Comments on McGarrity ExpenseGate Issue

I had signed up to speak at the Haverford Township commissioners meeting in Feb, but unfortunately I was not able to go to the meeting. Below are the comments I had ready for that meeting. The short story is that nothing has been done to look into the Jim McGarrity ExpenseGate issue. I recently obtained McGarrity's expense reports for Sept to Dec 2009, which are now on my Voter Info page.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Remarks on McGarrity ExpenseGate
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A few years ago there was a redistricting dispute over a gerrymandered plan that was backed by then commissioners Moran, Twardy, McDonald, Kelly and current commissioner D’Emilio. The reapportionment was obviously rigged for political gain – the map’s infamous hockey stick demonstrated that to even the casual observer. The case went all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, (at great expense to us taxpayers,) and the so-called Moran-Twardy plan was deemed to be legal. And the supporters of that Moran-Twardy Plan touted its legality in the face of the obvious injustice.

That redistricting battle was orchestrated by the so-called reformers – Pat Biswanger, Jeff Heilmann, Andy Lewis, and Jim McGarrity, all of whom parlayed that activity and the later grand jury investigation into the Haverford State Hospital misdeeds into better political positions. And among the charges that later came out of that investigation was a charge against Moran for submitting alleged fraudulent expenses. I sat in the courtroom when that charge, I believe it was termed “theft by deception”, was heard and reviewed.

Now fast forward a few years, and we now have the McGarrity ExpenseGate controversy. And those former reformers, joined by our current Board of Commissioners President Weschler, are now circling the Republican Party wagons to defend McGarrity for the large expense amounts that he has submitted, including reimbursement for a phone line he used for campaigning, and about 200 miles per month supposedly on township business submitted without documentation.

From the Delco Times article:
Wechsler maintained that it was “very premature and irresponsible” for Chrzan to publicly make allegations about McGarrity since there’s been no determination he committed any crime.
Regarding his colleague’s car expenses, Wechsler said he’s seen McGarrity drive the entire 7th Ward, checking roads and street lights.
Additionally, “I think we need to revisit the issue and re-evaluate the expense program, which goes back 20 years,” Wechsler said, when prior boards “were told they were entitled to $400 per month in expense money.”
“(McGarrity) hasn’t done anything outside the guidelines of the system he’s operated under. It’s time now we fix the system, rather than accuse someone who’s operated under it for years of committing illegalities.”

In the news story, Commissioner Jeff Heilmann said he did not believe McGarrity knowingly did anything wrong. Heilman also wrote on the Save Ardmore Coalition blog, “This was wrong, but not criminal. It is an election law violation with a fine and a slap on the wrist.”

It sounds like the Moran-Twardy Plan defense – Let’s all say that maybe it’s not illegal by the letter of the law.

But the real question is: Are McGarrity’s expenses right or wrong? Not do you think it was legal or do you think it’s the system’s fault. Is it right or wrong? And what is this Board of Commissioners going to do about it? What is the DA going to do about it? What is the Township Auditor going to do about it?

And it’s not the campaign or election law that we should be concerned about. I’ve already brought numerous campaign law issues regarding McGarrity to the Delco Election board. In fact, McGarrity refused to have a 7th ward debate with me in 2007, saying, “You've had me so busy trying to answer all your questions on my financial statements, I haven't had much time.” I didn’t feel it necessary to raise those issues publicly – no taxpayer money was involved. The McGarrity ExpenseGate question is whether this is a misuse of public funds to request reimbursement for these expenses. That’s what Moran was charged with for submitting alleged non-legitimate expenses – theft by deception, a criminal charge.

Specifically to Commissioner Heilmann, you said you think it’s wrong, so why are your defending McGarrity instead of looking out for the taxpayers?

And Commissioner Weschler, do you think it’s okay for McGarrity to drive around the 7th ward to check roads and street lights and then charge it to the township? Don’t we have a Public Works department that gets paid to do that? Is that a commissioner’s job and should the taxpayers subsidize that?

I would remind Commissioner Weschler and the other members of the Board that you can’t blame an outdated system or what prior boards were told by people that are long gone. YOU are the system now. YOU are in charge of updating the system and the ordinance that currently says $50 is the monthly expense limit. YOU are the stewards of our taxpayers’ money. We elected you to make sure that our tax money is well spent. In fact, Mr. McGarrity has been on the board for 18 years, why hasn’t he tried to fix the system?

It was two months ago that I raised this issue and brought the FACTS, not “premature and irresponsible” allegations, to this board. I brought in the facts, I said I think it’s wrong, and I’ve asked for it to be looked into. That’s a legitimate taxpayer request. Many people have called me, emailed me or come up to me on the street to thank me and encourage me for speaking up for the taxpayers. And if you check the comments by readers on the Delco Times website or the Haverford Blog, you’ll see that many taxpayers are upset that their money is being used like this.

Two months ago I asked the Township Auditor to look into this and have been told that he’ll get to it. I asked the Delaware County District Attorney’s office to look into this and been told the matter is “under review”, but no further action has been taken. And two months ago I asked this Board to fix the broken system and revise the ordinance regarding Commissioner expenses, which still sets a $50 per month limit. To the best of my knowledge, nothing has be done except removing the Contributions line from the Commissioner expense report.

So, instead of attacking the messenger for speculative political reasons and trying to limit the political bad press, I ask this Board of Commissioners to call on the Township Auditor to look into this matter. Call on the District Attorney to investigate it. And stop using the same faulty reasoning that Moran and Twardy used to defend their gerrymandered legal plan. Apply the rules of right and wrong to protect the taxpayers, as these commissioners swore to do, rather than worrying about the politics.

Returning to this McGarrity ExpenseGate issue, I’ll answer that question I posed - is it right or wrong - just as I was quoted in the paper. “I think it’s wrong that our taxpayer money is spent this way.”

Now, let's fix this system!

- Larry Chrzan

Comments at Haverford Township Commisioners Meeting, Dec 14, 2009

Haverford Township Commissioner Meeting Remarks by Larry Chrzan, Dec 14, 2009
Written version, shortened for delivery in the Citizen’s forum.
Visit www.LarryChrzan.com/VoterInfo to view copies of these reports.

A couple weeks ago I resigned my position as a Library Board Trustee. I thank the community for allowing me to serve for the past 6 ½ years. As this is a critical time for library funding, I reluctantly needed to disassociate myself from the library as I today bring public attention to one of the decision makers on that funding.

At the first budget meeting in November, 7th Ward Commissioner Jim McGarrity brought up the notion that the Township administrators review their own salaries in light of the Township’s financial situation. Then there was some discussion about some possible savings on Commissioners’ expenses. At that point McGarrity turned red and got unusually quiet. I had checked his expense reports in 2007 when I ran against him for 7th Ward Commissioner and all those reports were close to the maximum $400 per month. So I again did a review of all Commissioner expense reports for the last few years.

The Township code authorizes reimbursement of expenses “actually incurred in the performance of duties”.

There are two commissioners who have submitted no expense reimbursement requests in the last two years. While there is certainly nothing wrong in being reimbursed for legitimate expenses, Commissioners Weschler and Holmes have in effect made a contribution to the township by not requesting reimbursement. Others submit only minor expense reimbursements. Thank you to those Commisioners for your contributions to the Township.

On the other hand, Commissioner McGarrity continues to submit requests for reimbursement that are almost always close to the maximum $400 per month.

Each month McGarrity submits 2 phone bills - a residential land line and a cell phone. Only one other commissioner does this. But McGarrity is the only Commissioner who submits a bill for a phone line that he not only uses for Commissioner business, but is the same phone number that he puts on campaign literature. The taxpayers should not be paying for McGarrity’s campaign activities.

For travel expenses, McGarrity regularly submits mileage reimbursement requests of about $80 per month. Almost every mileage submission is exactly 200, 210 or 220 miles. It’s hard to believe that McGarrity drives 200 miles on Township business every month when his home is about a mile from the Township building. And it’s impossible that each month’s mileage is exactly a round number like that. The Township Manager has noted on McGarrity’s reports that no support or mileage logs have ever been provided for these large mileage submissions.

Next is postage. McGarrity has submitted a total of $882.60 in postage in 33 months. That’s about 2100 letters - over 2 letters a day every day for 33 months - hard to believe that McGarrity writes this many letters. I’ve lived in the 7th ward for 10 years and have never received a letter in the mail from McGarrity. Were these stamps used for campaign letters? (Note: newsletter mailings are paid for and mailed by the Township, not part of this expense.)

Finally, McGarrity makes contributions to various fundraising and charitable activities, then submits those for reimbursement. Over the past 3 years McGarrity’s contributions total $935, funded by our taxpayer dollars. While many of these are submitted without documentation, some of the larger documented contributions went to the Grange, Msgr. Bonner Football, Veterans groups, American Legion, and various medical charities. In addition, we taxpayers paid for a banner to hang at the little league field with McGarrity’s name on it. No other commissioner submits such contributions for reimbursement.

I’ve posted copies of McGarrity’s expense reports on my personal website at LarryChrzan.com, or you can request your own review of the records.

I ask the Township Auditor to investigate these expenses. I call on this Board of Commissioners to tighten up the rules and processes for their own expenses. And I will contact the Delaware County District Attorney’s office to ask them to investigate. Taxpayers, please contact your commissioner - especially if you live in the 7th ward - to ask for an investigation.

We can’t afford to have our hard-earned money spent like this in these difficult economic times…or at any time.

Thank you.
- Larry Chrzan

McGarrity tries to rebut the facts I've presented

Jim McGarrity has recently sent out a letter attempting to characterize the facts I've documented and presented as false allegations.


First, this letter proves one of my allegations, that he uses the same phone number for his campaign and for commissioner business. Here's the top of the latest letter:

And here's the top of a recent 7th Ward newsletter, paid for by the Township:

Obviously, the campaign phone number and the commissioner line are the same phone number. On my website's Voter Info page I have posted McGarrity's Commissioner expense reports from February to July 2007 showing phone bills ranging from $167.33 to $193.47 per month. These bills are outrageous!


Debate
His letter states that I said he would not debate me. I had challenged McGarrity to a 7th Ward-only debate, and 11 days later he declined to participate. Yes, he did decline to debate me in an in-depth session in the 7th Ward. He participated in the LWV candidates forum where there were 10 candidates and 2 hours.


Cronyism
McGarrity disputes the cronyism regarding the Recycling Coordinator and Highway Inspector jobs. I stand by my comments that both of these employees are friends of McGarrity, that one at least of them has been a paid campaign worker for him, and that McGarrity was involved in both of these personnel decisions.

On the Highway Inspector job, there is a pending federal discrimination lawsuit that the Township is now defending itself against at great expense because of this hiring. This is a fact.

The Recycling Coordinator was an unbudgeted position. It was not in the 2006 budget passed in December 2006, and the job was created in January 2007. This is a fact.


Farmers Market
McGarrity denies that he is against the Oakmont Farmers Market (started by my wife Janet) and says that he "is working with School Board Director Joe Martin, to investigate the possibility of using the rear of Oakmont School for next year." This is not true. And he has not spoken with any of the Farmers Market organizers about any of this. So he isn't "working" on anything here. Previously McGarrity stated that the farmers market should get a storefront. And his comments at various Commissioners meetings have been very antagonistic. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he just doesn't understand the whole thing.

What McGarrity is trying to do is save his political skin and undo the anti-Farmers Market comments he has previously made because he sees that the Farmers Market is so popular.

He appears to be trying to coopt the popularity of the market and control the same farmers market that he has been hostile to. Anyone who has heard him at the Commissioners meetings know this is a complete flip-flop.


Campaign Finance Ethics
Finally, McGarrity fails to adequately address a major issue that I have documented, that he has taken significant contributions from people who do business with the Township. (I have posted the proof on the Voter Info page of my website.) His letter says, "I am not beholding [sic] to ANYONE." The facts are that people who have contributed to McGarrity's campaign have gotten business and contracts with the Township.

As I continue to say, I am the ONLY candidate the does not take contributions from people who do business with the Township, and I never will. The residents of the 7th Ward have heard this message loud and clear, and it's up to them to decide.

Haverford LWV debate, Wed Oct 24, 2007 - Recap and Comments

I watched a replay of the debate recently. It was kind of weird watching myself on TV like that.

I wanted to make sure I had captured some of the things that Jim McGarrity said correctly before commenting.

McGarrity stated at the debate that he had created additional parking at the library. He's also been quoted in the paper in a candidate's statement saying the same thing. I'd really like to know where that extra parking is! Last time I check there were still 17 parking places there.

On the issue of the pension fund, the Dem team worked very well together to explain the situation and describe the steps in figuring out the problem and coming up with a solution. I had the first comment and described the situation with the huge deficit last year with the resulting 4% tax increase, and the anticipated deficit this year. We all commented on the various aspects of the fudiciary oversight duties that had been neglected.

Mr. McGarrity laid the blame squarely on 8th Ward Commissioner Tom Broido. He said, "We put Tom Broido in charge of that, and Broido happens to be a Democrat. ... And if there's a problem I guess we have to talk to Mr. Broido about the problem, because he hasn't talked to us about it." Larry Abel rebutted this McGarrity later, saying, "Broido uncovered the problem and reported it to the Board of Commissioners. ... I don't know what Mr. McGarrity is talking about when he says the commissioners don't know about it.

Also, Mr. McGarrity took a shot at our State Representative in an off-topic response. The question was on the taking of the health benefits, and the commissioner salary of $3000 per year. Most people said they did not need and would not take the benefit. McGarrity said he would take it as he has been doing. McGarrity said, "There's 9 of us here, $3000 a piece, that's $27,000. That's only 1/3 of what Vitali makes. I think if we eliminate Vitali and his salary, that will save the Township a lot of money."

There are so many things wrong with this comment, I'll just let it stand as it is and say I completely disagree.

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!

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.

Campaign Finance Reports for 7th Ward Commissioner Candidates

I posted to the Voter Info page of my campaign website the campaign finance reports filed by me and by my opponent, incumbent Republican Jim McGarrity, in the last 4-5 years. The reports are all that are available; the Delco Bureau of Elections only keeps the last 5 years of records. I also did public records requests from Haverford Township to confirm that the McGarrity campaign contributors are indeed doing business with the township.

Here is a summary:

Larry Chrzan, 2007
$0 in contributions from vendors, contractors and attorneys who have done business with Haverford Township
$0 in PAC contributions from outside Haverford Township

Jim McGarrity, 2003-2007
$2,710 in contributions from vendors, contractors and attorneys who have done business with Haverford Township
$3,350 in PAC contributions from outside Haverford Township, most of which have come in the last year.

When I began this campaign, I stated on my website's contribution page:

Note on donations to the Chrzan for the 7th Ward campaign
If you are a vendor, contractor, or supplier of goods or services to Haverford Township, or wish to do business with the township, please do not contribute money to my campaign.

As you can see, I am the ONLY candidate for 7th Ward Commissioner that is not NOT indebted to campaign contributors who do business with the township and is NOT beholden to contributors from the Delaware County Republican political machine
I'll add one more thing to my voluntary campaign finance reform pledge.

I NEVER WILL take contributions from people who do business with our Township.

Master Planning for Haverford Township

At last week's monthly commissioners meeting, I spoke during the citizens forum about the glaring need for a comprehensive master plan for Haverford Township and about campaign finances for the commissioner races this year. This post is about the master plan part of that. More on campaign finances in the next topic

There are many ways to go about creating or updating a master plan for a township. I've worked on the strategic plan for our Haverford Township Free Library, and I'm currently doing the same for the Delaware County Library System. I described one general approach:

• Start with guiding principles, look at the current state (township buildings, finances, roads, traffic, services offered/needed, township administration structure and function, recreation, library, information systems, sewers, etc.)
• Craft an action plan the describes what we want our township to be five and ten years from now.
• Figure out how to fund that plan.

A business needs a business plan to function. In addition, a business plan indicates to any potential financiers that the business knows what they are doing and how to get there. Who would lend or give money to a business without a plan?

Similarly, our Township needs the comprehensive master plan to go out and get the funding to make it happen. Grants won't just come to us - we need to go out and actively seek them. Demonstrating that we know what were doing will increase our chances of finding funding to assist us and keep the tax burden on the residents lower. Other communities have done so successfully and there is no reason that Haverford Township cannot do the same.

I didn't mention this in the limited time that I had to speak in the forum, but I strongly recommend that we use the services of professional grant writers. (I have spoken about this in previous citizens forums.) We could figure out if this is something that we outsource or need full- or part-time staff to accomplish. But with a plan in place and a good grant writer on board, we could do a lot.

I have attend recent Planning Commission meetings and spoken with members of that board. Their work, combined with the activity of the Haverford Civic Council, has provided a start on revitalizing two pieces of the township: the Eagle Road corridor/Oakmont business district and the Haverford Road corridor. These are good efforts, but they only address 2 geographical areas and they only focus on business revitalization.

In my opinion, we need a comprehensive plan, not a piecemeal plan. As I've said to hundreds of people while campaigning, creating a master plan for our Township is one of my top priorities when I'm elected.

As far as my opponent goes, he has been in office for 16 years, and we haven't had a master plan in almost 2o years. I think that tell the whole story on his take on the importance of a comprehensive plan.

The Friends of Jim McGarrity Employment Agency: Comments from the Aug 13 2007 Commissioners Meeting

These are my comments in the Citizens Forum at the Aug 13 2007 Commissioners Meeting (as written):

Last month I asked a number of pointed questions about the Township budget. Shortly thereafter, Acting Township Manager Larry Gentile provided the answers and Board President Steve D'Emilio also followed up. Thanks to both. Mr. Gentile told me it was okay to publish his answers and I have provided those at this meeting and on my campaign blog.

I did make a mistake in one of the questions, Question 7 [regarding the Highway Inspector job]. The Highway Inspector position was filled a couple of years ago, not a few months ago. This is also related to Question 2, concerning the lawsuit on the “HR issue”.

The Township’s Highway Inspector is a long time friend of Mr. McGarrity. Indeed, there is a federal lawsuit now in progress by a former township employee related to this hiring of McGarrity’s friend as the Highway Inspector. And just for kicks, if you read McGarrity’s 2006 campaign finance reports you’ll see that this same township employee has been paid for campaign work for McGarrity. (CLICK HERE for the campaign finance report in PDF format.)

Two follow-up questions:
How much has the Township spent so far defending itself?
And what is the potential cost to the Township if we lose?

All in all, not a great deal for the taxpayers of Haverford Township, defending lawsuits to hire Jim McGarrity’s friend.
--------------------------------------------------------
According to the response to Question 6, the former director of Public Works was moved from his previous duties and given a special assignment reviewing recycling. This employee is also McGarrity’s friend. One might guess that with salary and benefits, the expense would be about $75,000 - $100,000 per year.

So just days after passing a balanced budget at the end of 2006, the township adds a new position that was not in the budget. How can this happen?

• Why was it NOT important in December 2006 to have someone on recycling, but then it became so important in January 2007?
• Was the need for a recycling reviewer established first, or was the position only created after it was decided to move the director of Public Works? The fact that it was not in the 2006 budget tells me that it isn’t that critical and the job was created.
• Does the Township Manager have the power to add special assignment jobs to the payroll? If so, how many special assignment jobs can be added? Please show where in the township laws this is allowed.
• Can jobs or special assignments be filled without posting or advertising them?
• Can such positions be created without a job description?
• If we don’t post or advertise the job, how do we get the best person to do the recycling job?
• If this is not a permanent position, when does it end? What happens to the employee when it does end? Is there another special assignment planned?
• Can the township add $75,000 - $100,000 to the payroll without a vote of the entire board?

Regardless of any after-the-fact performance on recycling, a huge cost was added to the Township's expenses to create this position that was not in the budget.

This is exactly the kind of interference, favoritism and cronyism that I pledge to fight against.

At last month’s meeting Mr. McGarrity said that all public works employees were his friends.

We can NOT afford Jim McGarrity or any more of McGarrity’s friends bloating the township payroll!

It's time for this "business-as-usual" to stop.

And I call for this Board of Commissioners to resolve these issues at the earliest possible time and bring this huge budget expense to a vote of the entire board at next month’s meeting.

Answers to Questions raised at July 11 Commissioners Meeting

At the July 11 meeting, I asked 7 specific questions about the Township.

Shortly thereafter, Acting Township Manager Larry Gentile provided the answers below, and we had a follow-up conversation to clarify a few items. Board President Steve D'Emilio also followed up to make sure I had received answers to my questions. I specifically asked Mr. Gentile about publishing his answers, as my questions were asked in a public forum, and he told me it was okay to do so.

Thanks to Mr. Gentile and Commissioner D'Emilio for providing the information.
===========================================
Q1. Now that the year is half over, where do we stand on the township budget? Are we on track, ahead or behind? If we are behind, what steps are being taken to address the problem?
A1: The budget reports ending June 2007 indicate that we are slighting over budget due to several unexpected issues, such as emergency road repairs, emergency sewer repairs. However, over the past few months, with the support from the Board of Commissioners, I have instituted new policies and best practices to control spending and to provide a more cost effective service to our community. Some example of this are: Reducing overtime by requiring all Directors to receive pre approval, reduced telecommunication expenses by 40%, implemented a new fuel management system for all municipal vehicles (was able to find over $45,000 savings), instituted a time and attendance system, and several other management initiatives to operate our municipal services in a fiscally responsible manner.
Follow-up: Mr. Gentile indicated that a sewer repair problem that occured the night of the Commissioners meeting on July 11 will cost the Township approximately $200,000.

Q2. Are there any lawsuits against the township right now? What is the nature of these lawsuits, if any? And what is the potential liability to the township of these lawsuits?
A2: Presently we have one lawsuit involving an HR issue. There are few minor suits that have been ongoing for the past few years that I do not believe have any serious liability for the Twp. I would suggest that you speak with Jim Byrne at the Commissioners meeting and he can provide a more detailed response to your question.

Q3. $25,000 was authorized at last month’s meeting for a feasibility study to look at acquiring the former gum factory property. What actions are in place or planned for this work?
A4: $25,000 was authorized last month to perform a feasibility study and Lori Hanlon-Widdop is currently preparing an RFP for the project.

Q4. I attended Commissioner Moran’s preliminary hearing last week and heard testimony from the former township manager that Moran directed him to move employees and/or hire employees. What is the Township’s policy on hiring, promoting and moving employees and advertising positions?
A4: The Twp’s policy on employment is detailed and MaryAnn DelPizzo is mailing this out to you today.
Follow-up: Ms DelPizzo sent this to me promptly.

Q5. What is the Township’s policy on hiring friends and relatives? What constitutes a conflict of interest?
A5: Haverford Township presently does not have a policy on hiring family or friends. However, it is common practice for business not to allow the hiring of family members within the same department. No dept. director or manager should ever be directly responsible for a family member. I have the HR Dept researching policies relating to this issue. In addition, the entire employee policy manual was recently revised and is being reviewed for any potential corrections.

Q6. I’ve heard that a new position of Recycling Director was established a few months ago. Is this the case? Was this position planned in last year’s budget? Is there a job description for this position? Was this position publicly advertised so that the township could get the best available person for the job? Or was this position created for the former head of Public Works? Is this employee a friend or relative of Commissioner McGarrity, and was McGarrity involved in this decision? With an estimated annual cost in salary and benefits in the $100,000 range, the public has a right to know.
A6: There is no such position as Recycling Director or Recycling Coordinator. Mr. Falance was reassigned by Mike English several months ago to review the recycling program and to determine a method to improve the process and reduce operating cost. Presently Mr. Falance is meeting with all Twp. businesses and developed a mailing that is also sent out to all businesses relating to recycling initiatives. Mr. Falance has been extremely successful with obtaining additional grant monies by improving our recycling program. It is important to note that the position was not posted because it is only a reassignment and not a permanent position.
Follow-up: In the follow-up phone call, Mr. Gentile confirmed that this assignment was not in the budget for 2007.

Q7. I’ve heard that a Highway Inspector position was filled a few months ago. Is this the case? Was this position planned in last year’s budget? Was this position publicly advertised so that the township could get the best available person for the job? Is this employee a friend or relative of Commissioner McGarrity, and was McGarrity involved in this decision? Again, the public has a right to know how our tax money is being spent.
A7: There was no Highway Inspector hired during my few months as Acting Manager. The only positions recently posted and advertised were a codes enforcement officer and a staff accountant. Both positions were advertised internally and externally. The codes enforcement officer was filled after the Dir. Of Codes performed here assessment and recommendation. The staff accountant is currently unfilled. Both positions are budgeted.
=============================================

My comments:

The former director of Public Works was moved from these duties and given a special assignment regarding recycling. I believe that Mr. McGarrity was involved in these personnel decisions and that Mr. Falance is a friend of Mr. McGarrity. Regardless of any after-the-fact performance, a huge cost was added to the Township's expenses to create this position. And this expense was not in the budget for this year. This is exactly the kind of interference, favoritism and cronyism that I pledge to fight against. And it again points out the need for better fiscal oversight.

The lawsuit (mentioned above) against the Township is another situation where a friend of Mr. McGarrity was given a position at McGarrity's behest. As a result, the Township is responsible for legal fees and the potential liability of the lawsuit. Again, the result is a direct cost to the Township and its taxpayers.

It's time for this "business-as-usual" with its favoritism and cronyism to stop. We can't afford it! As taxpayers, we need to know that our hard-earned money is being spent more wisely.

Primary Day Recap in Haverford Township Elections

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 was Primary Election day in Haverford Township.
In the 7th Ward, it was a busy day, with an early start to the day for putting up signs at the polls, all the way to the final count.

Many people wished me luck in the election, but I was running unopposed in the Democratic primary. I guess it looked like there was a 3 way race, with so many lawn signs up for all candidates.

Many thanks to the Dem 7th ward leader and committee, and to all supporters who worked at the polls throughout the day handing out literature. There was complete coverage from 7 AM to 8 PM. Thanks to the supporters who took down all of my lawn signs. Also thanks to the people who worked inside as the election board staff, who worked hard to make things run correctly.

Congratulations to incumbent Commissioner Jim McGarrity for his win in the 7th Ward Republican primary, defeating Tom Thornton. Mr. Thornton ran a good campaign and it made for a busy 7th Ward in the weeks leading up to the primary. There were times when I crossed paths with both McGarrity and Thornton as we were knocking on doors.

There was an incident of note on primary election day. Commissioner McGarrity was involved in an altercation with a resident at the 7-2 polling place, Annuciation Church, and the Haverford Police were called to investigate. While my campaign will focus on the positive things that I can do as Commissioner, I'm again disturbed that another embarassing incident involving an elected official ended up in the newspapers. It's time for a change!

Finally, congratulations to Haverford's Ann O'Keefe, who was one of the 3 winners in the Democratic primary for Delaware County Council. Way to go Ann!

News in Haverford Township, April 9-15

The Press page of www.LarryChrzan.com has been updated to keep track of the news about what's going on in our Township, particularly around the corruption indictment, the resignation of Township Manager Mike English, and the Acting Township Manager appointment of Larry Gentile.

I spoke during the Citizens' Forum at the April 9, 2007 meeting. To summarize my comments, I called for action to:
1. Continue the clean-up and run the township in the most transparent way going forward.
2. Demonstrate competence and professionalism by taking action with positive, proactive steps to move the Township forward.

You can read the full text of the speech here. I was also asked to comment for a Delco Times article, where I said:

Although he said these events are clearly a "black mark on the township," Democrat Larry Chrzan thinks "it would be a shame if the township didn't learn something along the way."

To get out from under the dark cloud, Chrzan recommends ending what he described as cronyism, favoritism, nepotism and pay-to-play practices, despite some positive changes over the past few years. Access to information needs to be improved upon, he added.

"It's important that we move forward in a positive and pro-active way," Chrzan said.

In short, the Commissioners and new administrators of Haverford Township are obliged to make this right and make the changes necessary to win back the public trust. And while that is in progress, it is also important to keep moving forward on planning, development, and business revitalization. A tall order for sure.

One issue that I think is critical in this election is removing all appearance of corruption. When I began this campaign I posted on the Contribute page of my website that I would take no contributions from anyone who does business with the Township. Also, I will take no contributions from PACs that are outside our township. As I said in the Citizens' Forum, "Our Commissioners must take nothing so that the public knows that only the taxpayers’ interests are being looked after."

Hint: look for more on this as we go forward!