 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?
1 Comment
 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:
 This analysis examines the sworn attestation provided by ETVFD Director Brian Gottschall against the provisions of Exeter Township Ordinance No. 870 (adopted June 2024). The comparison reveals multiple direct contradictions between Gottschall's claims about the fire department's independence and the actual legal framework established by the township ordinance. Major Legal Contradictions1. Authority to Remove Officers Gottschall's Claim (Point #5): "No individual or entity, including the governing bodies of the local government units to which services are provided by the ETVFD, can direct or remove an individual in their service as an officer of the organization... the Township possesses no ability to remove an officer of the ETVFD." Ordinance 870 Section C(2)(a): "For any transgression, nonobservance or infringement of their sworn duty, or conduct unbecoming, or from heedlessness, indifference, or willfulness in the discharge of that duty, any officer of the Fire Department may be removed by the Exeter Township Board of Supervisors and, after such action, shall not possess the authorities or protections described herein." Analysis: This is a direct, unambiguous contradiction. Gottschall's sworn statement is factually incorrect regarding the township's. l.egal authority. 2. Financial Control and Oversight Gottschall's Claim (Point #9): "However, once these donations are allocated to the ETVFD, the Township exercises no financial control over how those funds are expended... While Exeter Township Ordinance 870 § D.(1)(a.) permits the Exeter Township Board of Supervisors to set forth policies in this regard, they have not done so, and have indicated no intent to do so in the future." Ordinance 870 Section D(1)(a): "These funds shall be expended following policies as may be set forth from time to time by the Supervisors." Ordinance 870 Section D(1)(b): "Any funds provided under this provision shall be subject to audit by the Township through its employees or agents, and the Fire Department shall reasonably cooperate with any formal audit activities through the provision of records, by making available its personnel, and by facilitating access to equipment and facilities as may be reasonably necessary to conduct such activities." Analysis: Gottschall acknowledges the township's authority to set policies but downplays it as optional. The ordinance language is mandatory ("shall be expended following policies" and "shall be subject to audit"). The township's failure to exercise these powers doesn't negate their legal existence. 3. Operational Control Gottschall's Claim (Point #7): "The Exeter Township's Supervisors, nor its manager, nor any other municipal government entity, exercises any control over the operations of the ETVFD." Ordinance 870 Section C(3): "The Fire Chief, and all officers and members of the Fire Department shall cooperate in good faith with the Board and the Township, and any board, commission or panel as may be appointed by the Board from time to time, to ensure that the services being provided by the Fire Department are being provided in accordance with the expectation of the Board." Analysis: The ordinance establishes clear expectations for cooperation and service delivery that contradict claims of complete operational independence. Additional Legal Inconsistencies4. Governmental Powers Problem Issue: Gottschall claims ETVFD is a private corporation, yet Ordinance 870 grants powers that only government entities can legally possess: Section B(2)(a)[1]: Authority to restrict or prohibit access to residences, businesses, and public spaces Section B(2)(a)[2]: Power to enter private property without consent when hazards exist Section B(2)(a)[3]: Authority to control traffic on public and private roadways Section C(5): Power to "take into custody" persons interfering with operations Legal Problem: Private corporations cannot exercise police powers or governmental authority. These provisions suggest ETVFD functions as a governmental entity, not a private corporation. 5. Employment Status Contradiction Gottschall's Implication: Complete independence from government control and structure Ordinance 870 Section C(6): "Any officer, employee, or member of ETVFD... when in the course of performing or participating in activities described in B (2) above, shall be considered an employee of the township solely for the purpose of Worker's Compensation, liability, and civil tort immunity." Analysis: This creates a direct governmental employment relationship that contradicts claims of complete independence. 6. Exclusive Governmental Designation Gottschall's Claim: ETVFD is a private corporation providing services Ordinance 870 Section 1: "The Exeter Township Volunteer Fire Department ('ETVFD') is hereby designated as the primary provider of fire and rescue services ('Fire Department') within Exeter Township. ETVFD shall be the only organization dedicated to the fighting of fires and of the provision of fire and rescue services that is authorized to operate in the Township..." Analysis: This exclusive governmental designation with monopoly authority is inconsistent with private corporation status. Legal ImplicationsFor Right-to-Know Law Challenges: These contradictions undermine the fire department's claim that it operates as a purely private entity. The ordinance establishes:
For Fiscal Accountability: The township has established legal mechanisms for oversight but has failed to exercise them:
For Taxpayer Standing: The documented contradictions between sworn statements and governing law provide grounds for challenging:
ConclusionThe comparison reveals that Brian Gottschall's attestation contains multiple factual inaccuracies regarding the legal relationship between ETVFD and Exeter Township. Whether these inaccuracies result from misunderstanding the ordinance or attempting to misrepresent the relationship, they significantly undermine the fire department's position that it operates as a private corporation beyond public accountability.
The ordinance establishes ETVFD as a governmentally-designated entity with exclusive authority, governmental powers, oversight requirements, and employment relationships that are fundamentally inconsistent with private corporation status.  Play Podcast Below (Length: 20 mins) Your Tax Dollars, Their Rules, Zero AccountabilityWhat happens when a "private" corporation gets government powers, takes $20 million in taxpayer money, and tells you to mind your own business?
In this explosive episode, we uncover a stunning web of contradictions that will make your blood boil. A fire department director swears under oath that his organization is completely independent—while simultaneously wielding powers to arrest people, seize private property, and control public roads. But here's the kicker: The very legal document that grants them these government superpowers also gives your elected officials the authority to audit their books, remove their officers, and control how they spend your money. Yet somehow, nobody told the fire department this... or did they? 🔥 You'll discover:
This isn't just about one fire department. This is about a playbook that could be happening in your community right now—public money, private control, and taxpayers left holding the bag. Warning: After listening to this episode, you'll never look at your tax bill the same way again. You might even show up to your next township meeting with some very uncomfortable questions. Because when $20 million of your money disappears into a black hole of "we're private, you can't ask," somebody needs to turn on the lights. Ready to follow the money trail? Hit play and prepare to be outraged. Schnee Illegal Contracting with Hoch7/10/2024 This is sadly, almost a comedic display by John (Jack) Piho of Piho Engineering and the Exeter Township's Board of Supervisors ....
Watch as they discover that they do not have a contract for hiring Hoch (per Schnee) and that the current draft is incomplete. This is a great opportunity to see the complete incompetence of Solicitor Chadwick Schnee of Schnee Legal Services. Witness the clear disengagement of Supervisors Bell, Hamm and Kircher -- and note that Bell and Kircher seats are up for Election next year. WE MUST SEND THEM HOME FOR GOOD! 
Categories
All
Archives
July 2024
|