|
Figure in $millions  Bill Heim excluded the capital projects for a good reason! It drives the reserve balances NEGATIVE. At the end of 2030 reserves would be negative $2.8 million. Of course this can’t happen, so what he is not telling us is expect additional debt issues, my guess is another $20 million sometime in 2027. So lets talk more about out Heim’s five year forecast: (huge tax increases without any increased benefits?)
Evaluation of Exeter Township's Five-Year Financial Forecast Exeter Township, a second-class township in Berks County, Pennsylvania, is governed by the Second Class Township Code, which mandates the adoption of a balanced annual budget where estimated revenues (including any prior-year surplus) must equal or exceed estimated expenditures, with no deficits permitted in the adopted budget. This requirement applies strictly to each year's official budget, adopted by December 31, but does not prohibit multi-year forecasts from projecting future imbalances as a planning tool. The township's five-year financial forecast (covering 2026–2030), presented by Township Manager William Heim, projects growing operating deficits as a forward-looking analysis rather than a binding plan. However, the distinction is blurred by the township's ongoing reliance on reserves to mask structural issues, as evidenced in the 2025 budget. The forecast assumes conservative growth rates and excludes capital projects, equipment replacements, or upgrades to focus on operating trends. It projects revenues increasing at about 1% annually, driven primarily by the earned income tax (EIT, ~$5 million in 2025) and a stable but flat real estate assessment base. Expenses are forecasted to rise 3–4% per year, led by wage and health care costs under labor contracts, with police at 5% growth. Operating deficits are projected to escalate from ~$1.5 million in 2025 to nearly $3.9 million in 2030. To maintain Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) minimum fund balance levels without depleting reserves entirely, the forecast estimates cumulative real estate tax increases of 10.202 mills by 2030 (raising the rate from 4.685 mills in 2025 to ~14.887 mills), starting at 0.371 mills in 2026 and peaking at 3.052 mills in 2030. The 2025 adopted budget reveals an operating deficit of $1,486,021, covered by transferring ~$1.4 million from reserves (including $1.35 million in interest from the Wastewater Treatment Sale Proceeds Fund and $65,000 from the Reserve Fund) and using $71,021 from existing fund balance—contradicting earlier reports of a mere $68,000 deficit and confirming heavy reserve drawdowns to achieve "balance." Total general fund revenues are $17,447,122 (operating $16,032,122 plus transfers), with expenditures at $17,518,143, dominated by personnel costs ($12.25 million, or 70%). The township holds ~$40 million in unassigned reserves (part of $52.6 million total beginning balances across funds), equivalent to over two years of the $17 million budget, but this buffer is eroding due to structural imbalances. Currently debt-free, the township is issuing $12 million in bonds, with proceeds directed toward the ~$25 million fire station (exceeding 23,000 sq ft) for the private non-profit Exeter Township Volunteer Fire Department (ETVFD), supplemented by ~$10 million from reserves for the station and another ~$10 million from reserves for potentially unneeded facilities upgrades for police, public services, and administration supporting 66 full-time employees. Salaries and benefits exceed $10 million (58%+ of budget), highlighting personnel bloat. Developable land is scarce, with much protected as farmland under Berks County's Agricultural Conservation Easement program, restricting building lots and reinforcing the flat assessment base. The 127-acre Reading Country Club was sold for $4.8 million, with rezoning potential for apartments, but outcomes are uncertain. The 17-acre Promenade property, controlled by the Berks County Redevelopment Authority (BCRDA), has seen failed sales (e.g., a deal collapsed in March 2025), with no developer interest despite requests for proposals. BCRDA's track record focuses on low-income housing amid claimed shortages, making optimistic assumptions of mixed-use (e.g., apartments/hotels) unrealistic and unlikely to boost revenues significantly. Overall, while the forecast promotes transparency, it underplays the township's precarious position: strong reserves mask unsustainable trends, with limited growth prospects exacerbating revenue stagnation. The 2025 budget's reserve raids set a dangerous precedent, and planned capital outlays—totaling ~$20 million from reserves for the fire station and facilities upgrades, plus $12 million bond proceeds for the station—appear misaligned with fiscal realities, accelerating reserve depletion. The forecast and 2025 budget warrant sharp criticism for perpetuating fiscal irresponsibility amid clear warning signs:
REFER TO THE CHART ABOVE ON RESERVE BALANCES: Estimated Impact on Reserves To assess the forecast's implications, consider the effects of 1% annual revenue growth versus 3.5% average expense escalation, plus added costs: ~$883,000 annual debt service for $12 million bonds (20-year at 4%) starting 2026; ~$300,000 annual fire station maintenance (1.2% of $25 million construction, typical for public buildings) starting 2027; ~$250,000 annual library donations (ongoing, added conservatively from 2027 if not fully in base forecast); and one-time capital draws from reserves of ~$10 million for the fire station and ~$10 million for facilities upgrades, assumed in 2026 when bond issuance and construction align. The $12 million bond proceeds are an inflow used directly for the fire station, offsetting part of its cost without further reserve impact beyond the specified $10 million.The township's unassigned reserves would be drawn down each year to cover imbalances and capital if no corrective actions (e.g., tax hikes or cuts) are taken. Starting from ~$40 million at the beginning of 2025, after the 2025 drawdown of ~$1.5 million, reserves enter 2026 at $38.5 million and continue depleting. Key Notes on Impact:
Recommendations for Proper Action To address the projected imbalances while complying with the Second Class Township Code's balanced budget mandate, the township should adopt a multi-pronged strategy focusing on compliance, efficiency, and growth, tailored to leverage remaining reserves, scrutinize capital plans (e.g., scaling back the oversized 23,000+ sq ft fire station or facilities upgrades), trim bloat, and navigate land scarcity. Actions can be categorized as short-term (for 2026 budget) and long-term (through 2030). Short-Term Actions (2026 Budget Cycle)
I’ve identified the flawed thinking and I have made recommendations. unfortunately, this group of characters can never adjust their thinking and I suspect we are doomed to the worst of the above scenario. With lawsuits sucking additional monies from the reserve particularly the SEVEN lawsuit suggesting “BID RIGGING” could lead to a substantial settlement. The township has an inexperienced (in my opinion) Solicitor who seems to enjoy the courtroom. It’s doubtful that anyone currently on the board or in management has the skill, experience and the leadership to right this ship.
0 Comments
Exeter Township's Salary Shenanigans: A Taxpayer's Nightmare of Mismanagement and Mystery Raises10/8/2025 Folks, as a concerned resident of Exeter Township, I've been digging into our local government's handling of employee salaries, and what I've uncovered is nothing short of a fiasco. In 2022, amid a revolving door of township managers, two top financial employees—Sarah Busch and Kristina Kerper (nee Johnson)—each scored not one, but TWO salary bumps in the same year, both ending up at exactly $72,000. That's right: Busch went from around $56,776 in 2021 to $58,479 with a 3% raise in March, then jumped to $72,000 in August—a total of about 26.8% for the year. Kerper followed suit, from her prior salary (around $59,728 based on the pattern) to $61,516 with a 3% increase in March, then also to $72,000 in August, for a similar outsized hike of roughly 20.5%. Meanwhile, most township employees stuck to the standard 3% bump. Why are our two key finance folks suddenly at the exact same pay level, like they're co-captains of the money ship? It reeks of some backroom equalization without explanation, especially since they're the ones overseeing budgets and taxpayer dollars—talk about a conflict waiting to happen.At the time of those August 2022 increases to $72,000, Busch was the Accounting Officer in the Administration Department (as listed in her unredacted 2021 letter), and Kerper was the Assistant Finance Director (per her March 2022 letter). These are the township's top financial watchdogs—handling budgets, payroll, and our hard-earned money—yet they're handed identical salaries with no apparent justification beyond vague nods to "loyalty" and "dedication" in the August letters from interim manager Betsy McBride. Loyalty to what? The chaos? And let's not gloss over Kerper's credentials: her resume boasts a Bachelor of Arts in Finance from Ashford University in Arizona, July 2012. But Ashford was a notorious online degree mill, slammed for predatory practices, with the U.S. Department of Education discharging billions in student loans for deceived borrowers and warning that degrees from there are often worthless or unrecognized by employers. How does someone with a questionable degree like that end up as Assistant Finance Director, pulling in $72k after undocumented raises? It's mind-boggling, and it raises serious questions about hiring standards in our finance department. And it gets worse when you look at Busch's salary history. Hired in 2018 at $52,000, she saw minimal annual bumps: to $53,517 in 2019 (about 3%), $55,122 in 2020 (3%), $56,776 in 2021 (3%), then the March 2022 3% to $58,479. Steady as she goes, right? But then McBride swoops in after May 2022 and cranks it to $72,000 in August. From there, it escalates: $82,300 in 2023 (a 14.3% leap), $84,357 in 2024 (2.5%), $91,500 in early 2025 (8.5%), and later in 2025, a totally undeserved (given the crass lack of any director level output) promotion to Director with another bump to $95,000. That's an 82% increase from her starting pay in just seven years, with massive jumps post-2022. What's changed? From what I can see, there's been minimal increase in her skill level or qualifications during those intervening years—no advanced degrees mentioned beyond her MBA in 2018, no major certifications, just routine accounting work. If her resume (which I've got from public records) shows a solid but unremarkable background, how does that warrant these windfalls? It feels like favoritism on steroids, not merit. Let's break this down further. It all started with the firing of long-time manager Jeff Bartlett in March 2022 for "questionable practices"—whatever that means, since transparency isn't exactly Exeter's strong suit. In steps Clarence Hamm as interim manager, who hands out the usual 3% raises in February/March, citing performance and dedication in letters that look professional and straightforward. Fair enough, right? But then, chaos ensues. Hamm gets the boot amid allegations of blackmail exposed by Jerry Geleff (yeah, that messy scandal), and the Board of Supervisors contracts Keystone Municipal Solutions in May to provide an interim manager while hunting for a permanent one. Enter Betsy McBride, the Keystone contractor who starts on May 16. Just three months later, on August 17, she issues letters boosting Busch and Kerper to $72,000 effective August 21! Her justification? "Loyalty" and "willingness to accept increased responsibilities." Loyalty? That's not in any other salary letter I've seen, like Bartlett's 2021 note to Busch praising "accomplishments." Smells like favoritism to me, especially since these raises blew past the budgeted 3% norm without a peep from the Board. No performance reviews, no board approvals, no budget amendments—just poof, more money.And where was the Board of Supervisors in all this? Chairman George Bell (a professional financial consultant at Fidelity Investments, of all places—shouldn't he know better about fiscal responsibility?), Vice-Chairman Theodore (Teddy) Gardella, Michelle Kercher, David Vollmer, and myself. I was the only one who protested the board's failure of oversight, but it fell on deaf ears. These folks are supposed to be our watchdogs, yet they let interims run amok with our tax dollars.And get this: when I filed Right-to-Know requests for supporting docs, current manager Bill Heim flat-out says "no supporting documents exist." No emails, no evaluations, nothing. The RTK officer didn't even bother responding; Heim handled it himself with a curt denial and zero proof of a search. This isn't just sloppy—it's a blatant lack of good faith under Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law. I've appealed to the Office of Open Records, because if these records "don't exist," it means someone dropped the ball big time.But the red flags don't stop there. McBride's letters had weird redactions right under the names—claimed as "addresses" by the township, but they're tiny black bars in the spot where job titles and departments appear in every other letter. Addresses? Give me a break; these are internal memos, not postcards. It looks like they're hiding positions to dodge scrutiny. And McBride? After her interim gig, the township pays a $9,000 premium to buy her out from Keystone and make her permanent in 2023—only for her to quit 4-5 months later, leaving bloated payroll in her wake. This screams violations: the Second Class Township Code requires board oversight for big fiscal deviations like this. The Sunshine Act demands public discussion for policy-level decisions—no closed-door deals. And the State Ethics Act? "Loyalty" raises during a management meltdown could easily cross into conflicts or improper influence. An interim contractor shouldn't have carte blanche to hand out windfalls without board input; that's not authority, that's overreach.Exeter residents, we're footing the bill for this disorganization. Supervisors bungled their watchdog role, letting interims run wild. It's unprofessional, unethical, and unacceptable. We deserve answers: Why these massive raises? Where's the documentation? And why the secrecy?I've attached scans of the letters and Kerper's resume for proof—her banking background is solid, but that doesn't justify undocumented bonuses from a questionable degree. Join me in demanding transparency: contact the supervisors, file your own RTKs, and let's hold them accountable. Exeter United—time to unite against this mess! #ExeterTownship #TransparencyNow #TaxpayerWatchdog       
BELOW IS A PAGE BY PAGE ANALYSIS OF THE BUSCH RESUME AND FINAL ASSESSMENT REGARDING HER NEW ROLE AS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. PREPARE FOR INCREASED CONSULTING FEES AND CONTINUED LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE THE RESUMES OF OTHER CANDIDATES FOR THIS POSITION WHO WERE REJECTED ... OR WAS THERE EVEN A POSTED REQ? Page 1: This page serves as the resume's header and introduces the candidate's most recent work experience at SEI Investments. It includes her name (Sarah Nelson Busch, MBA Candidate), redacted contact information, and the start of her role as Revenue Analyst - Staff Accountant I from July 2017 to present (noting the resume appears to date from around 2018, given the anticipated MBA graduation). The duties listed focus on daily compilation, analysis, and handling of confidential client data from large private banks and financial institutions; acting as the point of contact for creating new client accounts using AS400; reviewing client contracts for fee structures based on legal language; invoicing recurring and one-time projects with competing deadlines; and communicating with business and relationship managers to ensure billing accuracy.
Analysis: This section highlights strong operational accounting skills in a high-stakes financial services environment, emphasizing attention to detail, system proficiency (e.g., AS400), and client-facing communication. It demonstrates her ability to manage confidential data and meet deadlines, which could translate to handling sensitive township financial records and budgeting timelines. Critique: The format is unconventional for a resume, using full-sentence "I" statements that read more like a self-appraisal than concise bullet points, making it verbose and less scannable. There's redundancy in phrasing (e.g., repeated emphasis on legal and structural aspects of contracts). Additionally, the page has significant white space and redacted elements that disrupt flow, potentially indicating poor tailoring for the application .Page 2: This page continues the SEI Investments role and transitions into her prior position at Non-Appropriated Funds Accounting for the 48 Force Support Squadron (RAF Lakenheath, UK) from June 2013 to August 2014 as an Accounting Technician. SEI duties expanded here include assisting in monthly/quarterly/yearly close processes via revenue accruals and ledger reconciliations; compiling audit documentation; importing assets from various systems for accurate fee accrual; involvement in a data validation project; daily payment application and reporting past dues; creating invoice/accrual variance reports with explanations for variances over 10%; and gaining knowledge in time management and interconnected processes. The Air Force role begins with her serving as Team Lead for the accounts receivable department managing a $4 million fund. Analysis: The SEI continuation shows depth in financial closing, auditing, and data-driven decision-making, with project involvement indicating adaptability to system migrations—skills relevant to township budget audits and financial software management. The Air Force intro suggests early leadership in government-adjacent finance (military non-appropriated funds), including oversight of a modest fund, which aligns somewhat with public sector budgeting. Critique: Again, the narrative style with long sentences dilutes impact; bullet points would better quantify achievements (e.g., "reduced processing time by X%"). The page jumps abruptly between roles without clear section breaks, and some phrasing is awkward (e.g., "tie outs" could be "tie-outs" for clarity). No metrics are provided for the data validation project's success, weakening the claims. Page 3: This page details the Air Force Accounting Technician role, including an award as 48 FSR Employee of the Quarter (October-December 2013); gaining knowledge in financial/budgetary principles for public/private sectors; supporting sound financial programs; applying Air Force methods to analyze reports and execute solutions; advising managers on strategies; assisting in month-end/fiscal year-end closes; training employees on data processing; and analyzing financial data to uncover discrepancies and recommend corrections via oral/written communication. Analysis: This emphasizes analytical and advisory skills in a quasi-governmental setting, with experience in financial reporting, discrepancy resolution, and training—potentially useful for township audit preparations and staff supervision. The award adds credibility to her performance, and the focus on human relations highlights soft skills for stakeholder interactions in local government. Critique: The language is repetitive (e.g., multiple mentions of "knowledge and skill" without variation) and overly self-promotional, resembling a performance review rather than a resume. Lack of specific examples or quantifiable outcomes (e.g., how many discrepancies resolved or training sessions led) makes it feel generic. The page ends mid-role, creating an incomplete feel without a smooth transition. Page 4: This page concludes the Air Force role and introduces her position at Yeager Supply, Inc. from January 2008 to March 2012 as Credit/Collections Associate & Accounts Receivable Clerk. Air Force wrap-up includes resolving confusions/errors to prevent instability; gathering data for account adjustments with evidence for management; training new employees; attending a Financial Management Course in March 2014 for skill enhancement; and gaining insight into chain of command and accountability. Yeager duties start with overseeing client contacts for delinquencies and negotiating terms, including weekly reports and Friday progress updates to the controller. Analysis: The Air Force conclusion reinforces training and compliance experience, drawing parallels to business accountability that could apply to township financial oversight. The Yeager intro demonstrates hands-on collections and negotiation, relevant to revenue collection in a township (e.g., taxes, fees). Critique: Transitions between roles are clunky, with the page splitting content unevenly. Phrasing has minor errors (e.g., "TDY to the AFPC" assumes familiarity with acronyms without explanation). The narrative continues to prioritize "I" statements over action-oriented verbs, and the 2014 course post-dates the role's end date (2014), which might confuse timelines. Page 5: This page expands on the Yeager Supply role, including researching credit applicants and making approval/denial decisions; training/managing a co-worker; developing a streamlined credit assessment system that reduced gathering time from 20 to 5 minutes; handling charge disputes with research and client contact; learning time management/multi-tasking via Microsoft Excel, Outlook, and Sage Mas 90; serving as liaison to the controller with secretarial duties like meeting planning; and daily written/oral correspondence with supervisors/clients. Analysis: This showcases process improvement (e.g., system integration for efficiency) and multi-tasking, which are valuable for optimizing township financial operations like billing or software use. The quantifiable metric on time reduction is a strength, demonstrating impact, and software proficiency aligns with administrative needs. Critique: While this page includes one strong quantifiable achievement, others lack metrics (e.g., how many clients handled or disputes resolved). The role's early dates (2008-2012) make it somewhat dated by 2025 standards, and the inclusion of secretarial tasks dilutes the focus on finance expertise. Verbose descriptions could be condensed for brevity. Page 6: This page concludes the Yeager role with office machine experience and lists education: Master's in Business Administration (anticipated May 2018, GPA 3.9/4.0) and Bachelor's in Accounting (August 2011, GPA 3.39/4.0, Cum Laude) from West Chester University. It also includes affiliations (West Chester University Alumni Association - Lifetime Member) and a professional publication ("The World of Accounting: Looking Into the Future," 2009, with link). Analysis: Education credentials are solid, with high GPAs and an MBA relevant to strategic financial leadership. The publication, though early, shows thought leadership in accounting trends, potentially useful for forward-thinking township budgeting. Critique: The page mixes role wrap-up with education, creating a disjointed structure—education might belong earlier. The publication is outdated (2009), and the link may be broken or irrelevant now. No certifications (e.g., CPA) are mentioned, which could be a gap for a finance director role. Page 7: This page lists references (three redacted entries, including from Yeager Supply and Tower Health, with one noted as professional) and additional information: 3rd place in a writing competition for the Pennsylvania Institute for Certified Public Accountants (Philadelphia Chapter) on the Future of Internal Auditing; software experience (MS Suite: Excel, PowerPoint, Access, Outlook, Word; Sage Mas 90; MAC OS; AS400). Analysis: References provide verifiable contacts, and the competition prize reinforces writing/communication skills for reports or grants. Software list demonstrates technical proficiency for financial tools in a township setting. Critique: References are sparse (only three), and the "*" for professional reference is unclear. Additional info feels tacked on; integrating skills earlier would strengthen the resume. No mention of government-specific software or recent updates (e.g., post-2018 skills). Page 8: This page lists miscellaneous skills: Advantage Fee - A Fiserv System; Typing Speed: 40 WPM; Experienced using office machines (Fax Machines, Copiers/Printers/Scanners, 10-Key Calculator, Phone Systems). Analysis: These basic administrative skills support day-to-day operations, and Fiserv familiarity could relate to financial systems used in government. Critique: This page is extremely short and feels like filler, with outdated or entry-level skills (e.g., typing speed, office machines) that don't elevate a director-level candidate. It contributes to the resume's excessive length without adding substantial value. Page 9: This page is an image of her Master of Business Administration diploma from West Chester University, awarded May 5, 2018, with signatures and seal. Analysis: Verifies the MBA completion, adding credibility to her educational claims and showing commitment to advanced business knowledge. Critique: Including a full-page diploma scan is non-standard for resumes and bloats the document; a simple line under education would suffice. It may raise privacy concerns if not redacted properly. Full Analysis in Context of the Position: The position of Director of Finance in a second-class township in Pennsylvania involves overseeing a $20 million annual budget for a community of 25,000. Based on relevant sources, key responsibilities include preparing and administering the annual budget in collaboration with the township manager; supervising accounting, revenue collection, payroll, and financial staff; ensuring compliance with state laws and audits; managing billing, taxes, and expenditures; compiling financial reports and presentations; coordinating with committees for budget reviews; and acting as a steward of public funds to ensure cost-effective operations and fiscal stability. This role demands strong leadership, governmental accounting expertise (e.g., fund accounting, GASB standards), strategic planning, and experience with public sector budgeting, often requiring 5-10+ years of progressive finance experience, supervisory roles, and preferably certifications like CPA or CGFM. Sarah Nelson Busch's resume demonstrates a foundation in accounting with approximately 6-7 years of experience by the resume's timeframe (2008-2018), primarily in private sector financial services (SEI Investments, Yeager Supply) and a brief stint in military non-appropriated funds (Air Force). Strengths include hands-on skills in revenue management, contract review, invoicing, audits, process improvements (e.g., reducing data gathering time by 75%), and software proficiency (e.g., Excel, AS400, Sage), which could support operational aspects like billing and reporting. Her MBA (completed 2018) and high GPA indicate analytical depth and business acumen, while leadership elements—like team leading AR for a $4M fund, training staff, and project involvement—show potential for supervision. The military experience provides some exposure to structured financial programs and accountability, loosely analogous to public sector oversight. However, significant gaps exist relative to the role. The resume lacks direct local government experience, which is critical for navigating Pennsylvania-specific regulations (e.g., township codes, budget ordinances). Her roles are mostly operational/staff-level, not strategic or director-level, with limited emphasis on large-scale budgeting, public fund management, or policy development. The $4M fund she managed is smaller than the township's $20M budget, and there's no evidence of handling public taxes, grants, or multi-department coordination. The resume's format is a major weakness: at 9 pages, it's excessively long and narrative-driven, potentially indicating poor communication or lack of tailoring. Timelines suggest possible employment gaps (e.g., 2012-2013, 2014-2017), and as of 2025, the "present" at SEI (starting 2017) implies no updates, raising questions about recent progression. No certifications, public sector affiliations, or advanced governmental finance knowledge are noted.Overall, while Busch has transferable skills in accounting operations and a solid educational background, her experience skews entry-to-mid-level and private/military-focused, not aligning closely with the senior, public-oriented demands of a township finance director. Recommendation: Do not recommend hiring Sarah Nelson Busch for the Director of Finance position. Her resume shows competence in tactical accounting but lacks the requisite senior-level experience, supervisory depth, and specific public sector expertise needed to manage a $20 million township budget effectively. Without demonstrated proficiency in governmental accounting, budget leadership, or PA township regulations, she may struggle with the role's strategic and compliance aspects, potentially leading to inefficiencies or errors in public fund stewardship. Instead, consider candidates with 8+ years in municipal finance, relevant certifications, and proven budget management in similar-sized governments. If her recent experience (post-2018) has advanced significantly, an updated resume and interview could reassess this, but based on the provided document, she appears better suited for a mid-level finance role rather than directorial leadership.   This ia a continuation of the lack of transparency in our government. The Finance Director left on Sept. 8, and the township held a meeting on Sept. 29th, discussing issuing $12 million in bonds, the upcoming budget period but never mentioned the Director of Finance left for another job. This isn't an oversight, it happens far too often.
Submitted August 24, 2025. The request was for the invoices submitted by J. Chadwick Schnee and paid on August 8th Accounts Payable Distribution. As the date shows above, the township answered on September 2, 2025 and promise the information before or on October 2, 2025. TODAY!    Concerns Regarding the Sale of the Exeter Promenade Property:The attached Letter of Intent (LOI) from Seven Development Group, LLC, dated July 21, 2023, presents a formal offer to purchase the Exeter Promenade property (Tax ID# 43-5326-14-43-5099) for $3,000,000. This proposal included a cash payment to be completed within 60 days, contingent upon standard conditions such as zoning relief for the proposed end use, no restrictions on development from the Perkiomen Streetscapes Project, and allowances for utility installations. The LOI further specifies the buyer's intent to develop a multi-story senior living facility, including independent single-story townhomes, memory or hospice care, and multi-story apartments with a central clubhouse—demonstrating a clear commitment to a community-oriented project.In light of this offer, questions arise regarding the decision to pursue an alternative transaction with the Reading Development Authority (RDA) in March 2024, which involved a total purchase price of $3,000,000 structured as a $100,000 cash downpayment and a $2,900,000 zero-interest purchase money mortgage. Under these terms, no principal payments were required until RDA sells the property to a third party, potentially allowing RDA to leverage the asset for additional financing while deferring obligations to the township. Subsequent documents indicate that Seven Development Group was aware of and prepared to comply with Second Class Township Code requirements, suggesting their proposal was viable and aligned with regulatory standards.This raises several key inquiries for Solicitor J. Chadwick Schnee (who served in this role throughout the relevant period), Interim Township Manager Larry Piersol (also serving throughout), and the Boards of Supervisors at the time of the Seven LOI in July 2023 (Chairman George Bell, Vice Chairman Ted Gardella, and Supervisors Kircher, Vollmer, and Hughes) and at the time of the RDA sale in March 2024 (Chairman John Piho, Vice Chairman Hamm, and Supervisors Bell, Kircher, and Hughes):
Many more documents to follow, we will post the complaint in its entirety next. This community needs to wake up to the questionable actions of our supervisors. THIS SHOULD THROW COLD WATER ON THIS RIDICULOUS FIRE STATION IDEA FOR $23,000,000.DON'T YOU THINK?
 In My Opinion: Imagine this: You're a taxpayer in a small Pennsylvania township, footing the bill for everything from road repairs to legal fees. You submit a simple request for public records—maybe emails about a shady development deal or minutes from a closed-door meeting. Instead of transparency, you're hit with a denial. "Confidential," they say. "Exempt." "If you don't like it, appeal—or sue us." And who benefits? The township solicitor, racking up billable hours defending the denial, even when they know they'll lose. This isn't a hypothetical nightmare; it's the reality in places like Exeter Township, where Solicitor Chadwick Schnee has turned Pennsylvania's transparency laws into a personal ATM. In this deep dive, we'll unpack how unscrupulous lawyers, township solicitors, non-profit directors, and local officials are abusing the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act and Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) to line their pockets. We'll spotlight Schnee's tactics in Exeter Township as a prime example, backed by court records, appeals, and public complaints. This isn't just bureaucratic red tape—it's a systemic grift that erodes trust, wastes millions in taxpayer dollars, and shields corruption from sunlight. Buckle up; by the end, you'll be fired up to demand change. Share this if you've ever felt stonewalled by your local government—it's time we all address this shameful grift. Pennsylvania's Transparency Laws: Designed for Openness, Ripe for AbuseLet's start with the basics. Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act (65 Pa.C.S. §§ 701-716) mandates that government agencies conduct business in public meetings, with limited exceptions for executive sessions (like personnel matters or litigation strategy). The goal? To prevent backroom deals and ensure citizens can hold officials accountable. Violations can lead to fines up to $2,000 per offense, but enforcement is spotty—courts often side with agencies if they claim "good faith." Paired with this is the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), which guarantees access to public records unless they're exempt (e.g., for safety or privacy reasons).schneelegal.com Agencies must respond within five business days, but they can extend or deny—and that's where the abuse kicks in. Denials can be appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR), then to court if needed. Sounds straightforward? In theory, yes. In practice, it's a playground for delay tactics. The loophole? Solicitors and officials can deny requests aggressively, forcing requesters into lengthy appeals. Each step generates legal fees—billed to the township (i.e., taxpayers)—while the solicitor pockets the hours. And if the agency loses? No big deal; they rarely face personal penalties. As one legal expert notes, "The Sunshine Act is intended to provide public confidence, but without strict enforcement, it's toothless." Examples abound: Townships like Falls have exploited loopholes to hire staff without public votes, hiding decisions behind closed doors In Lancaster County, commissioners violated the Act by failing to post notices, yet faced minimal repercussions. This isn't accidental. Non-profit directors and local power holders—often intertwined with solicitors—use similar tactics in board meetings or record requests, claiming exemptions to avoid scrutiny. The result? A culture where "transparency" means "pay up or shut up." Case Study: Chadwick Schnee's "Sue Me" Empire in Exeter TownshipEnter J. Chadwick Schnee, founder of Schnee Legal Services and solicitor for Exeter Township in Berks County. On his website, Schnee touts himself as a RTKL expert: "Attorney Schnee literally wrote 'the book' on the Right-to-Know Law and has written or edited over 10,000 final orders issued by the Office of Open Records." He specializes in municipal law, including Sunshine Act compliance. Sounds impressive—until you dig into his track record. Schnee's modus operandi? Invert the laws he claims to master. As critics put it, he treats everything as "confidential unless I deem it public," forcing citizens to appeal or sue. This generates billable hours at every turn: drafting denials, representing the township in OOR appeals, and even pursuing lawsuits against requesters. Exeter taxpayers have shelled out nearly $1 million on fruitless litigation since Schnee took over, per public complaints. Exhibit A: Routine Denials and Forced Appeals OOR records reveal a pattern. In dozens of appeals involving Exeter Township, Schnee often denies records citing exemptions, only for OOR to partially or fully overturn them:
In one 2023 case, a requester appealed a denial of attorney-client communications—OOR sided with the requester, stating no privilege applied. Blogs like Exeter United chronicle this: "Schnee's appalling game: While a right-to-know request isn't litigation, an appeal certainly is. Predictably, he denies, forcing you to appeal—and bills the township for it." Even when he loses, Schnee appeals to court, as in a 2025 case where he challenged an OOR ruling on a RTK appeal initiated by a former employee. Township minutes show residents complaining: One appealed a denial and won, but only after months of delays. In 2024, Schnee updated supervisors on multiple RTK appeals, all defended at taxpayer expense. Exhibit B: Retaliatory Lawsuits to Silence Critics Schnee doesn't stop at denials—he weaponizes the courts. In 2022, Exeter sued blogger Jerry Geleff for posting parts of an investigative report on supervisor misconduct, obtained via RTK. The township claimed it was confidential, but dropped the suit after public backlash. Geleff's defense skewered Schnee's filing as "rambling." Then there's Supervisor Dave Hughes, sued multiple times. In 2023, supervisors authorized an injunction against Hughes for sharing "privileged" info online—info from his own lawsuit against the township.wfmz.com A 2025 settlement followed, but critics called the township's account "fictionalized."j Another suit in 2025 accused Hughes of RTK "abuse" after over 100 requests, seeking an injunction under anti-SLAPP laws—ironically, while Schnee bills for the fight. These aren't isolated; they're a strategy. Schnee's firm advises agencies on using injunctions against "abusive" requesters, turning the RTKL against citizens. The Money Trail: Billable Hours as the Real Motive How does this pay off? Solicitors like Schnee bill hourly—often $150-300/hour—for every denial, appeal, and lawsuit. Exeter's 2023 minutes show payments to Schnee Legal Services exceeding $10,000 in one month alone for RTK appeals. Critics estimate $1 million wasted since 2019 on lost cases. Non-profits and other locals follow suit: Directors deny board records, citing Sunshine exemptions, then hire lawyers (often the same solicitors) to defend.It's a self-perpetuating cycle: Deny, appeal, bill, repeat. The Bigger Picture: A Systemic Grift Across PennsylvaniaExeter isn't unique. Across the state:
The ACLU-PA has called out these abuses, noting how they undermine democracy. Why does it persist? Weak penalties, overworked OOR, and solicitors who profit from opacity. Why This Matters—and What You Can DoThis isn't just about one solicitor; it's a betrayal of public trust. Taxpayers fund the stonewalling that hides waste, harassment, and corruption—like the 2022 Exeter supervisor scandal Schnee tried to bury. The human cost? Citizens like Geleff and Hughes face harassment for seeking truth.
To fight back:
Pennsylvania deserves real sunshine, not shadows cast by profiteers. If this fired you up, share it wide—let's expose the grift and reclaim our right to know. What's your story?  In My Opinion: Exeter Township recently adopted a new policy about how to handle money from big one-time events, like when we sold our sewer system a few years ago. While parts of this policy make good sense, there's one piece that could create serious problems for our township's financial future. The policy says the township will keep the main chunk of money from these big sales safe and only use it for important capital projects or emergencies. That's smart thinking. But it also says the interest earnings from that saved money can be moved into our regular operating budget to help pay for everyday expenses. Think of it like this: if you put money in a savings account for your child's college fund, this policy would be like taking the interest that account earns each month and spending it on groceries instead of letting it grow the college fund. How reserve funds are supposed to workReserve funds work like a family's emergency savings account, but for the whole township. Just as you might save money for a new roof, unexpected medical bills, or your children's education, townships create reserve funds for specific future needs. These might include replacing fire trucks, fixing roads, or handling budget emergencies during tough economic times. The key principle that makes these funds work properly is allowing them to grow over time. When you earn interest on your savings account, that interest helps your savings keep up with rising costs. If college tuition increases by three percent each year, but you spend the interest your college fund earns, you're actually falling behind. The same thing happens with township reserves. What the experts recommend Organizations that study how local governments should handle money have developed clear guidelines about reserve funds, much like how financial advisors give families guidance about retirement planning. The Government Finance Officers Association, which is like the trusted financial advisor for local governments across America, strongly recommends that townships never use reserve fund interest to pay for regular operating expenses. Their reasoning is straightforward. Operating expenses are costs that happen every year, like staff salaries, utility bills, and routine maintenance. These expenses typically increase each year due to inflation and growing service demands. If a township starts depending on reserve fund interest to help pay these recurring costs, it creates a dangerous cycle. The township begins to expect that interest income will always be available, but interest rates go up and down with economic conditions, making this income unpredictable. Meanwhile, the reserve funds themselves stop growing because their interest earnings are being diverted elsewhere. Over time, the purchasing power of these reserves actually shrinks. A fire truck that costs $500,000 today might cost $650,000 in ten years, but if the reserve fund hasn't been allowed to grow through reinvested interest, the township won't have enough saved to make the purchase when the time comes. Why this creates budget problemsWhen townships start using reserve fund interest for regular expenses, they often create what financial experts call a dependency cycle. Here's how it typically unfolds. The township budget includes the expected interest earnings as regular income, perhaps helping to avoid a tax increase or fund a popular program. Township officials and residents get accustomed to this extra money being available each year. But then economic conditions change. Interest rates drop, or the township needs to use some of the reserve fund principal for a genuine emergency, reducing the amount of money earning interest. Suddenly, the expected interest income disappears or becomes much smaller. The township faces an immediate budget crisis because it was counting on money that's no longer available. At this point, township officials typically have only difficult choices available. They can raise taxes quickly to make up the shortfall, cut popular services, or start borrowing money to maintain current spending levels. None of these options are pleasant for taxpayers, and all of them could have been avoided by following the recommended practice of keeping reserve fund interest within the reserves. Exeter's specific situation Our township is currently facing financial pressures that make this policy particularly concerning. We're projecting budget deficits in the coming years, which creates strong pressure to find new revenue sources. Using reserve fund interest might seem like an easy solution that avoids raising taxes or cutting services right now. However, this approach essentially borrows from our future financial stability to solve today's budget problems. Instead of addressing the underlying causes of our budget challenges, such as finding ways to increase revenue through economic development or carefully reviewing our spending priorities, we're taking what amounts to a loan from our own emergency funds. The policy also comes at a time when our township has faced significant unexpected expenses and investment losses. These experiences should actually be reminding us why strong, growing reserve funds are so important, not encouraging us to weaken them by diverting their earnings. A better approach for taxpayersTownship residents deserve financial management that protects their long-term interests, not policies that create pleasant short-term outcomes but bigger problems down the road. A more responsible approach would keep all reserve fund earnings within the reserves, allowing these safety nets to grow stronger over time. This means facing our current budget challenges more directly. The township should focus on sustainable solutions like encouraging business development to broaden our tax base, reviewing our spending to ensure we're getting good value for taxpayer dollars, and being transparent with residents about the real costs of township services. Yes, this might require some difficult conversations about service levels or tax rates in the near term. But it's far better to address these issues while we still have choices than to wait until a financial crisis forces desperate measures upon us. What taxpayers should ask As residents, you should ask township officials some important questions about this policy. How much interest income are we talking about each year? What specific expenses would this interest money fund? Do we have a plan for what happens if interest rates drop or if we need to use the reserve fund principal? Most importantly, ask whether this policy fits with the township's long-term financial strategy. Are we building a stronger financial foundation for future years, or are we essentially spending our savings account interest to avoid making harder decisions today? Reserve funds exist to protect taxpayers from financial surprises and to ensure essential services can continue during difficult times. When these funds are allowed to grow properly through reinvested earnings, they provide genuine financial security. When their earnings are diverted to cover regular expenses, they become a diminishing asset that leaves the township more vulnerable to future financial pressures. The choice facing our township is whether to follow proven financial management practices that protect our long-term interests, or to adopt a policy that provides short-term budget relief at the cost of future financial stability. As taxpayers, we should insist that our elected officials choose the path that strengthens our township's financial foundation rather than weakening it for temporary convenience. by Dave Hughes, Former Township Supervisor, Certified Management Accountant, Certified Financial Manager.
 Pennsylvania taxpayers have multiple legal pathways to access financial information from organizations receiving public funds, even when these entities claim private status. Recent court victories, particularly the 2023 Pysher decision, have strengthened transparency rights and established clear precedents for compelling disclosure from publicly-funded organizations. The legal landscape offers three primary enforcement mechanisms: Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) with robust appeals processes, alternative legal remedies including mandamus actions and municipal audit powers, and constitutional challenges based on taxpayer standing. Success requires understanding both the substantive rights available and the specific procedural requirements for each pathway. Legal framework for agency status determinationsPennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law creates a presumption that organizations performing governmental functions with public funding qualify as "local agencies" subject to transparency requirements. Under 65 Pa.C.S. Chapter 7, a "local agency" includes any political subdivision and "any local, intergovernmental, regional or municipal agency, authority, council, board, commission or similar governmental entity." The foundational Guinn test from Guinn v. Alburtis Fire Company (1992) established that volunteer fire companies qualify as local agencies when they are "created pursuant to relevant law" and "legally recognized as the official fire company for a political subdivision." Courts apply this two-prong test alongside a functional analysis examining whether entities perform essential governmental functions, receive substantial public funding, and operate under municipal control or oversight. The recent landmark Pysher v. Clinton Township Volunteer Fire Co. decision (299 A.3d 196, Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) affirmed that substantial public funding combined with governmental function performance creates transparency obligations. The Commonwealth Court ruled that the fire company's provision of emergency services "was a governmental activity" and that the "size and proportion of government funding, and the substantial entanglement of that funding" with operations established local agency status. For taxpayers challenging private status claims, the Pysher analysis framework examines: (1) nature of entity's functions and whether they constitute governmental services, (2) degree of governmental control through municipal oversight and regulation, and (3) degree of financial control based on public funding proportion and municipal financial oversight. Right-to-Know Law procedures and appealsInitial request process RTKL requests must be submitted in writing to the Agency Open Records Officer, identifying records with sufficient specificity. Agencies have 5 business days to respond, with optional 30-day extensions for complex requests. No response within the deadline constitutes a "deemed denial" triggering appeal rights. Fees are limited to $0.25 per page for black-and-white copies, with no charges for review time or legal analysis. Organizations receiving public funds may be subject to RTKL requirements under Section 506(d) when contractors "perform governmental functions on behalf of the agency" and records "directly relate to that governmental function." This provision creates transparency obligations for private entities performing public services, regardless of their corporate structure. Administrative appeals through Office of Open Records When agencies deny requests or claim non-agency status, taxpayers have 15 business days to appeal to Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records. OOR appeals are free of charge and designed for pro se representation. The OOR has 30 days to issue binding Final Determinations, with authority to conduct hearings, perform in-camera review, and compel document production. Strategic appeal considerations include challenging overly broad exemption claims, particularly trade secret assertions for financial information and attorney-client privilege claims for routine communications. The OOR frequently rules in favor of disclosure when agencies fail to meet their burden of proving specific exemptions apply. Judicial review and court appeals Final Determinations may be appealed to Court of Common Pleas (local agencies) or Commonwealth Court (state agencies) within 30 calendar days. Court appeals stay document release pending judicial resolution. Pennsylvania courts may award attorney fees and costs to successful requesters when agencies act in bad faith or without reasonable legal basis, with civil penalties up to $1,500 per record for willful violations. Recent procedural advantages include the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in MFW Wine Co. v. PLCB that sovereign immunity does not bar mandamus damages, strengthening enforcement options for successful transparency cases. Alternative legal mechanisms beyond RTKLMunicipal audit powers and taxpayer enforcement Pennsylvania law grants municipalities extensive audit authority over funded organizations. Under 53 Pa.C.S. § 5612, municipal authorities must undergo annual certified public accountant audits, and municipalities can examine authority books when "there is a need for a review." The statute explicitly grants ratepayers "cause of action in court of common pleas" to seek return of money spent outside an authority's mission. Taxpayers can compel municipal oversight through mandamus actions in Court of Common Pleas, requiring municipalities to exercise their inherent oversight powers over publicly-funded organizations. The legal standard requires showing clear legal duty, municipal failure to perform, and absence of adequate alternative remedies. Sunshine Act enforcement for public fund allocations Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act (65 Pa.C.S. Chapter 7) requires all municipal agencies to deliberate public fund allocations in open meetings with public comment opportunities. Violations can invalidate actions taken in secret, with officials facing fines of $100-$1,000 for intentional violations. Courts regularly enforce Sunshine Act requirements, providing another avenue for compelling transparency around funding decisions. Meeting records must document voting records and citizen testimony, creating permanent public records accessible through standard RTKL procedures. This creates a paper trail for funding decisions that can support subsequent transparency requests or legal challenges. Constitutional and mandamus remedies The Pennsylvania Constitution Article III, Section 24 requires that "no money shall be paid out of the treasury, except on appropriations made by law and on warrant issued by the proper officers." This constitutional provision supports taxpayer challenges to funding arrangements lacking adequate oversight or transparency. Mandamus actions provide direct enforcement mechanisms for compelling municipal agencies to exercise oversight powers or comply with transparency obligations. Following the 2024 MFW Wine Co. ruling, mandamus damages are available against government entities, strengthening incentives for compliance with legal obligations. Case law precedents and taxpayer standingFire department and volunteer organization precedents The Pysher line of cases establishes that volunteer fire companies receiving substantial municipal funding and providing emergency services are subject to transparency laws regardless of their private incorporation. Key holdings include that provision of fire and emergency services constitutes governmental activity, substantial public funding creates public accountability obligations, and private corporate structure does not shield publicly-funded entities from transparency requirements. Additional supporting precedents include Kniaz v. Benton Borough (1994), which applied Guinn to find volunteer fire companies entitled to governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, reinforcing that meeting the Guinn test establishes governmental status for all purposes. Taxpayer standing requirementsPennsylvania follows the restrictive Costopoulos v. Thornburgh (1979) standard requiring taxpayers to possess "direct and substantial interest" beyond the general interest in preventing waste of tax revenue. However, courts allow "more leeway" for local taxpayers challenging local expenditures compared to state or federal challenges. Successful standing strategies include demonstrating particularized injury from specific funding arrangements, showing constitutional violations in funding processes, and identifying clear statutory duties that municipalities have failed to perform. Standing is more readily established when challenging procedural violations (lack of open meetings, missing audits) rather than substantive funding decisions. Practical implementation guideSystematic approach to records access Phase 1: Strategic information gathering begins with RTKL requests to multiple agencies that may hold relevant records - the funding municipality, any oversight agencies, and the funded organization itself. Request specific categories including contracts, invoices, payment records, audit reports, board meeting minutes, and correspondence regarding funding arrangements. Phase 2: Challenge private status claims through targeted appeals focusing on governmental function performance, public funding dependency, and municipal oversight relationships. The OOR increasingly rules that substantial public funding combined with essential service provision creates agency status regardless of private incorporation. Phase 3: Alternative enforcement involves municipal audit compulsion, Sunshine Act enforcement for funding decisions, and constitutional challenges when agencies fail to provide adequate oversight of public funds. Cost-benefit analysis and resource planningRTKL requests and OOR appeals are low-cost, high-impact strategies with minimal financial risk. Standard fees are limited to copying costs ($0.25 per page), and OOR appeals are completely free with potential attorney fee recovery for successful court appeals. Legal aid resources include the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network, Low Income Taxpayer Clinics at Temple, University of Pittsburgh, and Villanova law schools, and advocacy organizations like ACLU of Pennsylvania and Common Cause Pennsylvania that provide RTKL guidance and support. Timeline and deadline managementCritical deadlines include 5 business days for initial agency responses, 15 business days for OOR appeals, and 30 calendar days for court appeals. Taxpayers must maintain detailed records of all submissions and responses to preserve appeal rights. The OOR provides online tracking systems and accepts electronic submissions for efficiency. Practical success factors include specificity in record requests, progressive request strategies that build on initial findings, documentation of all governmental functions and public funding relationships, and strategic use of multiple legal pathways to maintain pressure for compliance. Strategic recommendations for taxpayersPennsylvania law provides robust transparency rights for taxpayers seeking financial information from publicly-funded organizations. The strongest approach combines RTKL procedures with alternative enforcement mechanisms, creating multiple pressure points for compliance while minimizing individual legal risks.
Recent legal developments favor transparency, including the 2023 Pysher ruling strengthening agency status determinations, the 2024 MFW Wine Co. decision allowing mandamus damages, and ongoing OOR precedents supporting broad interpretation of public access rights. These trends suggest increasingly favorable prospects for taxpayers pursuing financial transparency from publicly-funded organizations claiming private status. The key to success lies in understanding that private incorporation does not shield organizations from transparency obligations when they receive substantial public funding and perform governmental functions. Pennsylvania courts consistently apply functional analysis over formal corporate structure, providing taxpayers with strong legal foundation for compelling disclosure from publicly-funded entities regardless of their claimed private status.  The shocking story of how a fire department director's misleading claims fooled the state agency tasked with enforcing transparency laws. The System Failed—SpectacularlyWhat happens when the agency responsible for enforcing government transparency laws gets fooled by the very entities they're supposed to oversee? We're about to find out, because Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records just delivered a masterclass in how NOT to investigate public accountability claims. In a decision that reads more like bureaucratic theater than serious oversight, the OOR accepted a fire department director's misleading statements at face value, ignored mountains of contradictory evidence, and rubber-stamped one of the most transparently false claims I've seen in years of transparency advocacy. This isn't just about one denied records request. It's about a broken system where oversight agencies do less investigating than a local newspaper reporter would do in an afternoon. How It Started: A Simple Request, A Ridiculous ResponseIn March, I submitted a routine public records request to the Exeter Township Volunteer Fire Department for financial records related to transactions with their directors—transactions they'd already disclosed in their own financial statements. Their response? "We're not subject to Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law." Despite receiving $1.4 million annually in taxpayer funding. Despite being granted exclusive governmental authority by township ordinance. Despite exercising police powers that private organizations legally cannot possess. But here's where the story gets truly disturbing: Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records—the agency specifically tasked with ensuring transparency laws are followed—bought this absurd claim hook, line, and sinker. The Con Job: How a Fire Department Director Fooled State OversightFire Department Director's playbook was brilliantly simple: make a series of misleading statements, hope nobody checks, and watch as the "oversight" agency does exactly zero actual oversight. The Misleading Claims That Worked: Claim #1: "We're just a private volunteer organization" Reality: Township Ordinance No. 870 explicitly designates them as the exclusive municipal fire department with governmental police powers including the authority to restrict property access, control traffic, and detain individuals. Claim #2: "We operate independently from the township" Reality: The same ordinance gives the Township Board of Supervisors authority to remove fire department officers "for any transgression" and requires the department to "cooperate in good faith with the Board and Township expectations." Claim #3: "Our funding relationship doesn't create governmental control" Reality: The township ordinance explicitly states that municipal funds "shall be expended following policies as may be set forth from time to time by the Supervisors" and grants the township full audit authority. Claim #4: "We don't exercise governmental functions" Reality: The ordinance grants them police powers that only governmental entities can legally exercise, and declares fire department personnel "employees of the township" for liability and workers' compensation purposes. The OOR's Spectacular Failure: When Oversight Becomes Rubber-StampingWhat makes this case truly shocking isn't just that these misleading claims were made—it's that Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records accepted them without conducting even basic fact-checking. What the OOR Failed to Do:
What the OOR Should Have Done: Any competent review would have immediately revealed that:
This isn't subtle. This isn't debatable. This is black-letter law written in plain English in a public ordinance. The Criminal Dimension: When Misleading Becomes PerjuryHere's where this story takes an even darker turn. The fire department director's statements to the OOR weren't just misleading—they appear to constitute perjury under Pennsylvania law. When you make false statements under oath or in official proceedings, you've committed a felony. When those false statements directly contradict publicly available legal documents, you've created an evidence trail that prosecutors dream about. The director's sworn assertions that the fire department operates independently, lacks governmental control, and doesn't exercise governmental functions aren't just wrong—they're demonstrably, documentably false. The Legal Jeopardy:
The director gambled that nobody would check his claims against the actual legal documents. He was right about the OOR, but wrong about the broader consequences. In trying to avoid transparency, he may have committed a career-ending felony. The cruel irony? The original records request was routine. A simple response would have avoided all of this. Instead, the director chose deception and may have destroyed his career in the process. The Smoking Gun They Ignored: Township Ordinance No. 870The most damning aspect of the OOR's failure is that all the evidence contradicting the fire department's claims exists in a single, easily accessible public document: Exeter Township Ordinance No. 870. This ordinance, enacted in 2024, reads like a governmental control checklist: Section 1: Designates ETVFD as "the only organization...authorized to operate in the Township" for fire services Section C(2)(a): Grants Township Board authority to remove fire department officers Section C(3): Requires department cooperation with township expectations Section C(6): Declares fire personnel "employees of the township" for legal purposes Section D(1)(a): Mandates that township funds follow supervisors' policies Section D(1)(b): Grants township explicit audit authority The OOR apparently never read this document. Or if they did, they chose to ignore what it plainly states. The Pattern: How Agencies Avoid Accountability Through Willful BlindnessThis case reveals a disturbing pattern in government oversight: agencies tasked with enforcement often prefer the path of least resistance, even when it means abandoning their fundamental responsibilities. The OOR's Incentive Structure:
The result? An "oversight" system that provides the appearance of accountability while systematically failing to hold anyone accountable. Why This Matters: When Watchdogs Refuse to BarkWhen oversight agencies fail this spectacularly, they don't just enable one organization's lack of transparency—they send a signal to every publicly-funded entity in Pennsylvania that misleading claims will be accepted at face value. The Broader Implications:
The Evidence They Could Have Found in Five MinutesWhat makes the OOR's failure even more inexcusable is how easy the relevant facts were to discover. A basic Google search would have revealed: Public Records Easily Available:
Legal Precedent Readily Available:
This wasn't hidden information requiring investigative journalism. This was basic due diligence that any competent oversight review should have included. The Reconsideration Request: Demanding Real OversightThis is why I've filed a request for reconsideration with the Office of Open Records. Not just because their initial decision was wrong—though it spectacularly was—but because their process reveals fundamental failures in how Pennsylvania enforces transparency laws. What the Reconsideration Should Address:
The Real Question: Can Oversight Be Fixed?This case raises uncomfortable questions about government oversight in Pennsylvania:
The answers matter because Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law is only as strong as the agencies tasked with enforcing it. A System Designed to Fail CitizensThe most troubling aspect of this case isn't the fire department's attempt to avoid transparency—organizations often try to minimize oversight. It's that Pennsylvania's transparency enforcement system failed so completely at its basic function. The Real Scandal:
This isn't incompetence—it's systemic dysfunction that makes transparency laws meaningless. What Happens Next: The Fight for Real AccountabilityThe reconsideration request gives the OOR a chance to correct their spectacular failure. They can:
Or they can double down on dysfunction and confirm that Pennsylvania's oversight system is fundamentally broken. The Bottom Line: When Watchdogs Won't WatchThis case represents everything wrong with government accountability in America today. An organization swimming in taxpayer dollars claims exemption from transparency laws. The agency tasked with oversight accepts obvious falsehoods without investigation. Citizens seeking basic accountability are told to go away. This isn't how democratic oversight is supposed to work. This isn't how transparency laws should be enforced. And this isn't the Pennsylvania that citizens deserve. The Office of Open Records has a chance to fix their failure. The question is whether they care more about convenient fiction or inconvenient truth. Because right now, the only thing transparent about Pennsylvania's transparency enforcement is how badly it's broken. Documents the OOR Should Have Read But Apparently Didn't:
Categories
All
Archives
July 2024
|
||