A few days ago, there was an 0p-ed written by Mr. Barney Leonard, regarding setting the record straight. Unfortunately, the Leonard piece only raised more questions about what is going on in Pocopson government. A Right-to-Know request provided me with copies of emails and legal bills from the township solicitor’s office. What they revealed is that Mr. Leonard had contacted and requested that Ross Unruh, the township solicitor, find someone to conduct a study regarding switching to a township manager style of government.
Granted, there may be value in exploring a solution such as this, however, the concern is that Mr Leonard switched tactics and now refers to it as an ‘efficiency study’ after receiving many negative public comments regarding this study or even the need for it. The contract does not mention anything to do with efficiency. https://chaddsfordlive.com/2015/02/10/pocopson-supervisors-ok-efficiency-study/.
Mr. Unruh charged the Pocopson taxpayers around $3,800 to find someone to conduct the study, and then another $2,000 was spent on actually completing it. Additionally, not all of the supervisors wanted to have this study done as Mr. Leonard indicated in his piece earlier this week. The vote for the study was 2-1.
Another interesting piece of information that came out of my Right-to-Know request was that all of the emails are between Mr. Leonard and the attorney. We have three supervisors on the board, and all of them should have been made aware of what the attorney had to say regarding township matters. Keeping them out of the loop raises suspicion, whether it’s warranted or not. That is why a transparent government is always the best.
The results of the study were finally released Thursday and may be accessed from the township's website at www.pocopson.org. There is no surprise that the study reported that a township manager is not needed in Pocopson. Heck, I could have told them that, and it wouldn’t have cost them a dime. It does indicate in the report that out of the three supervisors, only one of them wanted a township manager. Since Mr. Leonard commissioned the study, it is only reasonable to conclude that he was that supervisor.
Another interesting fact in the report is in regards to the Barnard House. The author chose his words carefully while broaching the subject and concludes that it is not a suitable venue for a township building. There is also some dialogue on the ridiculous idea of having the administrative offices on the second floor, which would make them totally inaccessible to those who are disabled or handicapped.
In one of the report's five recommendations, it states that the township should prepare a master plan for the relocation of its administrative offices. I really wonder if Mr. Leonard will take that advice or will he continue to spend good money after bad on a project that has a never-ending appetite for money. Remember, he was recently quoted on this very site as saying that this project cannot fail. Unfortunately, it failed $611,000 ago, with no end in sight.
The township installed hardwood floors in the very beginning of the project. There was no heat in the building, which resulted in warped floors – so the hardwood needed to be replaced again. Over $20K was spent on four single-pane windows. I still can’t believe that the township signed a contract for time and materials, AKA a license to steal. Melton, the architect, has made over $120K to date, and when he found out the township had hired a space planner, he told the board he could do that as well. What has he done for the first $120K? The mistakes and waste go on and on here, unfortunately.
While the $5,800 that was spent to obtain an ‘efficiency study’ report was a waste, maybe it will stop the insanity. Since the election for two of the three supervisors is next week, it is possible that a majority of the board will change. The most reasonable thing to do at this point would be to wait until after the November elections before making any further spending decisions in this matter. That will allow those who are actually going to be on the board to be involved in the process. It also allows the taxpayers to indicate whether they are fine with higher taxes and out-of-control spending, or do they want real change. We can only hope that common sense will prevail here.
Sean C. Rafferty
Pocopson Township
(9 votes, average: 3.78 out of 5)
Loading...
Facts:
1. The $5K legal fee was not about the administrative study. This was for the creation of a new employee manual which is required by law. Pocopson’s had not been updated since 2009. Meetings between me and our labor law attorney are clearly documented. Our solicitor interviewed and recommended the administrative consultant with no further involvement.
2. When a Supervisor is also an employee, that employee cannot be privy to the emails between the solicitor and other supervisors on specific personnel matters. This is required by Pennsylvania ethics laws.
3. The Barnard House numbers recited does not include the fact that contributions of over $300,000, including a state grant, Kennett Underground Railroad and private citizens’ donations have paid for half of this. Additionally it does not account for the thousands of volunteer man-hours by residents of Pocopson and other townships that have contributed significant dollar value to this project since 2008.
4. Multiple and frivolous Right-to-Know requests to further one’s political agenda, while legal, cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars in attorney fees and many wasted employee hours that could be better spent on addressing fact-based issues. The Township prides itself on its transparency, and provides fact-based information to any resident’s request at the many committee and Board of Supervisor meetings during the year and through any number of channels. Interpreting email correspondence, or independent opinions and self-interpretation of partial information, does not include the discussions and decisions by the board in public meetings or in committee work sessions. All Township business is discussed in public and held at regular and/or special advertised meetings.
5. Finally, many residents of the Township are asking me, “Who are these “endorsed” candidates? What do they believe? What are their credentials for being a Supervisor? What is their vision for Pocopson Township, and why haven’t we heard anything about them?” Both refuse to participate in a public debate. Neither have volunteered for any Pocopson committee or demonstrated any investment of time for the Township. It is concerning that both are completely unknown candidates to much of the Township. How can we trust candidates with no involvement in our community that would be expected to hold the reins of a “working supervisor” municipality? This is a 20 to 40 hour per week position of governance and responsibility, and the residents deserve a resume.
Any readers concerned about Mr. Rafferty’s interpretive allegations, I will respond with the facts. I will not reply to any more politically motivated inflammatory statements. I choose to respond to you directly and I will see you at the Polls.
Thank You,
Barney Leonard
Chair, Board of Supervisors, Pocopson Township
I am a bit perplexed by Mr. Leonard’s distortion of the facts in this forum, which is why he probably does not like it when folks like me learn the truth through the right to know process. The employee manual is being reviewed by Mr. Unruh’s office but it has nothing to do with the township manager study, or the “efficiency study” as Mr. Leonard likes to refer to it. On page 10 of the township manager study, it reads that the employee manual appears to be sufficient, but a few sections may need to be updated. Also mentioned is the fact that the solicitor indicated that one of the other attorneys in his office has public sector experience, and is in the process of reviewing the manual. Read it for yourself on page 10 of the study.
The emails that Mr. Leonard is referring to are in regards to the township manager study and the EIT increase that he pushed to implement. Even though there are two other supervisors on the board, the entire dialog was between him and Mr. Unrue. Why didn’t he carbon copy the other two members? If there was a conflict with one supervisor, he could have at least copied the other one. Maybe his remarks about Ms. Stumpo are the reason he kept them to himself. Remember folks, this is all public information and you have the right to see it. I will forward all of the documentation that I have to anyone who requests it. What does concern me most is the secrecy surrounding the study, and the 150% increase in the tax rate without any public debate. When I asked Mr. Leonard to allow the tax increase and the Barnard House issues to be placed on the ballot for a public vote, he told Andrea Gosselin and me that he was adamantly against doing that. Why shouldn’t the people have a choice in what happens in their township? In 2007 we were allowed to chose whether or not we wanted an EIT, an almost 70% of Pocopson voters overwhelmingly voted against adding an earned income tax. You would think that the will of the people mattered here but in reality it did not.
How does Mr. Leonard pride himself on transparency, when he misrepresents a study to hire a township manager and then portrays it as an “efficiency study”? Read the Op/Ed and click on the link and see where Mr. Leonard publicly called it an “efficiency study”, when it had nothing to do with being efficient. These are his words folks, not mine. Mr. Leonard contacted the solicitor and paid him to find the gentleman from Lafayette College to actually conduct the study. Of course the study then cost us an additional $2000, and there was a back door clause for another $6000 if hiring a manger was recommended by the study. The idea of hiring a manger for 6 employees, some of whom are part time was so ridiculous that even the gentleman who conducted the study couldn’t recommend hiring one in good faith. Once again, don’t take my word for it, read the study at http://www.pocopson.org and learn the truth for yourself.
The interesting thing about the political endorsement from the party is that Mr. Leonard wanted it very badly, that is until he learned that he had not earned it. Mr. Leonard was interviewed by multiple members of the committee, and provided the same opportunity as the others to explain to the committee why he should have been selected. There were five candidates who were vetted, and two of those candidates were endorsed. Being truthful is very important to the board when they interview a candidate. It’s hard to accept that someone is fiscally conservative and even a member of the Republican Party, when the evidence shows that is anything but the truth. Remember folks, this isn’t personal; it’s all about what is in the best interest of Pocopson. I think as a person, Mr. Leonard is very nice man and nothing that I have said about him is personal, but we can’t afford his wasteful spending agenda, or the way that he conducts township business. There are three board members, and they must collaborate together to solve the problems of our township, while being respectful to those whom they serve. Pocopson is the greatest place to live in Pennsylvania, even though I know I am a bit prejudiced on this subject. The township doesn’t collect our trash, our government offices have limited hours, and there is no local police service. In all respect, we are a limited service township and that should be reflected in the amount of taxes that we pay. We can’t continue to dump money into the Barnard House when an expert just advised us that it is not a suitable township building. We have spent over $611,000 on the project, and Mr. Leonard just wrote that an additional $300,000 was spent on the project from donations and grants. That doesn’t include the additional million or so more that will be needed to finish the project. That is not good common sense by anyone’s standard. Most of us here love Pocopson just the way it is, and we do not want to see dramatic changes. Mr. Leonard only recently moved here Wynnewood, so I understand that his experience is more related to the Main Line. It’s not good or bad; it’s just very different from what most folks around here want. Keep are roads safe and in good repair, and don’t allow developers to get out of hand with their building projects. That is the majority of what I hear from folks in the township.
Mr. Leonard asks who are the endorsed candidates; I will tell you that there have been three sets of emails that have gone out over the last few weeks that have provided folks with a great deal of information. We also just delivered the Pocopson Gazette, along with our sample ballot which is dropped off at the homes of registered Republican’s right before the election. It too provides bios and other interesting information on the candidates. Mr. Leonard talks about experience, but he himself had none when he was appointed to the board 11 months ago. Our endorsed candidates have over 75 years of experience combined working as managers in large US corporations. The candidate running against Mr. Leonard has been involved in municipal insurance for decades, and has saved numerous townships millions of dollars. She even ran the workmans comp. program in the City of Philadelphia. If that experience doesn’t matter, then I really don’t have anymore to say.
Neither of the endorsed candidates running for office has ever been asked to debate anyone; that statement is nothing but prevarication on the part of Mr. Leonard. I’ve been a committeeman in Pocopson for over 6 years, and a debate has never even been suggested by anyone, even though I fully support the idea of debates. If the candidates had been approached about a debate earlier, I am certain that both endorsed Republican candidates would have gladly participated, even though no one is running against one of our candidates. Once again, it is interesting that the debate idea comes up when it’s too late to debate due to time constraints. I’ll say it again folks, investigate the facts for yourself. Knowledge is power. Please come out and show your support on Tuesday, May 19, 2015. Hope to see you at the polls.
Sean C. Rafferty
Pocopson Twp.
Hi everyone, I am writing in response to Barney Leonard’s comment above regarding my refusal to participate in a public debate. As of this date, I have not been asked to attend such a debate so I am unclear as to where this perception is originating from.
I am very excited about the opportunity to run for the six-year term supervisor position and serve Pocopson Township. I believe that my 30 plus years of senior leadership positions in large corporations, combined with my local community Board membership (which has included many positive interactions with Pocopson Township employees), supports my qualifications for this seat. I look forward to meeting you at the Polls on Tuesday!
Elaine DiMonte