LWV debate on Wed Nov 24, 2007

Many thanks to the League of Women Voters for organizing and hosting the debate this past Wednesday and for publishing their Voters Guide. Each requires a considerable amount of effort and they do a great job. Pure democracy in action!

I believe the debate showed the clear contrast between me and Jim McGarrity, and between the cohesive Democratic team and the Republican candidates. The choice is now up to the voters.

The replay of this debate has been showing on the local cable channel 10 for the past few days. There are 3 replays remaining to show: Today (Sunday 10/28) at 6 PM, and Monday 10/29 at 6 PM and 8 PM.

Below are my opening and closing remarks (as written). Each was limited to 1 minute.

==================
Opening remarks
==================
There are about 1750 homes in the 7th ward, and in a few days I will complete my 2nd visit to each of them, knocking on 3500 doors in the process

The comment I hear most often from the residents is “It’s time for a change.”

Jim McGarrity represents “business as usual”. I’m the choice for change.

What kind of changes?

1 - Better Planning
There has not been a comprehensive master plan for our township in 20 years!

2 - Better Fiscal Oversight
I have a proven track record of keeping our library on budget. Meanwhile, McGarrity has repeatedly added his friends to the bloated township payroll while deficits from our pension funds skyrocket.

3 - Cleaning up how we do business in our township.
Finally, I am the ONLY candidate in this 7th ward race who does NOT take money from people who do business with the township, and I never will.

Only the Democrats have a clear plan of action to move our township forward and prevent future abuses.

Yes, it IS time for change!

==================
Closing remarks
==================
Many people ask me why I want to be the 7th Ward Commissioner.

There are two reasons.

The first is that I believe I should to use the talents I’ve been blessed with to serve the community.

I have a proven track record of doing that as a library trustee. Working with that team, the library has prospered, we stayed on budget, and we are now implementing our plan.

The second is that I’m sick and tired of watching our hard-earned tax money wasted on patronage jobs, favoritism, cronyism and pay-to-play. I've documented these problems. Meanwhile, the critical big picture items like planning and fiscal oversight are left undone.

I bring new ideas, new skills, and new leadership.

I’ll help create a good master plan and make it happen.

I’ll watch our tax money better.

As the 7th Ward residents have been telling me, it’s time for a change.

The Indirect Contributions and Business with the Township

In previous posts I've documented the direct contributions to Jim McGarrity's campaign and those contributors who got Township business.

With the INdirect contributions, it's a little harder to track. You cannot draw a straight line between the contributor and the business. But the connection is there. And I suggest that the influence is just as strong. And the amounts are bigger too.

A few months ago at a commissioner meeting, Pat Larkin from Brokerage Professionals in Media PA said that he was proud to have the Township's insurance business for the last 27 years. I wondered - how does he have such a lock on this business?

Pennsylvania's Campaign Finance Reporting website has rich search functions so that you can look up contributors, committees, etc. (I believe PA Rep. Greg Vitali was the driving force in the establishment of this web resource.)

I checked out contributions from Larkin. I transcribed the contributions from both Pat Larkin and his wife Susan Larkin, who is also listed as being from Brokerage Professionals. (CLICK HERE to download the report in PDF format.)

From 2004 to the latest report in June 2007, the Larkins contributed over $43,000 to various Republican committees and candidates, mostly in Delaware County.

These include the "Delaware Co Rep Finance Com" and the "Upper Darby Rep Campaign Com". Now the Upper Darby Republican Committee, headed up by John McNichol, gave money to Jim McGarrity. I can't track down any contributions from the Delco Republican Committee to "Friends of Andy Reilly" or "Friends of Andy Lewis", who also gave money to McGarrity, because I don't have their reports. They are not required to file them with the state since they are county-level candidates.

So Larkin gives money to the UD Repubs, and they give money to McGarrity.

I suggest that the indirect contribution can carry just as much influence as the direct contribution.

By the way, I spoke about this at the commissioner's meeting on Oct 9, 2007 too and handed out the contribution list from Brokerage Professionals.

--------------------------
The Township's finances are dramatically affected by the pension fund for the police and non-uniformed employees. Last year, the fund deficit was almost a half million dollars, which led to a tax increase of about 4% all by itself. So without even considering wage/salary increases or the rising costs of goods and services, there was a 4% tax increase just to fund this deficit.

Haverford Township has an interesting situation in that we use two different investment firms to manage the funds, then we hire a consultant to oversee them. This consultant is John Spagnola from PFM Advisors. If I understand things correctly, Spagnola/PFM is paid about $30,000 per year to watch these funds.

Spagnola contributes thousands to a political action committe (PAC) called Pennsylvanians for Higher Standards in Govt. This PAC then contributes to the Delco Republicans among others. (They have not filed a finance report since 2005, so it's hard to tell what they are doing now.)

Again, an indirect contributor gets business with Haverford Township.

------------------------------
What's the solution?

First, I take no money from any outside PACs for my campaign. As I see it, it's the only way to be impartial in making these decisions and getting the best deal for the taxpayers.

Second, there seems to be no reason to use another consultant to oversee the fund managers. So why not save the $30,000?

Third, we need to get the best deal for the taxpayers on the important contracts for professional services and make sure we are not paying inflated rates for services because the provider is a contributor. $43,000 is a lot of overhead and that has to come from somewhere!

McGarrity's Commissioner Expense Reports, Legal Expenses - Money Well Spent?

I recently used the new process to request public records to obtain my opponent’s comissioner expense reports for the last 6 months. The rest were not available since the Attorney General still has them from the Grand Jury investigation. Click here to open/download these expense reports.

In McGarrity’s reports, there are multiple expense items that are labeled “Contributions”. If I understand this correctly, a commissioner can make a contribution in his or her name and then get reimbursed by the taxpayers? In my first meeting as commissioner I will put a stop to this practice.

Second, Mr. McGarrity reports monthly phone bills average about $174 for the past 6 months. And his total expense average is about $379/month, always close to the maximum $400 limit.

If I remember correctly, at Mr. Moran’s hearing, he was charged with theft by deception because he turned in phone bills that included land lines, cell phones and internet service, and it was approximately the same amount as Mr. McGarrity’s phone bills. And why is Mr. McGarrity’s published commissioner access phone number the same number as his campaign phone number? I’d like to ask our township auditor to look into this. We might also ask why McGarrity uses the same envelopes to hand out flyers for his fundraiser as he uses for official township business. Ah, the benefits of incumbency!

For the phones, I took a fast look online and you can get an individual cell phone plan with 2000 minutes (33 hours or almost 1 ½ days) for $99 per month. I suggest that we look into a comprehensive cell phone plan for all the commissioners (at least) and eliminate this costly individual phone expense entirely.


I also used the information request procedure to get the information that the Township’s legal expenses for the altercation between McGarrity and a former Haverford Township police officer. The Township paid about $22,000 in attorney’s fees in this matter. I have also requested but have not yet received the police report from this incident as well as the total cost to our Township in salary and benefits that was paid to the officer who was on paid leave for about 1 ½ years while this matter was being settled.

Your hard-earned tax money at work! Time for a change!

EPA meeting recap, Comment period extended to Oct 22.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public meeting on Sept. 11, 2007, during which they provided evaluations of various alternatives and their recommendations for a Proposed Remedial Action Plan to continue the clean-up work.

The following documents were provided:

Flyer (PDF) - sent to local residents, has overview of the situation, history, recommendations and EPA contact info

Copy of EPA presentation (PDF) given by EPA at the meeting

Map of Superfund site area (click to enlarge, large detailed image, 7 MB)

Map of proposed excavation area (click to enlarge)
The recommended plan has two parts:

Operable Unit 3A (OU3A) “addresses the deep groundwater in the source area.” The recommended remediation plan includes an additional recovery well, upgrading the treatment plant to add capacity, and in-situ chemical enhanced flushing. (In situ means “being in the original position.”) The cost of this recommended solution for OU3A is estimated at $1,062,000 initial capital cost plus $151,000 per year, with at total present worth of about $3 million.

Operable Unit 3B (OU3B) “address the contaminated soil and groundwater in the Recreational and Open Space (ROS) area, which is located behind Rittenhouse Circle and adjacent to Washington Avenue.” The recommended remediation plan includes excavating a 50 ft x 50 ft area and a 200 ft x 20 foot strip along the abandoned sewer line, removing the remaining portion of the abandoned sewer line that was not previously sealed, backfilling with clean soil and replanting, and installing 3 wells. The cost of this recommended solution for OU3B is estimated at $4,371,000 initial capital cost plus $128,000 per year, with at total present worth of about $6 million.

The public comment period has been extended until Oct. 22, 2007. Comments can be emailed to Remedial Project Manager Jill Lowe at lowe.jill@epa.gov.

Haverford Township Day with the Chrzan for Change group

The 2007 Haverford Township Day event was another wonderful event. Many thanks to all the people who put so much time and effort into making it a success.

And many thanks to the dozens of poeple who put on their Chrzan for Change t-shirts and marched in the parade. In the couple of days since then while door-knocking, a lot of people commented on the good showing of Chrzan for Change parade contingent.

After the parade, a group of Haverford High students came to the Haverford Dems booth and requested Chrzan for Change t-shirts. I only had a few left, but gave out what I had. Many thanks to this group for sporting their shirts throughout the day.


Also thanks to my son Jeremy, who drove the car in the parade and helped out with making sure things went off smoothly.

No 7th Ward Debate as McGarrity finally says no to the challenge

In today's (Oct 3, 2007) News of Delaware County (Haverford Edition at least) is my letter to the editor about the 7th Ward debate that I proposed. 11 days after I initially attempted to contact him, including 4 phone calls, 3 phone messages, and 4 emails, McGarrity finally responded via email to say that he would not participate in a 7th Ward debate. He even drove right past me this past Saturday when I was out knocking on doors and I waved to him.

Of course, there is a candidates forum hosted by the League of Women Voters on Wednesday Oct. 24. In that debate there are 5 sets of candidates, so each candidate gets only a little time to talk about the issues. In wards 5 and 9, those candidates are participating in local debates in their ward only. This provides a good bit of time to get each candidate's views on many issues, and in detail.

Many thanks to St. Faith Church on Brookline Boulevard, who had said they would host the event, to Jim Taylor, who offered moderate the debate, and my campaign manager Judith LaLonde, who worked on the arrangements.

But finally, McGarrity said no.

Here's the letter:

To the Editor,
About 11 days ago, I called and emailed my opponent in the election for Haverford Township’s 7th Ward Commissioner, incumbent Jim McGarrity, to invite him to participate in a 7th Ward debate. Arrangements for a location, possible dates and a moderator were in place. Four phone messages and four emails later, I had no response from McGarrity. Finally, McGarrity declined the invitation today, saying, "You've had me so busy trying to answer all your questions on my financial statements, I haven't had much time."

It’s too bad that the voters of the 7th Ward will not get the opportunity to hear and see their candidates discuss the issues of the Township and the 7th Ward in depth, as some of the other wards are doing.

In this campaign I’ve addressed some troubling issues. I’ve talked about the patronage jobs that have gone to McGarrity’s friends. I’ve documented the thousands of dollars given to McGarrity’s campaign from people who do business with the Township and thousands more from players in the Delaware County Republican machine. And I've asked the Bureau of Elections to look into his campaign finance reports. These issues are discussed in my newsletters and on my website (http://www.larrychrzan.com/).

I am the ONLY candidate in this race who does NOT take money from people who do business with the Township or political action committees outside Haverford Township. And I never will.

With only a few hundred houses left to visit, I will have knocked on every door in the 7th Ward (about 1750 homes) twice by Election Day on Nov. 6. In my conversations, the residents and taxpayers of the 7th Ward want to know what their Commissioner will do and how their tax money is being spent. And they want a Commissioner who will represent their interests, not be indebted the contributors.

It’s a shame that McGarrity won’t provide that opportunity for the voters of the 7th Ward.

Larry Chrzan

Under my name in the print version of the paper, it says, "Democratic commissioner 7th Ward, Haverford Township."

This was an error on the paper's part. I had written, "Democrat for 7th Ward Commissioner."

Maybe they have a crystal ball and can see the future!

It was an interesting series of events in getting this letter in, then revised. I emailed the letter to the editor on Monday evening about 5:30 PM. I quickly got a response from the editor saying the letter would be in this week's edition. That letter said that McGarrity had not responded. About 3 PM on Tuesday afternoon, I got McGarrity's email declining to debate. I thought that the paper would be out to print at that point, but I figured I would try. I called the editor and she said the if I could revise it within 10 minutes, that could go in. So I quickly changed things to indicate that McGarrity had responded, said no, and commented about the time he is "so busy trying to answer all your questions on my financial statements." So the revised letter got published just in the nick of time.

You may be wondering what McGarrity was referring to about the campaign finance statements. A few weeks ago I sent a letter to the Delco Bureau of Elections pointing out many discrepancies in McGarrity's campaign finance reports. Among the problems were contributions that are listed with the contributor being a company or business, expense items listed without qualifying details, and some obvious errors like an amount listed with no contributor. Apparently the Bureau of Elections has contacted McGarrity to address these problems.

Obviously, it's not my problem that his campaign finance reports are not correct, and it's not a very good excuse to decline a debate.