeting. Who’s game?

Tredyffrin’s Republican Candidate for State House 157 Withdraws from Race . . . Leaving me with the Question, Where is the Integrity and Honesty in this Township?

I have really struggled for the last 2 days as to how write this post.  On Wedneday night the TTRC held a straw poll which included the State House 157 race.  There were 3 candidates — Judy DiFilippo, Warren Kampf and Ken Buckwalter.  As a result of the straw poll, Judy did not feel that there was support from the Republican committee for her to continue in this race. 

Challenging myself to remain fair and balanced on issues, I feel compelled to speak out on this topic.  Sure, Judy and I have been the best of friends for nearly 20 years, so I openly admit to bias when I say that many Republican committee people of Tredyffrin Township simply ‘got it wrong’ on Wednesday night.  It escapes me why you would not support the person with the highest level of integrity, honesty and commitment of anyone that I know.  Judy is the kind of person who governed with honesty and fairness, as she did for 20 years as a member of the Board of Supervisors.  Judy doesn’t look at issues based on a political slant, or make decisions based on how many votes that she may ‘win’ or ‘lose’.  Judy didn’t just ‘serve’ the township, she was one of us . . . she loves this community and its residents, not because it was her ‘job’ but because she believed in us! 

But instead, many of the township Republican committee people cast their vote for Warren Kampf. Have you not been watching the actions of Mr. Kampf for the last 2 months; his decisions in regards to the BAWG report, the $50K cash offer from St. Davids, the political ‘cardboard check’ for the firefighters rather than restoring funding to the township budget, and then his latest decision . . . casting out policies and procedures of our local government in lieu of  ‘making up the rules’ and setting precedent for special treatment for a  country club. 

I know many of the Republican committee people personally so I am left wondering, when did integrity, honesty and commitment to this community and its voters stop mattering?  With her withdrawal from the race, Judy is no longer a choice for the Republican committee members. Before you take your vote to Chester County Republican Committee meeting on February 20, I would encourage you to seriously review the actions of Mr. Kampf on the Board of Supervisors (particularly during the last 2 months).  After review, I think that you should then look at Republican candidate Ken Buckwalter from Phoenixville.  I had the pleasure of meeting Ken and he represents that same type of commitment to the community as Judy.  He believes in serving all the residents with equal and measured leadership.  I want to see a May primary between current State House Rep  Paul Drucker (D) and Ken Buckwalter (R); they both represent experience, honesty and integrity.

Even as Judy makes the disappointing decision to leave the State House race, she does so with her brand of honesty and truthfulness.  Below is an email sent to her supporters:

Dear Friends –

As many of you know I have been seeking support as a candidate for the 157^th State House District.  I am writing to you to let you know that today I have officially withdrawn my name from consideration. 

A straw vote taken last evening showed that the majority of the Republican Committee members have decided to support one of two other candidates.  I have called both of them and wished them well as they endeavor to win a recommendation or an endorsement.

 I want to let you know how much I appreciate the support you gave me through your words of encouragement, by your willingness to allow me to use your name on my letterhead, or by saying, ‘How can I help?’.  

 I know not what the future holds, but I know I have been blessed with your friendship.

With deepest gratitude,

 Judy

According to Dan Kristie of the Daily Local, Supervisors Olson and Lamina Think Only Democrats Care About the St. Davids ‘Deal’

The following article by Dan Kristie in today’s Daily Local is an absolute must-read for the residents of Tredyffrin Township.  Apparently in addition to Supervisor Olson’s stance that St. Davids sideswalks go to nowhere (tell that to the Mt. Pleasant residents), he and Chair Lamina believe that the only people that care about the St. Davids issue are the Democrats!  I don’t know about you but I am outraged at the notion that some of our supervisors make decisions based on their political party affiliation and then proudly broadcast that to the media.  It is obvious that 3 of our supervisors (DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Donohue) do not feel similarly, however I assume that Supervisors Kampf and Richter share the sentiments of Supervisors Olson and Lamina.  Remember, this is not about sidewalks, it is about policy and procedures and our local government.  Even their fellow Supervisor DiBuonaventuro claims, “The biggest problem I have is that this was done in the dark.”

I think everyone needs to understand this situation . . . the Kings of the kingdom (Lamina, Kampf, Olson, Richter) have laid down the law.  I hate party politics and I believe that it has no business in the running of our local government.  Dan’s article says it all, not only do we have 4 rulers in this township (Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter), they will rule with complete disregard to those who are not Republicans.  I don’t care if you are an Independent, Democrat, Republican, or ‘party of purple’ – you should be outraged at this behavior.  Is this how you want your community ‘governed’ (sorry ‘ruled’)?  These 4 people and the unprecedented decision they made over St. Davids is just the beginning . . . !  Read the following article, and you come to your own conclusions.

Reminder that the the next Board of Supervisor Meeting is this Monday, February 8, 7:30 PM at the Township Building.  I have checked the agenda and there is not much on it — which, if you recall is where the ‘Kings’ do their best work.  Don’t put the issue on the agenda, hope for a low turnout and then take your majority vote and break the rules, change the rules or throw out the rules, all in the name of ‘government’!

Return of funds raising eyebrows in Tredyffrin

Published: Friday, February 5, 2010
By DAN KRISTIE, Staff Writer
TREDYFFRIN — The supervisors on Jan. 25 passed a resolution that, according to some township officials, directly conflicts with township policy. The supervisors voted 4-3 to release to the St. David’s Golf Club from a $25,000 escrow agreement. St. David’s, however, had not formally requested the return of this money. The township has always required developers and landowners to formally request the release of escrow funds, officials said. This, they said, marks the first time the township has released a land owner from an escrow agreement without having received a formal request from the landowner to do so.The $25,000 was supposed to cover the cost of installing a sidewalk along the north side of Upper Gulph Road, in the area between Strafford Avenue and Old Eagle School Road. Several years ago, St. David’s agreed to build the sidewalk in exchange for permission from the township to expand its clubhouse. St. David’s was supposed to have completed the sidewalk in 2008 but never began work on it.

Supervisors Vice Chairman Paul Olson made the motion on Jan. 25 to free St. David’s from the $25,000 obligation. Olson said that the residents along Upper Gulph Road had told him they didn’t want a sidewalk along their street. In light of this, he said, he believed there was no reason to require the golf club to build a sidewalk. “The sidewalk was projected to cost $50,000,” Olson said. “It’s just ridiculous to throw $50,000 along the side of the road for a sidewalk that starts nowhere and ends nowhere.” Some officials have estimated that the sidewalk could cost $80,000.

Mark Rhodes, the president of St. David’s, said that the golf club members have long been opposed to the club building sidewalks along Upper Gulph Road. He added that the golf club had made no formal request to the township to be relieved from the $25,000 obligation. Rhodes also said that he had “no knowledge that Paul Olson made any motion.” “We had no agreement with Paul Olson in any regard,” Rhodes said.

Tredyffrin requires all land holders that undertake new construction to build sidewalks along the roads that line their projects, and it has long been township policy to increase the amount of sidewalks and bike paths in the township. But Olson and several other supervisors are opposed to covering Tredyffrin with sidewalks. Olson said he believes sidewalks belong around schools. But, he said, installing them throughout the township would then require the township to expend additional taxpayer dollars for sidewalk mantainence.

Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro, who voted against Olson’s motion, said that the supervisors who voted in favor have effectively suspended the township’s procedure regarding escrow money. “This was not an issue of sidewalks — this was an issue of good procedure, and we circumvented that,” DiBuonaventuro said. “There was no procedure followed. None.”

Unlike some Chester County municipalities, Tredyffrin traditionally puts all escrow releases on its public meeting agenda. But the St. David’s release was not on the agenda. Rather, it came as the result of a motion that Olson made.

“The biggest problem I have is that this was done in the dark,” DiBuonaventuro said. He said that if St. David’s wanted the money back, it should have formally come before the supervisors and asked for the money. DiBuonaventuro added that he believes there is now nothing to stop developers from ignoring their escrow agreements with the township — or, from expecting the township to release them from land development obligations.

Township Manager Mimi Gleason said at the Jan. 25 meeting that returning the money to St. David’s would be precedent-setting. Olson, in an interview conducted this week, said he does not agree with this interpretation. “Just because you do it for someone doesn’t mean you have to do it for everyone,” he said.

Olson added that he believes only Democrats are concerned with the St. David’s deal. Supervisors Chairman Bob Lamina, who also voted in favor of the deal, concurred. All of the Tredyffrin Supervisors are Republicans. DiBuonaventuro said he believes the St. David’s deal has nothing to do with party affiliation. “Three Republicans on the board made the right decision,” DiBuonaventuro said. “This isn’t about being a Republican. This is about sound judgment.” Voting yes with Lamina and Olson were supervisors Warren Kampf and Evelyn Richter. Voting no with DiBuonaventuro were supervisors Michelle Kichline and Phil Donahue.

Another Angle on St. Davids Escrow Desision . . . STAP (Sidewalks, Trails & Paths) Committee Member Weighs In

Molly Duffy, member of the STAP (Sidewalks, Trails & Path) Committee looks at the recent Board of Supervisor decision in a different light.  What does this decision say to its residents about the future walkability of our community?  The STAP Committee thought that the supervisors shared their vision for a walking, biking landscape, but do they? Below is Molly’s letter to the editor that appears in this weeks edition the Main Line Suburban Life newspaper.

Tredyffrin supervisors missing the big picture

To the Editor:

Five years ago a handful of concerned Tredyffrin residents got together to talk about how we could make the township more walkable and bikable. The township agreed that this was a worthy goal. After all, 78.5 percent of residents who responded to the 2004 Parks Recreation and Open Space survey stated that they would be likely to use an interconnected townshipwide trail system in Tredyffrin designed for pedestrian, runners, skaters and bikers.

Later in 2005 the Board of Supervisors formally created the STAP (Sidewalks Trails and Paths) Committee and charged it with the mission of identifying priority trail and sidewalk areas, determining appropriate trail and sidewalk types, and researching funding options. This very committed and energized group of volunteers did just that. The township’s Green Routes Network can be viewed at www.tredyffrin.org. As a member of STAP I’m proud to say that our highest-priority sidewalk project will be under construction within a few months. New sidewalks will connect T/E Middle School, Conestoga High School, Daylesford Train Station, the YMCA, the Easttown Library and the village of Berwyn. Residents will no longer have to walk on the road and risk their lives to get to any of these locations, and the school district may be able to eliminate the cost of operating a few buses. Because of the dedication of STAP and the township’s very talented and effective staff, the township received a $2.8-million grant that will pay for this project. If STAP and the Board of Supervisors had not had the vision and patience to move ahead with this project, it would not have been shovel-ready and consequently it would not have received ARRA grant funds.

The Board of Supervisors’ Jan. 25, 2010 vote to forgive St. Davids Golf Club’s obligation to build a path along Upper Gulph Road, which is part of the Green Routes Network, makes me wonder if the township still cares about its future.

Transforming Tredyffrin, largely developed in the car-centric 1950s and 1960s, into a walkable, bikable community is no small task. A best-case scenario estimate would put completion of the Green Routes Network at 15 years. Nevertheless it is a task we must complete if we want Tredyffrin to be a place where people want to live and work in the future. Yes, it will cost something. Perhaps it will be grant-funded. Perhaps it will not. Regardless, it is a wise investment in our future.

It is standard practice for new developments in Tredyffrin and elsewhere to include sidewalks in their plans. For many reasons people don’t want to rely on their cars to take them every place they need to go. People of all ages call Tredyffrin home. Many are too young to drive, some are unable to drive, and many more just want another option for getting from here to there. The ability to walk to school, church, work, the library, the dentist’s office or shopping gives us all, young and old, a sense of independence and some decent exercise.

The Green Routes Network will never include every street in the township. Instead it strives to connect residents to popular destinations. In the next few years, the Chester Valley Trail will cross our township on its way from Downingtown to Valley Forge. If we plan proper linkages, many Tredyffrin residents will be able to safely walk or bike to the trail from their front doors.

Recently the national news has focused on studies showing that while real-estate values have dropped, homes with a high walkability score have dropped much less. It is becoming standard for real-estate listings to show a home’s “walk score” because many homebuyers want to be able to walk or bike to a destination. You can find your home’s walk score at www.walkscore.com.

If we don’t begin to implement the Green Routes Network that the board of supervisors recently approved in the updated Comprehensive Plan and reaffirmed in the Green Tredyffrin Resolution, we’re taking a step backwards and depriving our children and grandchildren of a livable, desirable community.

Sincerely,

Molly Duffy, Paoli

Save Ardmore Coalition’s Readers are Now Following Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson & Richter!

Save Ardmore Coalition is following Tredyffrin’s Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter.  Yes, our own YouTube stars are playing to a larger audience — the Board of Supervisors meeting clips are now on Save Ardmore Coalition’s website.  www.saveardmorecoalition.org   I thank Carla for presenting our local stars with greater play time.   And remember, Warren Kampf, one of the infamous ‘4’ is now in the race for State House 157.  To go directly to the YouTube post on Save Ardmore Coalition site, click on this link:

http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/4114

As I See It: Control of Tredyffrin Township is Now in the Hands of Four People . . . as published in today’s Main Line Suburban Life

In today’s Main Line Suburban Life newspaper is my As I See It article, “Control of Tredyffrin Township is now in the hands of four people”.  Since Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting on January 25, I have continued to do research on the motion to return escrow to St. Davids Golf Club.  I have now determined that Tredyffrin Township has  (1) historically not returned escrow without a written request; and (2) has not returned escrow without the completion of the project and review by the township engineer.  That is until January 25, 2010. 

Based on the actions of 4 supervisors (Bob Lamina, Warren Kampf, Paul Olson and E.J. Richter) precedent has been now set for all unfinished projects (and the outstanding escrow) as well as all future projects in Tredyffrin Township.  For those who did not attend or watch the Board of Supervisors meeting, I would encourage you to catch a re-run.  I hope to have YouTube sections of the St. Davids Golf Club section of the meeting containing the motion to return escrow, available later today.

 Please understand that this issue is not sidewalks; it is about government policy and procedure and what can happen when control is placed in the hands of a few people.

   As I See It: Control of Tredyffrin Township is now in the hands of four people

Published: Wednesday, February 3, 2010

By Pattye Benson

I preface the following article by saying that there are very few times in my life that I have been left speechless but Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors meeting of Jan. 25 was one of them. For me, that meeting represented community injustice of the worst kind.

I attended Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors meeting on Monday, Jan. 25. In the days leading up to this meeting, there had been scuttlebutt that Supervisor Paul Olson would once again bring up St. Davids Golf Club and the sidewalk issue. The word on the street was that Supervisor Olson intended to make a motion to return the $25,000 escrow to St. Davids. As part of St. Davids Golf Club’s 2005 land-development contract with the township, the country club was to build sidewalks. Since July 2008 St. Davids had been in default for failure to build the sidewalks. The St. Davids sidewalk issue had been thoroughly discussed at the Board of Supervisors meeting of Dec. 7. At the December meeting, questions had swirled about a suggested $50,000 cash offer from St. Davids Golf Club contained in the BAWG (Budget Advisory Working Group) report. Although there was no written evidence of the offer (which was to exchange $50K in lieu of building sidewalks), there was public outcry from many in the community about the St. Davids offer and the message its acceptance would send to contractors and builders doing business in Tredyffrin Township.

I did not think with the St. Davids Golf Club sidewalk history and community debate that it would be possible for Supervisor Olson to make a motion to return St. Davids’ escrow. There had been no notification to the public and the topic did not appear on the meeting agenda. Yet under “new” supervisor matters, Supervisor Olson did make a motion to return the escrow; Chair Bob Lamina seconded the motion and called for a supervisor vote. Supervisor Michelle Kichline attempted to offer her opinion on the motion but Chair Lamina silenced her and instead went to the audience for comment.

Bob Whalen, chair of the Planning Commission, explained that the sidewalks were part of the 2005 contractual agreement with St. Davids for their land-development project. He offered that representatives from the country club had returned to the Planning Commission asking for forgiveness on the sidewalks but the Planning Commission, considering precedent, voted against the club. Mr. Whalen further explained that there are currently at least six other projects in the township with unreturned escrow due to unfinished projects. To return escrow to St. Davids would now “open the floodgates” for contractors to request the release of escrow without completion of projects. Mr. Whalen adamantly opposed the motion. I then asked the supervisors if St. Davids had presented a written request to return their escrow. Although Supervisor Olson offered that he had “talked to some people at St. Davids,” the other supervisors confirmed that there was nothing in writing; in other words St. Davids Golf Club never asked for the return of their escrow!

Other audience members said passionately that supervisors cannot make a motion on a matter that was not on the agenda … that procedurally you must advertise the matter to the public … that you cannot just gift the country club with $80,000 (the estimated value of the sidewalk project). Several in the audience suggested that Supervisor Olson orchestrated the motion on Jan. 25 to coincide with the important Tredyffrin/Easttown School District meeting held at the same time; therefore expecting fewer residents in attendance at the supervisors meeting. Remembering that St. Davids Golf Club and the return of the escrow were not on the supervisor-meeting agenda; Supervisor Olson (and other supervisors) might have concluded that residents would attend the important school-district budget meeting in lieu of the township meeting, thus allowing for less opposition. But to those of us who did attend the supervisors meeting, it was obvious that Supervisor Olson (and possibly other supervisors) had contacted a few local St. Davids residents who opposed the sidewalks, as they came prepared with written statements of support for the motion. One of my many questions is: why should a select group of residents receive preferential notification of the meeting rather than full and public disclosure to all?

Following resident comments, Supervisor Kichline, a municipal attorney and former member of the township’s Zoning Hearing Board, spoke passionately about procedural law and the inappropriateness of Supervisor Olson’s motion, and moved to table the motion until these serious legal and procedural questions could be answered by the township solicitor. Chair Lamina again dismissed Supervisor Kichline and would not allow her motion “to table the discussion” to come to vote. Supervisor John DiBuonaventuro likewise argued against the return of St. Davids escrow, citing multiple reasons as to why the Board of Supervisors should not pass the motion. Township Manager Mimi Gleason added, when asked, that the passing of this motion would set precedent for all future township projects.

Having heard the comments from the residents and stated objections from Supervisors Kichline and DiBuonaventuro, Chair Lamina called for a vote to return the escrow to St. Davids Golf Club. Supervisor Phil Donohue along with Supervisors DiBuonaventuro and Kichline voted against the motion, and Supervisors Paul Olson, Bob Lamina, Warren Kampf and E.J. Richter voted for the motion. The motion carried 4-3 in favor to return the escrow to the country club.

Tredyffrin’s Board of Supervisors meeting of Jan. 25 was a rude awakening for me … I learned that in our township it is OK for four individuals (Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter) to make up the rules. At one point, when Supervisor Kichline offered that in Tredyffrin Township, the Planning Commission actually had the “last say” on the land-development process rather than the Board of Supervisor, Chair Lamina declared that he thinks that the Board of Supervisors will take back their control. Supervisors DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Donohue did not watch silently as the “Bloc of 4” (Olson, Lamina, Kampf, and Richter) acted against Tredyffrin’s operating principles. Supervisors DiBuonaventuro, Kichline and Donohue understand that personal responsibility means doing the right thing when others do not.

The issue is not sidewalks; it is about following government policy and procedure. Historically Tredyffrin Township has never returned escrow without written request. In addition Tredyffrin Township has never returned escrow without completion of the work and review by the township engineer. That is until now. However, I like others on Jan. 25 discovered that our government policies and procedures do not apply if you are Supervisors Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter.

This is a sad reality … but if you are the “Bloc of 4,” you rule the township. Your other fellow supervisors do not matter, the public does not matter, the Planning Commissioners do not matter, the township solicitor does not matter and the township manager does not matter. These four will get to make the rules (or break the rules) as they see fit. As a government, its elected officials are to guide Tredyffrin Township. While politics play an important role in choosing our leaders and charting our priorities, politics should play no role in the rules of governing. The community entrusts the supervisors to care for its assets and its reputation. Our elected officials must conserve and enhance it, or they fail in their fundamental responsibility as evidenced by the decision of Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter to return the escrow to St. Davids Golf Club.

What does the action of Supervisors Lamina, Kampf, Olson and Richter say for the future of Tredyffrin Township? What does it say to the residents or to all the many volunteers who serve on our township boards and committees? To take advantage of loopholes, quick fixes and shortcuts that will compromise the public trust … To base decisions such as the unprecedented return of escrow to St. Davids Golf Club on how much you can get away with … Integrity in the broadest sense should lead the actions of our elected officials. A moment of choice is a moment of trust and it is the testing point of character and competence.

If Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisors meeting of Jan. 25 is any indicator, I question the transparency of Tredyffrin’s local government, fair dealing practices, full disclosure of information and public communication. Don’t the residents of Tredyffrin Township deserve better from some of its leaders?

Pattye Benson lives in Tredyffrin Township.

Control of Tredyffrin Township in the Hands of 4 . . . Residents Will Now Play by Their Rules!

I preface the following post by saying that there are very few times in my life that I have been left speechless but tonight was one of them.  For me, tonight’s Board of Supervisor Meeting represented community injustice of the worse kind.  If there was ever a subject for Community Matters, this is it!

Tonight I attended Tredyffrin Township’s Board of Supervisor Meeting. Over the last few days, there had been scuttlebutt that Supervisor Paul Olson would once again bring up St. Davids Golf Club and the sidewalks. Although the agenda for tonight’s meeting did not include St. Davids Golf Club, my understanding was that Supervisor Olson intended to make a motion to return the $25,000 escrow to the country club. As part of St. Davids contractual land development agreement with the township, the country club was to build sidewalks. Since July 2008, the country club has been in default for failure to build the sidewalks.

If you recall, at the December 1 Board of Supervisor Meeting I questioned the supervisors concerning the $50,000 cash offer from St. Davids Golf Club which appeared in the pages of the BAWG report. This ‘offer’ (of which there was no written evidence) became widely discussed on Community Matters and in the Main Line Suburban and Daily Local newspapers. There was an outcry from many in the community about this ‘offer’ from St. Davids and the message its acceptance would say to contractors and builders doing business in Tredyffrin Township.

Tonight under the category of ‘new’ supervisor matters, Supervisor Olson made a motion which Supervisor Lamina seconded to ‘return the $25,000 escrow money’ to St. Davids Golf Club. Supervisor Lamina started to call for a vote as Supervisor Kichline asked to offer her opinion. Supervisor Lamina cut off Supervisor Kichline and went to the audience for comment.

Bob Whalen, chair of the Planning Commission spoke and explained that the sidewalks were part of the contractual agreement with St. Davids GC for their land development project. Representatives from the country club had returned to the Planning Commission asking for forgiveness on the sidewalks but the Planning Commission fearing that precedent would be set, voted against the club. Mr. Whalen explained that there are at least six other projects in the township with escrow money that has not been returned because of unfinished projects. Allowing escrow money to return to St. Davids GC will now allow the other contractors to be off the hook, for completing those projects. He adamantly opposed the motion. Next I asked the supervisors if St. Davids GC had come to the Township and asked for their $25,000 escrow money to be returned. Although Supervisor Olson said that he had ‘talked to some people at St. Davids’, the other supervisors confirmed that there was nothing written from St. Davids, in other words the country club never asked for the return of their escrow money!

Other audience members spoke passionately that you cannot make a motion on a matter that was not on the agenda . . . that procedurally you must advertise the matter to the public . . . that you cannot just give a country club a ‘gift’ of $80,000 (the estimated cost to build the sidewalks). Several audience members suggested that Supervisor Olson orchestrated the motion to coincide with the fact that many members of the public would be at the TESD meeting and unable to attend the Supervisor meeting. Remember St. Davids Golf Club was not on the agenda so it was believed that very few residents would attend (making it that much easier to push the motion through). It was obvious that Supervisor Olson had notified local St. Davids residents so they came prepared with written statements that agreed with his motion. Rather than full disclosure to the public by advertising the St. Davids sidewalks discussion, Supervisor Olson (+ Kampf, Lamina and Richter) preferred to tell only a select few residents. 

Following resident comments, Supervisor Kichline, an attorney and an ex-member of the Zoning Board spoke passionately about procedural law and the inappropriateness of the proposed motion, stating further discussion was needed with the township solicitor. Supervisor DiBuonaventuro likewise argued against the motion, suggesting for many reasons why the Board of Supervisors should not pass the motion. Township Manager Gleason added, when asked, that the passing of this motion would set precedent for all future township projects.

Hearing the comments from the residents and objections from Supervisors Kichline and DiBuonaventuro, Supervisor Lamina called for a vote – Supervisors Donohue, DiBuonaventuro, Kichline voted against the motion, and Supervisors Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter voted for the motion. The motion carried 4-3 in favor.

Tonight was a rude awakening for me . . . I learned that in Tredyffrin Township it is OK for 4 individuals (Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter) to make up the rules as they go along. At one point, when Supervisor Kichline offered that in Tredyffrin Township, the Planning Commission actually had the ‘last say’ on the land development process rather than the Board of Supervisors – Supervisor Lamina declared that he thinks that the Board of Supervisors will take back their control. I discovered tonight that the government procedures do not apply if you are Supervisors Olson, Lamina, Kampf and Richter.

This is a sad reality . . . but if you are the ‘Block of 4’ (Olson, Lamina, Kampf, Richter), you rule the township. Your other fellow supervisors do not matter, the public does not matter, the Planning Commissioners do not matter, the township solicitor does not matter, and the township manager does not matter. These 4 will get to make the rules (or break the rules) as they see fit.

What does tonight’s actions say for the future of our township? What does it say for the residents or all the many volunteers who serve on our township boards and committees? If tonight is any evidence, transparency of our local government, full disclosure of information, public communication . . . all gone.

The Clock is Ticking Down . . . Where Will you be Tonight?

The clock is ticking down to the final Board of Supervisor Meeting of 2009. Tonight’s meeting, 7:30 PM in Keene Hall, Township Building, will contain the approval of the 2010 township budget.  Remembering the last 2 meetings, I expect that tonight’s meeting will again be electrifying, dramatic, emotional . . . and any other adjectives you care to add.  I suggest that you either plan on attending or watch from home.  Remember folks, this is our township and our money that we are talking about!

How will each of the 7 supervisors decide to vote on next-years budget? I recall the draft budget was approved 4-2 (Bob Lamina was absent) Will the fire company’s see their budget contribution reinstated?  I just checked and the ePetition to reinstate the firefighters contribution is at 513 signatures.  There’s still time to  join these residents and show your support for the firefighters, click here to sign the petition. 

Do you think that the appeals from the residents and business community will make a difference in how each supervisor will cast his/her vote? What’s that saying about the “will of the people”?  Will that be recognized? How about the reinstatement of the staff longevity pay . . . will that be included in the final budget?  Do you remember the passionate plea from a township staff member at the last Board of Supervisor meeting; she suggested that some of the employees may be receiving as much as a 14% cut if the proposed budget passes.  Can we expect further discussion about St. Davids Golf Club and the $50K offer in the BAWG report?   There was a subcommittee created to discuss the sidewalk issue; will the public receive an update?

Tonight’s meeting will honor 3 supervisors who are retiring – John Shimrak, Mark DiFeliciantonio and my best friend, Judy DiFilippo.  John stepped in to finish out Bill DeHaven’s term and Mark completes his term, serving 4 years.  Tonight is a landmark meeting for Judy; it will mark her 20th (and final) year of serving on the Board of Supervisors – what a remarkable accomplishment of service to this community!  I am sure that you join me in thanking all three for their time and commitment.

In case you missed it, here is the agenda for tonight’s meeting.