About awittchen

I'm a professional harpist and a consultant in the field of sustainability. I have a wide variety of interests, from theater to history (especially Civil War history) to politics, math, science, technology, needle arts. About the only thing that doesn't interest me is sports. Low Boredom Threshold describes how my mind works-always interested in new ideas, new directions and new solutions to ongoing problems. And once in a while, a little snark.

How a Shenanigan Works

The Ida-delayed Lower Saucon Township council meeting took place on Thursday, September 9 before a decidedly unimpressively-sized audience.  In fact, the room of about 15-20 people dwindled considerably after the introduction of the junior council persons for the 2021-22 school year.  Once they were introduced and appointed, the six students left.

The remaining ten or so audience members soldiered on.  Natasha Manbeck from McMahon Associates presented the final Active Transportation Plan funded by the WalkWorks Grant that McMahon Associates had put together for the township.  It included three categories of projects:  currently ongoing ones such as the Meadows Road bridge replacement, early action items that are of lower cost and less complexity, and other projects that will require more time and more cost.  There was not much time spent in detailing these projects so I suggest you take some time to look at the finished plan on the township’s website.

Two financial items were covered: presentation and review of the capital improvement plan 2022-2026 and a review of investment options.  The second item was particularly obscure, dealing with various financial instruments that could be used in the township’s bank account based on the fact that apparently the bank will begin charging additional fees if things stay as they are.  With no accompanying visual aids, it was not clear at all what the differences were.  Mrs. Stauffer tried to get some clarification, but that was fruitless. Since neither subject apparently required a vote, the Council moved on with just concerned-looking head-nodding.

After approving some Saucon Rail Trail events, the Council moved to cleaning up some more business left over from the fire service ordinance last month.  According to township requirements, Special Fire Police need to be appointed by resolution of the Council.  At the current time, the approved Special Fire Police include members of the Steel City Fire Company as well as Lower Saucon Fire Rescue.  Since the township is no longer utilizing the services of Steel City, it was necessary to rescind the previous appointments of all the Special Fire Police and then reappoint the LSFR Special Fire Police.  This was done by a vote of 5-0. 

After the vote, Mr. Kevin Kalman, Steel City Fire Police Captain, rose to object to the fact that he was having difficulty joining LSFR because their regulations require that he resign his membership in Steel City to be considered for LSFR.  Several Council members, particularly Mr. Carocci, pointed out that it was his decision to make and that LSFR did not need to have members who also belong to other fire companies since LSFR has mutual assistance agreements with other companies.

Moving On . . .

Following approval of a resolution to submit an application for a grant to Northampton County for a public works storage building, the Council approved a resolution proposed by Mr. Banonis that the Township give priority in the purchasing of items to those manufactured in the United States, subject to some possible exceptions for the inability to find equivalent items in either the U.S. or other democratic countries.  The word “democratic” was not defined. It will be interesting to see how this new requirement is applied when the Council takes up the purchase and installation of additional audio-visual equipment to provide interactive video for future meetings. Most electronics equipment is not made in the U.S. these days. 

Mrs. DeLeon had requested that a discussion of a mask mandate in the Township building and particularly for the Council meetings be added to the agenda.  Of course, as happens with discussions of this matter at other public meetings these days, at this point the conversation took a turn into an alternative universe as we were treated to all kinds of ridiculous rationales as to why this was unworkable or undemocratic or unhealthy (really?).  Absolutely no acknowledgement that acting out of a concern for one’s neighbor or one’s own children was a value that the Council might want to promote.  No acknowledgement from Mr. Carocci, Mr. Banonis or Mrs. Yerger that they gave a rap about the health of those attending Council meetings or doing business at the township building.  We even were treated to two township residents with disgustingly selfish justifications for why the poor little dears couldn’t stand to wear a mask and the old reliable argument about “freedumb.”  

I’m sure Mrs. DeLeon knew that her motion to require masks was DOA when she looked around the room and noticed that of the about 20 or so people there, only 3 (Mrs. Stauffer, Mrs. DeLeon and your trusty blogger) were wearing masks. And of course, it was voted down, 2-3, only Mrs. DeLeon and Mrs. Stauffer voting yes. But I give them both props for at least trying to show concern for the health and safety of their fellow citizens.  And on behalf of my two grandchildren, ages 1 and 5, I thank them as well.

A Classic Saucon Shenanigan

Now here’s where a classic Saucon Shenanigan comes in.  Following the vote on masks, Mrs. Stauffer suggested that an alternative solution might be to require that residents offer proof of vaccination before attending the meetings and, if they didn’t, that they would have to wear a mask.  That was met with another pile of bogus objections but the most bogus was Mr. Banonis’ claim that Mrs. Stauffer couldn’t offer a motion because the subject wasn’t on the agenda and the Sunshine Law, blah-blah-blah.  Mrs. Stauffer did not make the motion.

Watch this clever trick.  Within just a few minutes, Mr. Banonis made a motion to task Ms. Huhn with looking for funds for the projects in the Active Transportation Plan, to talk with the Public Works Department about what they could do on their own and to initiate talks with PennDOT about their possible partnership in implementation.  Wait. What? That wasn’t on the agenda.  You can’t do that.  Mrs. Stauffer and Mrs. DeLeon quickly pointed out the hypocrisy involved.  But not to fear.  Here comes Solicitor Treadwell to the rescue.  Apparently you can make motions that are not on the agenda as long as “the matter is de minimis in nature and does not involve the expenditure of funds or entering into a contract or agreement”.

So—-Mrs. Stauffer’s motion really would have been in order?  But it was only when Mr. Banonis made his motion that the Solicitor felt compelled to jump in and offer legal counsel so that he could go ahead with what he wanted?  See – shenanigans.

Incidentally, these new revisions to the Sunshine Law are going to really put a crimp in Mr. Banonis’ and Mr. Carocci’s style.  If you recall, it was as a non-agenda item during Council member reports that Mr. Carocci moved last year that the footnote about the requirements for the two fire companies to merge before they received funding be added to the 2021 budget. That’s clearly out of line now.  Score one for good government.

Looking Ahead

As mentioned before, the agenda for the September 15 meeting includes a report on the quote received for additional A/V equipment to livestream future Council meetings along with the ability for remote viewers to participate.  It will be interesting to see how committed to transparent government this Council really is.  Zoom meetings over the past year have averaged around 30-40 attendees, occasionally quite a few more.  With the fire company issue resolved, that number has dropped dramatically with in-person meetings.  Hellertown Borough does this.  Will LST?

One More Item

Just a reminder that we have not heard any more about the data breach investigation that was mentioned at the July meeting.  It’s not on the upcoming agenda.  What’s up with that?

Next Township Council Meeting – Wednesday, October 6, 2021 – 6:30 PM at Town Hall

Next General Election – Tuesday, November 2, 2021

Divorce, Lower Saucon Style

Lower Saucon Township Council held its August 18, 2021, meeting in person again and to the surprise of virtually no one in the packed meeting room, voted to designate Lower Saucon Fire Rescue (LSFR) as the sole provider of fire services within the township, ending its relationship with Steel City Volunteer Fire Company.  The Council had requested Solicitor Lincoln Treadwell to prepare an ordinance to that effect following the July 21 meeting.

Because it was an ordinance, it was necessary to conduct an official hearing before the vote on the ordinance.  Scott Nocek, president of Steel City, rose to request that the Council delay the vote on the ordinance to the September 1 meeting. This was rather startling since the Council has been attempting to get Steel City to merge with LSFR since at least last summer, even adding footnotes to the township’s 2021 budget outlining criteria for each fire company to receive township funding in order to incentivize the merger.  After two meetings in a row where Steel City’s reluctance to? obstruction of? the merger had been outlined in detail, it wasn’t surprising that the question on the Council members’ minds, as well as I’m sure the bulk of the audience, seemed to be, “Why?  Why delay further?” 

It became clear that there had been a meeting of the two fire companies on August 3 to further discuss the merger.  Out of that came a request for Steel City to do some required paperwork to complete the merger.  But by the time of the August 18 meeting, the paperwork had still not been completed and submitted.   There then followed a long and often contentious discussion about who did or didn’t do what, by when, and why between Council members and Mr. Nocek.  There was reference back to an April 15 letter that Attorney Treadwell had sent to Steel City requesting information on some items that had appeared on Steel City’s 990 form that had still not received a response.  Mr. Nocek said he had the response with him that night and turned it over to Mr. Treadwell but that begged the question of why it took 4 months to produce the response.

Needless to say, nothing in the hearing changed anyone’s mind.  After closing the hearing, the Council voted unanimously to adopt the ordinance and LSFR became the township’s sole provider of fire services.

What followed was a discussion of how the 9-1-1 Center would be informed of the change in status even though the ordinance did not take effect for 10 days.  The Council authorized that a letter be sent informing them of the status change and that LSFR Chief Johnson make a call to the 9-1-1 Center immediately after the meeting, adding Fire Company 16 (LSFR) to the structured dispatch so there would be no lapse in coverage.

Once that was settled, there were a series of motions to deal with the new facts on the ground.  The Council approved funding a recruitment and retention event on September 18 (rain date: September 19) in Steel City to recruit firefighters for LSFR; to reimburse attorney’s fees associated with the merger and the review of the Steel City fire station building maintenance; to authorize the funding of capital improvements at LSFR fire stations and to authorize the release of payment number 2 for LSFR’s new ladder truck.  

At that point, with the business regarding the fire department concluded, the meeting room cleared out pretty quickly, from about 65-70 attendees to 19.

The Council proceeded to appoint two new members to the Lower Saucon Authority Board – Bob Davis and Bob Keich by a vote of 5-0.  Unlike in previous appointments, the resumes of the two candidates were included in the publicly posted council information.  It was nice to know something about their qualifications before their appointments.

The rest of the meeting was mostly housekeeping except for an interesting discussion of whether council meetings could be conducted in some type of hybrid format that would allow township residents to at least view and/or view and participate in regular council meetings remotely.  Ms. Huhn had prepared a packet of information on the types of systems used by other townships and boroughs.  Tom Rieger, Hellertown Borough Council president, was invited to share how Hellertown has implemented a hybrid system that allows both the livestreaming of their council meetings and the participation of remote attendees.  He reported it had cost them about $15,000 which could be covered by federal Covid relief funds.  Ms. Huhn was tasked with getting prices for a system similar to Hellertown’s.

Of course the best part of that discussion happened when Mr. Banonis, who waxed lyrical on the excitement and energy of so many residents at the meeting in person after the Covid shutdown, and who seemed to have quite a few other reasons why hybrid was somehow not as good as in person, mused as to whether the reason for so many attendees might have been the agenda for the evening (i.e. the fire company issues).  Yeah, do you think?  Since more than 70% of the attendees left after that was done with?  Mrs. Stauffer spoke up on the value of a hybrid model in reaching those who can’t make it to the council meetings in person, pointing out that it’s “not about us in the Council room” but rather about the township residents who might not be able to attend. There’s a thought that’s worth remembering at every council meeting.

Two More Items

The update to the Saucon Valley Partnership Comprehensive Plan will be voted on September 8 at 6 PM via a Zoom meeting. You can register for the meeting on the Township website through the Council web page. The updated plan can be found here: https://epd-pgh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=dfb95aee27934650b7a998bdaf170a44

Township resident Victoria Opthof-Cordaro raised a question during public comment about the status of the data breach investigation that had been mentioned at the July meeting.  Attorney Treadwell said that there was no more additional information to share at this time except that the township’s insurance company had verified that the costs of the law firm hired to deal with the breach would be covered. 

Watch this space.

Next Township Council Meeting – Wednesday, September 1, 2021 – 6:30 PM at Town Hall

Next General Election – Tuesday, November 2, 2021

How to Fill a Township Council Meeting

Lower Saucon Township Council was back to meeting in person on Wednesday, July 21, 2021.  In fact, the meeting room was standing room only.  That was undoubtedly attributable to the agenda item to discuss the designation of Lower Saucon Fire Rescue (LSFR) as the sole fire services provider in the township.  The meeting turnout comprised not just township residents but also a large contingent of members of LSFR who stood throughout the discussion about the future of fire services.

First, a brief history of fire services in the township.  There were originally four fire companies.  Leithsville and Se-Wy-Co merged in 2012. Southeastern was then absorbed in 2016 and LSFR was formed.  In recent years, an attempt has been made to consolidate Steel City Fire Company and LSFR into a single entity.  The difficulties that have been encountered in finalizing that merger, mostly caused by Steel City, are what led to the matter under discussion at the July 21 meeting.

Ty Johnson, LSFR Fire Chief, reviewed the fire company’s annual report.  He reported that LSFR has 67 members, making it the largest volunteer fire company in Northampton County.  They are also the third busiest volunteer company in the county. The bulk of the report showed a well-run operation in good fiscal condition.  The values outlined spoke to its responsibility to the community and its training statistics showed a commitment to keeping its firefighters safe.

The surprising information came in a comparison between Steel City and LSFR relative to both call volume and response times.  This data comes from a state-maintained database.

CALL VOLUME

                        2020                2021 (to date of report)

LSFR                716   (90%)      315    (93%)

Steel City         77     (10%)      24      (7%)

AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME

                        2020                2021(to date of report)

LSFR                1.22 mins        .69 minutes

Steel City         17.14 mins      7.21 minutes

Chief Johnson explained that “average response time” represents the amount of time elapsed between the time that dispatch contacts the fire company to request their service until the first person from that fire company is on the road to the call.  

Not surprisingly, there was considerable discussion around the fact that LSFR is already providing the bulk of fire services for the township and the huge discrepancy in average response times to calls.  Council members also discussed what would be required to make the transition to LSFR as a sole provider.  Attorney Treadwell responded that it would require the drafting of an ordinance which could be voted on at the August 18 Council meeting.  There was consideration of what the logistics of that kind of transfer might be and whether or not Steel City would continue as a fire company.  It was clear that there are many issues to be resolved if the Council approves the ordinance to turn all fire services over to LSFR.

The only input from Steel City came from Kevin Kalman, Vice President of Steel City Fire Company and the Fire Police Captain.  He stated that he had been advised by the fire company’s counsel not to speak at the meeting but that he wanted to address the Council. He refuted some of the claims about Steel City’s responsiveness and objected to remarks that had been made about Steel City’s training and readiness.  He went on to commit to facilitating an orderly transition of fire services from Steel City to LSFR if that is what the Council decides on.  However, he also pointed out that he was only speaking as an individual, not representing the fire company.  

When Mr. Carocci raised a question about the $50,000 donation to Steel City that Attorney Treadwell had previously flagged as questionable and for which the Council has received no response, Mr. Kalman pointed out that he was not with the fire company at that time and then reverted to the stance that he couldn’t comment on that.

Following some additional comments and input from township residents, all of it supportive of the proposed ordinance, the Council voted unanimously to direct Attorney Treadwell to draft the appropriate ordinance to designate LSFR as the sole provider of fire services to the township.  It will be voted on at the August 18 council meeting.

In Other News . . .

All the other agenda items passed unanimously and were generally of a “housekeeping” nature.  The Council agreed to purchase an 8.9 acre parcel of land on E. Raders Lane with $422,500 from the Open Space Fund to preserve the space.  

There was one slightly jarring item.  The Township was apparently informed of a potential data security incident on July 9 and moved to engage counsel with specific expertise in these types of breaches.  That will bear watching.

Finally, the feral cat neutering program must be working well.  Council authorized additional funding for the program because of its already-high utilization rate.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The August 18 meeting will again be in person at Town Hall.  There are quite a few items on the agenda relative to the consolidation of fire services as well as the appointment of a replacement member to the Water Authority Board.  

See you there.

Next Township Council Meeting – Wednesday, August 18, 2021 – 6:30 PM at Town Hall

Next General Election – Tuesday, November 2, 2021

A Few Answers Generate More Questions

The June 16 meeting of the Lower Saucon Township Council provided some answers to the questions raised on this blog about the funding for Lower Saucon Fire Rescue (LSFR) and the Steel City Fire Company. It also raised some other, more disturbing questions about the proposed merger.

To briefly recap, by a 3-2 vote last year (Ms.Yerger, Mr. Banonis and Mr. Carocci in favor), a footnote was added to the 2021 township budget that required the completed merger of Lower Saucon Fire Rescue and Steel City Fire Company by April 1, 2021, in order for the fire companies to receive their regular contributions from the Township, $150,000 for LSFR and $50,000 for Steel City. Failure to meet that date would trigger a series of additional deadlines with stepped-down funding culminating in cancellation of all funding if the merger was not completed by June 1. Despite requests from Mrs. Stauffer in the Spring, no information on progress on the situation was shared with the exception of a “no progress” comment from Solicitor Treadwell at the April 7 meeting. At the June 16 meeting, Mr. Carocci made a motion to fully fund LSFR for the budgeted $150,000. In discussion on the motion, he shared the timeline of the attempts to complete the merger on the part of each of the fire companies. To make a long story short, LSFR has repeatedly attempted to move the merger forward while Steel City has repeatedly rebuffed actions to make progress. As of the end of March, Steel City had only been willing to agree to a merger of operations but wanted to postpone the legal merger for at least another 1-2 years. Based on that information, the Council voted 5-0 to approve funding only for LSFR for 2021.

Mr. Carocci then provided additional information regarding the future of the merger. In reviewing Steel City’s IRS Form 990, Solicitor Treadwell noticed an unusually large donation to Steel City of $50,000 from The Boston Foundation, a donor-advised fund, followed by a transfer of $40,000 from the fire company to an injured officer who lives in New Jersey. Because of the unusual nature of the transactions, Solicitor Treadwell contacted counsel for the Steel City Fire Company with a host of questions regarding the transaction. The response from the fire company’s counsel had been received only late on the afternoon of the Council meeting and had provided insufficient information to answer the questions raised.

So we now have an answer as to whether Lower Saucon Council is going to fund LSFR (yes – 100%) or Steel City (not as of this moment) and we have some better understanding of why they made that decision. All good. But along the way, there are new questions.

Obviously the largest one is what to do about the proposed merger? Since further discussion on LSFR’s role in the Township is on the agenda for the July 21 meeting, we can expect to hear more about that shortly.

Mrs. deLeon raised the question of why Solicitor Treadwell had not shared the letter he wrote to Steel City’s counsel with the LST Council. She indicated that he should have copied the council members. Mr. Treadwell pointed out that he had been tasked with participating in the merger negotiations and this was part of the due diligence that he was conducting. He also pointed out that if he copied council members on every piece of correspondence that he produced, that they would be inundated. While he apologized for not sharing the letter, I think that instead the Council owed him a big thank you for his thoroughness in scrutinizing Steel City’s 990. He caught something that could be a major liability for a merged fire department and that raises legitimate questions about how Steel City handled the entire transaction.

The bigger question that should be raised beyond Mrs. deLeon’s concern is why there was no reporting on the status of the merger at all from January till June. The detailed timeline Mr. Carocci provided showed that there had been actions that had been taken over that time period, but none of that was reported. When Mrs. Stauffer appropriately raised the question in April, there was no sharing of the status of the negotiations which at that time apparently were already fraught. And although Mr. Carocci apologized profusely for not providing any of the information that he referenced at the June 16 meeting in time for it to be included in the council packets or on the website, the fact is that it shouldn’t have taken until June 16 for that information to be compiled. Where was a report at the March Council meeting or the April one or the May one? Mr. Carocci is the liaison to the fire companies. Why couldn’t he have provided something sooner? Is this his definition of transparency?

Moving on . . .

Natasha Manbeck of McMahon Associates provided a status report on the draft of the Active Transportation Plan being developed as part of the WalkWorks Grant. She acknowledged the contributions of many LST residents and indicated that the Draft will be presented in August for public comment. Anyone with comments in the meantime can send them to Diane Palek, the Township’s administrative assistant (adminasst@lowersaucontownship.org).

Frank Thompson of the Parks & Rec Board presented Logan Kade’s proposed Eagle Scout project to construct an information kiosk at Heller Homestead Park to the Council. The Council approved the project, 5-0.

Bill Ross of the Lower Saucon Authority gave a detailed explanation of Senate Bill No. 597, requesting that Council submit a letter opposing the bill. He explained that it places additional onerous requirements on public water authorities in the state (including Lower Saucon’s) that are unnecessary to guarantee the quality of water and will make the public authorities vulnerable to takeover by private entities. The Council agreed to provide such a letter, 5-0. Mr. Ross encouraged anyone who was listening to contact their state senators and voice their opposition to the bill as well.

And of course it wouldn’t be a LST Council meeting if there weren’t gratuitous swipes at fellow Council members and attempts to impugn their integrity. In the discussion about the bids received from Keystone Collections and Berkheimer to provide tax collection services to the Township, Mrs. deLeon raised a question about the fact that Keystone (which had the lower bid) had also requested space in Seidersville Hall for an in-township office whereas Berkheimer did not. Her concern was whether the two bids therefore represent an apples-to-apples comparison and whether, if Keystone were awarded the contract, would they be paying for their use of the space? A reasonable question.

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Mr. Banonis, however, had to jump in to point out that perhaps Mrs. deLeon had other reasons for raising the questions because doesn’t Mrs. deLeon’s sister work for Berkheimer? The implication was that this was suspicious. Mrs. deLeon then tossed the question to Solicitor Treadwell, asking if there was a conflict here. Attorney Treadwell’s response was “not technically under the Ethics Code.” But Mr. Banonis just couldn’t let it rest. According to the minutes, he hastened to assure us before he made the motion to approve the bid from Keystone that “he doesn’t have any immediate family members that work for Keystone, he has no parents, no children, he doesn’t think he has any siblings as he’s an only child, he doesn’t have any aunts, cousins or uncles who work for either Berkheimer or Keystone” so he could make the motion in good conscience and with a clear mind. Mrs. Yerger, not to be outdone in gratuitous snark, then seconded “based on the fact that she has no relatives working for either Keystone or Berkheimer.” Come on, what is this? Fifth grade? Nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah, nyah. Or maybe it’s an attempt at humor. If so, don’t give up your day job.

Finally, and most importantly for those of us who love spending our time attending these meetings so you, Gentle Reader, don’t have to (although you should), the Council decided to return to live, in-person meetings starting with the next one scheduled for Wednesday, July 21. If you’re planning to attend, be prepared to show up at Town Hall at 6:30 PM.

Next Township Council Meeting – Wednesday, July 21, 2021 – 6:30 PM AT TOWN HALL

Next General Election – Tuesday, November 2, 2021

A Council Quickie – and a Serious Question

The May 19, 2021, Lower Saucon Township Council meeting was even shorter than the one on May 5. The meeting was gaveled in at 6:30 and adjourned at 7:10 PM. It amounted to a passel of resolutions to thank Saucon Valley area high school students for being junior council members, the approval of a “blessing boxes” program in two parks, approval of summer hours for the administrative staff, the hiring of a cleaning service and the submission of a grant application. That was it except for the usual housekeeping of approving minutes and financial reports.

A brief word about the blessing boxes. The program was approved but there is currently no timeline for their installation at Town Hall Park and Steel City Park. I’m sure when that’s nailed down there will be more information coming about this volunteer opportunity for township residents to help their neighbors who are in need. More details will be provided when there is an implementation date.

Since we have some extra time in this issue, let’s make a trip back to the 2021 budget that was proposed in October and adopted in December. Specifically, it might be interesting to find out what’s happening with those footnotes that were added to the budget relative to the funding of the fire department.

To refresh your memory, Mr. Banonis and Mr. Carocci seemed almost apoplectic back at the October 7 meeting that the fire companies were not moving fast enough on their merger in spite of the ongoing pandemic and the fact that both businesses and governments were still essentially shut down. To “incentivize” completion of the merger, Mr. Carocci proposed three footnotes to be added to the 2021 budget that would supposedly make the merger happen faster. The footnotes were approved as part of the budget approval on December 16, 2020, over the objections of Mrs. deLeon and Mrs. Stauffer.

The footnotes were as follows:

“Motion for the Township staff to prepare a proposed 2021 budget that will allocate $150,000 to Lower Saucon Fire & Rescue and $50,000 to Steel City Fire Company to assist in the funding of their operations which payments will placed on the June __, 2021 agenda for approval. If the April 1st deadline is met, then payment may be authorized at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. These amounts maintain the 2020 Township funding levels. However, none of the allocated funds in the 2021 budget will be payable unless the following condition is met:

“Lower Saucon Fire & Rescue and Steel City Fire completely merge their operations and become one legally merged fire company to the satisfaction of Township Council and under Pennsylvania and Federal Law by April 1, 2021.

If by April 2, 2021, Lower Saucon Fire & Rescue and Steel City Fire have failed to completely merge their operations and become one legally merged fire company to the satisfaction of Township Council and under Pennsylvania and Federal Law the allocated funds will be reduced by 50% at that time. Meaning – Lower Saucon Fire & Rescue would only be eligible for $75,000 and Steel City Fire $25,000 in Township funding in fiscal 2021.

If by May 1, 2021, Lower Saucon Fire & Rescue and Steel City Fire still have not completely merged their operations and become one legally merged fire company to the satisfaction of Township Council and under Pennsylvania and Federal Law the remain [sic] allocated funds in [sic] will be reduced by an additional 50% at that time. Meaning as of May 1, 2021 – Lower Saucon Fire & Rescue would only be eligible for $37,500 and Steel City Fire $12,500 in Township funding in fiscal 2021.

If by June 1, 2021, Lower Saucon Fire & Rescue and Steel City Fire have failed to completely merge their operations and become on [sic] legally merged fire company to the satisfaction of Township Council and under Pennsylvania and Federal Law. Lower Saucon Fire & Rescue and Steel City will not be eligible for any of the aforementioned Township funds during fiscal year 2021.

2021 Lower Saucon Township Budget – http://www.lowersaucontownship.org/pdf/2021final.pdf

In case you haven’t noticed, we have now passed both the April 2 and the May 1 deadlines and will have passed the June 1 deadline before the next scheduled Council meeting on June 16. Back at the April 7 Council meeting, Mrs. Stauffer raised the question of what was happening with the merger and had it been completed by the April 1 deadline. The reply was, in a roundabout answer from Solicitor Treadwell, “no” and she was “tut-tut”-ed by Mr. Carocci that it really wasn’t necessary to discuss that at the time. Nevertheless, Mrs. Stauffer made a motion to void the footnotes to the 2021 budget since they were clearly not going to be enforced as they had been passed. Her motion failed 2-3 with only Mrs. deLeon joining her to vote in favor.

So here we find ourselves coming up on a June 16 Council meeting, two weeks after the final June 1 deadline that said that the fire companies would receive zero-zilch-nada funding for the 2021 fiscal year. What exactly is going on? What was all the bluff and bluster back in October using the funding cudgel to force the merger by April 1 if there was no intention of actually enforcing it? The funding of the fire company hasn’t been on the agenda at all during 2021. It’s been essentially ignored.

Are Mr. Banonis and Mr. Carocci, with Mrs. Yerger playing “me too,” really planning on defunding the fire companies? Is that really in the best interests of the Township? Or was it all just empty posturing?

Regardless of the answer, is this really what anyone would call effective leadership?

Next Township Council Meeting – Wednesday, June 16, 2021, 6:30 PM

Next Township Elections – Tuesday, November 2, 2021

Short and Sweet

The short part of the May 5 Lower Saucon Township council meeting was the meeting itself. It may have set a record for brevity. In less than an hour, the Council passed 8 resolutions (most of them recognizing award winners from the Hellertown-Lower Saucon Chamber of Commerce), approved a resident’s exemption request, approved the minutes and heard only a couple of reports. Resident George Gress asked if any planning had been done yet to return meetings to in-person. The answer was “not yet” since it would require re-opening the Township building and that will take more extensive planning. Governor Wolf had only just announced the revised occupancy limits on Monday.

Probably the most time was spent on a request from resident Donna Louder for the township to request that the Health Bureau conduct a new air quality test because of some odor complaints from the landfill. Apparently the last air quality test was completed in 2016 and since then there has been a change in what the landfill is permitted to accept. After some discussion about the necessity for the request, the proper process for handling the request, and how the prior test was conducted, the Council finally agreed to send a letter to the Health Bureau requesting a new test. This was deemed appropriate because it takes some time for a test to be scheduled and conducted and the letter would get the request in the queue.

The sweet part of the meeting was the acknowledgement of the retirement of K-9 Atos from the Lower Saucon Police force. Unfortunately because of the technological limitations of Zoom, those of us watching were only able to catch glimpses of Atos when his handler, Officer Steve Kunigus, was speaking, but he’s a fine-looking fellow who has apparently served the department and the township well. Both Officer Kunigus and Chief Barndt spoke highly of his performance. I’ll admit that as a long-time German Shepherd Dog owner I’m a sucker for any of these working dog breeds so it was wonderful to see Atos appropriately honored. He will be living with Officer Kunigus and his family. I’m sure we all wish him a long and happy retirement. His successor, K-9 Titus, is already on the job and we’ll have a chance to meet him as things open up more.

And that was it. Mr. Carocci was absent so all the votes were 4-0.

Next Township Council Meeting – Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 6:30 PM

***One important note: The primary election is Tuesday, May 18, 2021. Polls are open from 7 AM to 8 PM. There isn’t much choice involved in the Township Council races. There are 3 Republicans running for nominations for the 3 open seats and 3 Democrats running for nominations for the same 3 open seats.

However, there are a large number of judicial nomination races that are competitive across the state and within the county. There are also 4 ballot questions for consideration. Remember that independent voters can vote on ballot questions, so don’t stay home because you’re an independent. Your voice counts and the two questions on how PA handles state-wide emergencies are very important. Please do your research. I urge you to vote NO on questions 1 and 2. If you’ve watched our completely dysfunctional state legislature over the past umpteen years, you know you don’t want them trying to make a decision in an emergency like Covid.

Finally, because of the bizarre situation in PA that allows candidates to cross-file for school board openings as both Rs and Ds, it’s often difficult to tell who stands where on school board issues and policies. Sadly, the Saucon Valley school board has taken some disturbingly right wing turns in the last couple of years. If you’re concerned about that, do your homework and find out which candidates’ positions really align with your beliefs. It matters.

And if you happen to vote in Lower Saucon 7, be sure to say hello. I’m the Judge of Election there.

Next Township Elections – Primary: Tuesday, May 18, 2021. General: Tuesday, November 2, 2021

The Whole World is Watching. Well, Hellertown Is.

Last week’s Lower Saucon Township Council meeting had a decidedly different vibe to it. It was much more low-key, ticking along at a brisk pace, checking things off on the agenda. There was a resolution observing International Firefighters’ Day on May 4, a handful of resident requests for variances, a lot line adjustment, some administrative resolutions. All dispensed with fairly rapidly with 4-0 votes (Mrs. deLeon was absent).

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

There was the adoption of a Feral Cat Trap/Neuter/Return agreement whereby the Township will provide vouchers that will cover the $35 cost for residents who trap a feral cat and take it to No Nonsense Neutering for the procedure. Hopefully, this will resolve the feral cat problem in Steel City that Ms. Civitella brought to the Council’s attention earlier this year. Ms. Huhn was appropriately thanked for her rapid and effective response in providing the information necessary to deal with this issue.

In tax-related news, the filing date for EIT final returns was moved to May 17 so that it will correspond to the Federal and State tax due dates. No penalties or interest will be collected on any taxes paid by May 17.

Seasonal workers for Public Works will be paid $14.63 per hour and the Police Department has received its spiffy new uniforms!

As I said, a fairly uneventful meeting. So uneventful, in fact, that at several points when Mrs. Yerger requested a motion for an agenda item, there was an awkward pause before another Council member so moved. None of the usual two-step jockeying to be the mover or seconder. Mrs. Yerger herself even moved at least one item that I recall.

But as we’ve come to learn, it’s the non-agenda items that often generate the most interest. That was the case on April 21 as well.

First, Mrs. Stauffer provided a detailed report on the activities of the Hellertown Area Library (HAL) during this past year as they coped with all of the challenges of Covid-19. She provided data on library usage and descriptions of alternative programming that outlined a robust response to the pandemic. Mrs. Stauffer is the Council’s liaison to the Library.

Then, in the public comment period on non-agenda items for non-residents only (the very last item on the agenda), Julia Sefton, President of the HAL Board addressed the Council in response to the variety of issues that had been raised at the previous Council meeting on April 7. She outlined the normal reorganization process of the Board and how it was disrupted this year by both Covid and by LST Council’s desire to advertise separately for the one Board opening. She explained that they are an all-volunteer board and that they are perhaps not as skilled in parliamentary procedure as they should be. She acknowledged that allowing outgoing Board member Janie Hecker to make a motion at their previous Board meeting was incorrect, although she did point out that Ms. Hecker had every right to attend that meeting as a private citizen. She just should not have been recognized as a Board member or allowed to participate as such.

Ms. Sefton also made it clear that there was no disrespect meant to the LST Council by any of the HAL Board’s actions. She apologized for any consternation that might have caused and reiterated HAL’s appreciation for the substantial support provided to the Library by the Township. She committed to the Board’s taking a closer look at their procedures and correcting anything that might run counter to accepted practice.

Attorney Treadwell volunteered his time to help the Board work through their processes in conjunction with the Hellertown Council solicitor if that would be useful. Ms. Sefton graciously accepted. Mr. Banonis then said that it wasn’t necessary for the HAL Board to apologize and that he appreciated their taking the time to explain what had happened at the last HAL Board meeting. He and Mr. Carocci then fell all over themselves explaining how valuable the Library is to the community. Quite a turnaround from two weeks prior.

With that, the meeting adjourned in almost record time.

And then I realized what had been happening. I’d noticed at the beginning of the meeting that there was a larger-than-usual number of Zoom attendees. I didn’t think much of it since sometimes variance requests and zoning issues attract support people for the petitioner (lawyers, engineers, neighbors) and they tend to drop off when that agenda item is completed. But they were all still there at the end of the meeting. Unusual. Until someone pointed out that those additional people included the Mayor of Hellertown, Hellertown’s council-appointed liaison to the HAL Board, and a good many members of the HAL Board, obviously there to witness the report by Mrs. Stauffer, the comments by Ms. Sefton and the subsequent response.

I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about what effect all of those witnesses might have had. But I’ll make one observation of my own. Neither Mr. Banonis nor Mr. Carocci took the opportunity in this feel-good mutual Library admiration moment to apologize for the belittling remarks and accusations that they leveled at Mrs. Stauffer on April 7.

Ah well, baby steps.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

UPDATE: In my last blog, I promised to inquire about what differences there might be between the “Council packet” that Council members receive and the supporting material that is posted on the township website along with the meeting agenda. Ms. Huhn said that there should be no difference in those materials – everything in the Council packet should also be on the website. She also asked that if someone notices a discrepancy to let her know. She did point out, and she was absolutely correct in this, that she said in the April 7 meeting that the background material on the Planning Commission nominee – Mr. Woosnam – had been EMAILED to the Council members, not included in the Council packet. So my apologies to Ms. Huhn for incorrectly reporting what she had said about the distribution of Mr. Woosnam’s information.

I did request, on behalf of those of us who are playing along at home, that in the future that kind of information, when emailed, would also be available to Zoom meeting attendees.

Next Township Council Meeting – Wednesday, May 5, 2021, 6:30 PM

Next Township Elections – Primary: Tuesday, May 18, 2021. General: Tuesday, November 2, 2021

No, You Cannot Mute Your Fellow Councilperson Because She’s Objecting to What You’re Saying

*SIGH* As I sat through the April 7 Lower Saucon Township Council meeting, I was thinking how lovely it was that Spring had arrived and that most of the items under discussion at the meeting were about various activities returning to some semblance of normal and of the parks opening back up. I was thinking that commenting on this meeting would be a refreshing change from the usual snide remarks and ugly behavior that has come to be typical. Boy, was I wrong!

Let’s start with the pleasant part of the evening. McMahon Associates updated their work with the township on the WalkWorks Grant. They are at the point where they are soliciting input from the residents on ways that we can make the township more accessible to walking, biking and other means of transportation besides cars. They have created a website at traisr.net/LST where you can enter your suggestions for improved walk/bike-ability and pinpoint the location on the map. There are about 15 comments there, as of this writing. I’m sure there are many others who have noticed places where changes would be helpful in improving access and safety. I encourage everyone to take a look and provide your comments now. The entire project must be completed by September, so early input is a good idea if you want your contributions considered.

And yes, Jason Banonis, I’m sure that this is exactly what McMahon has done on their previous projects, and I’m sure it has worked well. But as someone who has worked successfully in the same industry for 13 years, I know that any consultant worth her salt is open to suggestions for improvements or other ideas for consideration as Ms. Manbeck, the McMahon consultant, acknowledged. Your knee-jerk defense of McMahon’s approach was unnecessary and fairly pathetic, probably causing people to wonder why someone with no background in that area would need to jump to their defense. So nice job – you undercut exactly what you were trying to bolster.

On to other pleasant things. The Community Center will be conducting a truncated summer recreation program, limited mostly by ongoing Covid concerns. But it will happen, as opposed to last summer when it had to be completely canceled. The Hellertown-Lower Saucon Chamber received approval for a Movie Night at Town Hall Park on July 23. The Township will be applying for a couple of grants to assist with the improvement of trails in Polk Valley Park.

There was extensive discussion of the possibility of implementing a feral cat TNR (trap, neutral, release) program in the Township in response to some significant concerns that had been raised at the February meeting by Laura Civitella. Ms. Huhn provided quite a bit of information on the types of programs available in the Valley and what other municipalities are doing to cope with this difficult issue. It was clear that there will be ongoing discussion as to the cost and feasibility of implementing a program and Ms. Civitella seemed quite happy with the township’s response to her concerns.

Photo by Petr Ganaj on Pexels.com

From here on, things go fairly rapidly downhill, so if you don’t want to muck around in the swamp, you can stop reading and pretend that LST is well-run by a group of mature civic leaders. Of course, you’d be wrong.

First, Tom Carocci tries to amend the March meeting minutes to report something that wasn’t actually said. Mrs. deLeon had stated that Ms. Hecker was not on the Hellertown Area Library board when the current director was appointed. This was apparently determined after the meeting to be incorrect. So Tom tries to get the minutes changed to say that Ms. Hecker WAS on the HAL board when the current director was appointed. For one thing, this had exactly zero importance in relation to the topic under discussion at the time and, second, you cannot amend meeting minutes to say something that wasn’t said. Meeting minutes have to accurately reflect what was stated. If what was stated is incorrect, that point can be made at the next meeting and then the minutes of that subsequent meeting (the one on April 7) will reflect the correction of the fact without changing the accurate reporting of the original meeting. Nevertheless, Mrs. Yerger was about to accept the incorrectly corrected minutes when Attorney Treadwell intervened to prevent the error. Does anyone even bother to read Robert’s Rules of Order except for the Solicitor? And me?

Next up we have another in the continuing saga of appointing people to township boards without providing any information to the community. There was a vacancy created on the Planning Committee. I believe a couple of people applied for the position. Ms. Huhn, as part of her manager’s report, recommended that Doug Woosnam be appointed to the position. The Council voted him in 5-0. Here’s the problem. I believe it was Ms. Huhn who said that the applications from the applicants were included in “your council packet.” But they were not included in any of the material posted online with the agenda. I know. I looked through all 146 pages at least 2 times, partly because I was trying to find out what the gentleman’s last name was since no one bothers to spell it out for listeners or put a slide up on the screen. And it’s not on the agenda as an item for the meeting. This was the same problem with the person appointed to the Library Board last month – no information, not even a spelling of her name, which turns out to be Sara Phillips, not Sharon Whoever. 

I’m wondering what the difference is between the “council packet” and what we get to see online. With the exception of items that will be handled in an executive session, why should there be any difference? Perhaps you’re wondering the same thing, Gentle Reader. I’ll ask.

And now things get really ugly. In a standard maneuver, Jason or Tom (in this case Jason) raises an issue very late in the meeting under the “reports” section that rightfully should have been discussed as an agenda item. But by not making it an agenda item, he can be sure that no one he’s about to attack will be able to respond to the issue because they have no idea it’s coming. You’ll recall the same tactic was used back in October regarding the directive to the fire companies to complete their merger or risk losing funding – introduced late in the meeting in the “reports” section, not as a separate agenda item, no time for the fire companies to prepare a response. 

This time it’s about the recent Library Board meeting following the Township’s informing the Library Board that they were going to solicit additional applicants and prior to the Township’s voting on adding Sara Phillips instead of the Board’s recommended nominee, Janie Hecker, to the Board to represent LST. Apparently the Library Board allowed Janie Hecker to remain on the Board through the Feb. 23 meeting since no replacement for her had been appointed, even though her term had officially expired on December 31, 2020. My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that they figured the LST council would do what they’ve always done and appoint the person that the HAL Board had recommended, so there would be no lapse in representation. But the Council didn’t (see last month’s Saucon Shenanigans). They appointed Ms. Phillips instead and so now Jason’s shorts are all in a twist. The Library is showing “disregard for the taxpayer and the money that’s being provided to them.” He doesn’t know how they can do this. “Why doesn’t this organization follow basic parliamentary rules?” I don’t know, Jason. Why doesn’t the township council do the same? (see above)

In case you’re confused, here’s the timeline, roughly:

  • HAL Board tells LST they recommend Janie Hecker for the position (sometime before LST meeting on Mar. 3)
  • LST (not clear on whose authority) informs HAL Board that they will be advertising and seeking additional applicants
  • HAL Board cannot hold new year organizational meeting because appointment is up in the air
  • Feb. 23 – HAL Board holds regular meeting, allowing Janie Hecker to participate
  • Mar. 3 – LST Council decides not to accept HAL’s recommendation and appoints Sara Phillips instead
  • Mar. 23 – Ms. Phillips attends first HAL Board meeting as LST representative
  • April 7 – Tom says that all of this means that LST is being held in “low disregard” and what are they doing for the $100,000 per year that the Township gives them.

Now all of this might just be chalked up to really poor communication between the Board and the Council that has now been resolved except for two other components.

One is Jason and Tom’s continued reference to the $100,000 that LST provides to HAL and their demand that the township look into this more thoroughly. Is this prologue to an attempt to defund the library, just like the budget footnote threatens to defund the fire company? One thing I have learned over this past year is that when Jason uses words like “we must be stewards of the taxpayer’s money” or to similar effect, there’s more to it than appropriate fiscal responsibility. This guy has more tells than John Boehner’s latest memoir.

The second component – and this is the really ugly part – was the series of ad hominem (or more correctly ad feminem) attacks on Mrs. Stauffer as the council liaison to the Library. Jason questioned how she could have let such a thing happen. Had she reported this to Ms. Huhn? Why didn’t she step in and prevent Ms. Hecker from voting? He seriously impugned her capabilities to be the liaison to the library, parroted, of course, by Tom at every opportunity. (Tom, you will recall, REALLY wanted to be the library liaison and was clearly upset last year when Mrs. Stauffer was chosen instead.)

Jason said he didn’t expect that Mrs. Stauffer could provide an answer to this at the meeting (duh – you sprang it on her with no warning). When Mrs. Stauffer tried to respond to this deluge of accusations, he then hit the low point for the year as he made a motion to “mute Mrs. Stauffer until I have finished my remarks,” immediately seconded by Tom (Abbot and Costello didn’t have a better sense of timing). I would say the reaction of the other council members was stunned, followed by a chorus of “you can’t do that” and “that’s against the Sunshine Law” and eventually it was dropped, not withdrawn, dropped. (cf. “why doesn’t this organization follow basic parliamentary rules?”)

So let’s pause at this point and observe that the stench of hypocrisy here is worse than the odor from a poorly managed landfill on a hot July afternoon. You’ll recall that back at the June 3, 2020, Council meeting, Mrs. deLeon was chastised by Jason and Tom for interfering in a report being put together about the landfill. What she did was suggest that the report include a picture that represented how methane leaks from landfills (which is different from how methane is vented into the air at, say, a wastewater treatment facility) so that people who read the report would better understand what the problems are. But no, that was overstepping her authority as simply a liaison to the Committee. She had no right to offer that kind of input or request that picture be inserted. And eventually they forced her out as liaison to the Landfill Committee.

Fast forward to April. Now Mrs. Stauffer is chastised for not inserting herself (as liaison) into the Library Board’s actions and preventing Ms. Hecker from voting. And apparently she should have reported this all, somehow, to Ms. Huhn? Let me point out that Mrs. Stauffer does not work for nor does she report to Ms. Huhn and it is not dereliction of her duty that she didn’t report Ms. Hecker’s involvement in the meeting to her. Ms. Huhn had no authority to do anything about it anyway.

Second, Mrs. Stauffer is not the HAL Board’s parliamentarian. It is not her responsibility to be sure that the HAL Board conducts its business correctly. It is her responsibility to report the Library’s concerns and actions to the township council. That’s what a liaison does (look it up!). In fact, I doubt she has any authority to prevent the HAL Board from taking any action since she is just one vote among many.

All of which leads back to the question – what’s really going on here? Is this trumped-up indignation to begin to lay the case for defunding or reducing funding for the library? Or is it just more of the same nasty, middle-school playground “gotcha” animus we’ve seen pointed at Mrs. Stauffer ever since the Court chose her last year instead of someone else’s pet candidate and the attempt to unseat her failed? At one point Jason said he’d like “to ask for a little bit of courtesy.” As far as I can see, he hasn’t extended any courtesy to Mrs. Stauffer for more than a year so I don’t see how he merits any right now, at least not without an apology to Mrs. Stauffer first.

Do you know who I feel badly for? The Saucon Valley HS students who serve as junior council members. They are exposed to these horrendous role models of community “leaders” meeting after meeting. I hope they are appalled and that they are not taking this as appropriate examples of how elected public servants should act. Because if they think this is the right way to behave, we’re all doomed.

For months I have tried to give Jason and Tom the benefit of the doubt but this is ridiculous. These are grown men acting like spoiled brats whenever they don’t get their own way or like bullies in the school yard picking on girls. Mrs. Stauffer will be on the Council until the end of the year. She’s not running for re-election. There are 15 more meetings left. Grow up.

One More Thing Before We Go

PRO-TIP: If you think you’d like to run for township council, perhaps you should attend at least a few meetings before you through your hat in the ring. It’s never been easier since they’ve been on Zoom all year. It would go a long way toward improving a candidate’s credibility.

Next Township Council Meeting – Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 6:30 PM

Next Township Elections – Primary: Tuesday, May 18, 2021. General: Tuesday, November 2, 2021.

And the Beat Goes On

Remember the brouhaha back in the fall about the use of the Township pavilion by a political party for a rally? Remember how it surfaced concerns about inconsistencies and deficiencies in the pavilion rental policy and the parks usage policy? Remember the concerns that were raised about the enforcement of the rules and regulations regarding both pavilion rental and special events? Remember how thorough discussion of it got tabled sine die because:

  1. Budget season was coming up and that work was far more important than hashing out problems with the parks policy, and
  2. There was a request of Ms. Huhn to get additional information on the policies and procedures of other municipalities and how they handle similar information, and
  3. The Parks and Recreation Committee wanted to study the issue and weigh in on what they felt would be an appropriate solution?
Saed Hindash for LehighValley Live

Well, the issue reappeared as an agenda item at the March 3 Township Council meeting. Was there information presented about the policies and procedures of other municipalities and how they handle similar information? Not that I heard. Were there recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Committee on how to correct some of the inconsistencies and deficiencies? If there were, they were not included in the council packet that was posted on-line accompanying the agenda.

What was presented was a copy of the current “Request for Pavilion Rental” form with the words “Is this a political event? Yes / No” handwritten on it with an asterisk indicating that a political event required a Special Event Permit and a copy of the current “Special Event Application” with “political event” also handwritten under “type of event”. Ms. Huhn also stated with corroboration from Attorney Treadwell that in the future the township would be putting up “No Parking” signs in order to be able to enforce the regulation that no one can park on the grass.

In the comment period, there were questions raised about how the regulations would be enforced, since they clearly were not at the September 17 event. Attorney Treadwell pointed to the “No Parking” signs as the solution. When questioned about the harassment problems about which resident Stephanie Brown complained in person to a police officer at the event and that she subsequently raised at the October 7 council meeting and the flouting of park regulations regarding political banners and crowd size raised by resident Victoria Opthof at the same meeting, Attorney Treadwell deferred to Chief Barndt, who was not at the council meeting, as to why no action was taken that evening. Treadwell’s reply seemed to boil down to the police having discretion as to what complaints they want to respond to or not and since they didn’t respond, too bad. Gee, I hope if someone breaks into my house that the police use their discretion to decide to come arrest the guy.

Back at the October 7 meeting, resident and Parks and Rec Board member Katrina Schreefer had raised concerns that she had attended a Parks and Rec meeting on October 5 at which the Board seemed reluctant to take up the issues of park regulation enforcement. In the minutes of the subsequent Parks and Rec meeting on November 2, the Board moved a recommendation to Council that they put a capacity limitation on each park and pavilion and if the application exceeds that number, it automatically requires a special event application. Nothing was mentioned about that at the Council meeting on March 3. As Ms. Schreefer had brought up in October, the Parks and Rec Board did not recommend any other changes specifically to deal with regulation enforcement. They have not addressed any of these issues since.

And while the Parks and Rec Board seems to be very impressed with how detailed their rules and regulations are, let me share with you one sentence from the Fees & Charges section of the Parks & Athletic Facilities Use Policy, dated 6/19/13:

“Any event or activity which the Fee Schedule of this section indicates as a “Special Event” shall be subject to the provisions of the Special Event Permit Application procedures (under development).” [emphasis added]

Really? Under development since 2013? That sound you hear is the can being kicked down the road.

Moving on

One other peculiar action took place at the March 3 meeting. There was an agenda item to appoint a new member to the Hellertown Area Library Board because of the resignation of a member whose term runs through 12/31/21. Mrs. Stauffer, as liaison to the Library from the township, nominated Janie Hecker who had been recommended by the Library Board for the position. Apparently past practice has been for the township to accept the Board’s recommendation and elect that person to the Board. Also in the past, the Board has advertised the position and historically there have been few applicants, usually only one. But this time, when the Board sent over its recommendation, the Township, through Ms. Huhn, informed the HAL Board that the township would be advertising and conducting their own search. This apparently resulted in two additional applicants.

Now it was hard to follow what process was used, but apparently Ms. Huhn did advertise the position and sent some or all of the information from the applicants over to the HAL Board. It didn’t seem as if anyone in the Township office or anyone on the Township Council had actually interviewed any of the applicants and it was unclear if the HAL Board had interviewed any of the applicants either, although they knew the person they had recommended from her prior service. There was no information on any of the applicants (cover letters, resumes, etc.) provided in the documents that were publicly posted with the meeting’s agenda.

Instead, there was a lot of huffing and puffing from Mr. Carocci and Mr. Banonis about how the Board’s recommended nominee had previously served on the Board and the Township needed new blood and someone else should have a chance and it was the Township’s right to appoint whomever it chose (that part is correct) and they didn’t have to take the HAL Board’s recommendation (also true) and on and on and on. Mr. Banonis, in particularly high dudgeon, claimed that the other two applicants were being “shunned” by the Council in favor of the HAL Board’s recommendation. He then took the opportunity to present in detail one of the applicant’s credentials, someone named Sharon, last name unintelligible over Zoom. He neglected, however, to mention anything significant about the other applicant’s credentials. Perhaps she should feel “shunned.”

Long story short, Janie Hecker’s nomination was voted down and Sharon Whoever was elected to the HAL Board. But there are two larger issues here that should be considered.

First, one of Sharon’s credentials is that she is actually an employee of – wait for it – the Bethlehem Area Public Library. You remember the BAPL. That’s the library that the Township Council quite a few years ago went to great pains to divorce us from, over the objections of a large number of LST residents, myself included. But when Mrs. Stauffer and Mrs. deLeon raised the issue of this being a possible conflict of interest, Mrs. Yerger pooh-poohed the whole idea as ridiculous. After all, why would there be a problem that someone on the Hellertown Library Board actively works for the library from which the Township had so acrimoniously separated?

Second, and more importantly, is the question of how do these kinds of decisions get made in the Township? Who told Ms. Huhn to advertise for the HAL Board vacancy? I’m sure she didn’t get up one morning and just decide to do it on her own. So where did the direction come from? It wasn’t by a vote of Council. There has been no agenda item to that effect in the past year. It wasn’t from Mrs. Stauffer, the Council liaison to the Library, who might be the obvious person to make that request. So who decided that, this time, LST had to do its own advertising and find its own Library Board member?

And who interviewed the applicants? Who vetted their credentials? Who on the Township Council knows enough about the workings of the library to be able to make a credible judgement about who is the best fit? What about the mysterious third applicant? Who is she and wasn’t she entitled to a thoughtful consideration also?

This is a recurring theme with this Council. Last July, there were two openings on the Zoning Board that were handled in a similar manner – five applicants, no interviews in public or private, no vetting beyond Ms. Huhn’s confirmation that they were all township residents, no questions permitted, just the bulldozing of two candidates who suited Mr. Banonis and Mr. Carocci with Mrs. Yerger again playing yes-person. For more detail, you can read Saucon Shenanigans from July 25, 2020.

Here’s the point. This is not how you get the best government for your township or the best volunteers for township committees and boards. This is not transparency. This is not following an agreed-upon process. This stinks of outdated, backroom cronyism – who you know and who knows you.

Sharon Whoever may turn out to be a fine member of the HAL Board. The two Zoning Board members may be doing a bang-up job. But might one of the other people have been better? We’ll never know. In fact, we’ll never even have had a chance to make the comparisons because this Council made sure you wouldn’t see the process or the alternatives.

Is this really the best way to run a township?

One more thing before we go

This isn’t directly related to the township council but it does have to do with Saucon Valley and the kind of shenanigans that go on around here. Why, in the middle of another dramatic escalation in Covid case counts in Northampton County, has the Saucon Valley School District school board returned to in-person meetings? Where do they think we live? Texas?

Source: NYTimes

Next Township Council Meeting – Wednesday, April 7, 2021, 6:30 PM

Next Township Elections – Primary: Tuesday, May 18, 2021. General: Tuesday, November 2, 2021

The Winter Lull

There hasn’t been much news to comment on from the last two Lower Saucon Township council meetings on January 20 and February 3. There have been a lot of housekeeping items – requests by individual residents for various variances, authorization of purchases and payments, RFPs, authorization to collect 2021 real estate taxes (I know that makes us all happy), and a lot of 5-0 votes coupled with little obnoxious behavior. All in all, a pretty slow period.

Photo by Harvey Reed on Pexels.com

With that being the case, I’d like to take a little time to discuss three items I find of interest.

Meadows Road Bridge

The February 3rd meeting included a lengthy discussion with the PennDOT representative who came to discuss their Structural Analysis Report of the Meadows Road bridge. This is a subject that has come up multiple times in the past year and it always seems to be accompanied by a lot of emotion, especially among residents who call in. I hope that they were either listening to the meeting or will take the time to read the minutes of this enlightening discussion. The PennDOT guy (I’m sorry – I didn’t catch his name) gave a thorough and cogent explanation of the four concerns that PennDOT is required to address – structure, safety, flooding and multi-modality – as they pertain to the bridge. He then explained the three possible solutions – repair, replace or remove – with the plusses and minuses involved in each solution. Council members asked probing and intelligent questions and elicited knowledgeable answers from the PennDOT person about what the possibilities are. Although the council members seem to be disappointed with PennDOT’s conclusion that the bridge needs to be replaced, nevertheless they showed a clear-eyed pragmatism and recognition of the advantages of that solution while at the same time proposing reasonable ways to commemorate or memorialize the current antique structure. All in all, this is the kind of constructive interaction one hopes to find in public officials all working toward the common goal of the public good.

Developer Relations

Each of the two meetings contained presentations by developers looking for various approvals to move forward with their projects. On Jan. 20, representatives of the development at the Steel Club presented further details of their plan. I was struck by the extent to which these developers are addressing issues of water management relative to the creek that meanders through the property. As a sustainability consultant myself, I found their commitment to taking pro-active measures to mitigate future flooding, even where not directly connected with the development that they’re planning on doing, to be a laudable commitment. I realize that this is also of economic value to them as it improves the value of their property, but there are plenty of developers whose response would be “we don’t have to do it, so we won’t.” They seem to be more concerned that it’s done correctly for long-term value and they should be commended for that.

The other developer presentation on February 3 regarding the Stonewood Longridge subdivision was notable as an example of a developer who has clearly communicated often and openly with the township in developing their project. Council members seemed to be well-informed of what had been done over the course of this apparently long development cycle and seemed eager to approve the plans. The discussion also included a fascinating explanation of how the fire company responds to fires in areas that are not part of the public water system and have no access to natural water sources (ponds, streams, etc.). Clearly the developers have been working with both the Council and the fire company to develop the best plans for their residents. Another example of how transparency and collaboration deliver good government service.

Park/Pavilion Use Rules

Back in the Fall, you may remember, there was considerable uproar about the conflicting and deficient rules and regulations that govern the use of various Township park facilities, especially the rental of pavilions. At that time, several Council members deflected discussion of the problems by claiming that the budget discussions in progress were far more important. There was a promise to address the problems in the future. Well, reservations for park facilities for 2021 have now been open since January and one assumes that those 2021 reservations have been made under the same inadequate and contradictory rules that applied back in Fall 2020. With two relatively light meeting agendas on Jan. 20 and Feb. 3, one might have thought that either of those meetings would have been a good time to address this on-going issue. One would have been wrong.

At one point we were told that the issue now resides with the Parks and Recreation Committee and yet they have not brought any workable solutions to Council. Wouldn’t now be a good time to resolve this issue while there is relatively little work for Parks and Rec to do? Perhaps we can expect to see this as an agenda item for the March 3rd meeting or, at the latest, the April 7th meeting before we start hearing that Parks and Rec can’t tackle it because it’s the busy time of year when the parks are in use?

Next Township Council Meeting – Wednesday, March 3, 6:30 PM

Next Township Elections – Primary: Tuesday, May 18, 2021. General: Tuesday, November 2, 2021