Letter to the Editor: Protecting Taxpayers, Not Breaking a Contract

The following letter to the editor was sent in by Worth Holder of Spring City:

On October 12, 2011 the Concerned Citizens of East Vincent (CCOEV) submitted a letter to the Editor concerning the Town’s Board of Supervisors and a contract with the Federation of Northern Chester County Communities (Federation).  This nameless, faceless author’s misuse of facts and failure to present other facts results in a very misleading picture. A review of all the pertinent facts is required to correctly understand the situation and assess the veracity of the CCOEV letter [all referenced documents are available for review at the Township Office].  It will become abundantly clear that this matter is solely about protecting East Vincent Taxpayers.

Serving as the East Vincent Board of Supervisors’ representative, Christine McNeil (a duly elected Township Supervisor) signed the Vision Partnership Grant Agreement on April 7, 2009, committing East Vincent to serve as the lead Municipality of 8 municipalities [Contract available for review at Township Office].  In this lead role East Vincent is required to front payments during the course of the $150,000 Project, 71% of which ($106,000) will be reimbursed by Chester County upon completion of the Project [see contract page 2, Funding 1.A. & 2.].  Full reimbursement by Chester County is conditioned upon all participating municipalities accepting the plan and “County reimbursement shall be reduced in proportion to the number of non-adopting municipalities” [see contract page 3 Payment and Compensation 4.].    Simple math shows that the exposure to non-reimbursement $106,000 ÷ 8 municipalities = $13,250 per municipality.

During the May 10, 2011 meeting of the Federation it was noted that a six month extension of the project would be needed to complete the work and Christine McNeil should recommend the extension to the East Vincent Board of Supervisors (lead Municipality) at their next meeting [see Invoices, page 1 of May 10, 2011 Federation meeting minutes]. The extension was never brought before the East Vincent Board of Supervisors and the contract was subsequently unilaterally extended without approval of the Lead Municipality Board of Supervisors.

In the August 10, 2011 East Vincent Township Audit Report for year ending December 31, 2010, Robert C. Bezgin, CPA pointed out that the “Township may become obligated beyond their original commitment to the Federation should participating members of the Federation decide not to participate or renege on their original commitments”.  Mr. Bezgin recommended that the Township rectify this matter with the Federation. [item 3) page 2 of Audit report].  In the September 7, 2011 Board of Supervisors Meeting Supervisor Mark Dunphy repeated a request he first made in February of 2009 that Christine McNeil secure agreement that the Federation will obtain written resolutions from all participating townships stating that they will cover their share of any reimbursement financial shortfall. [ www.eastvincent.org  - September 7, 2011 audio minutes 00:17:50 – 00:29:40]  The Federation tabled the matter and Christine McNeil did not even vote! [page 4 of September 13, 2011 Federation meeting minutes].

The October 5, 2011 East Vincent Board of Supervisors meeting ended with a heated discussion when this topic was again raised.  I urge all concerned citizens to listen to the audio minutes at www.eastvincent.org [00:54:30 – 01:17:00].  You will hear a number of illuminating facts including:

• Supervisor McNeil reports that the Federation would not agree to the requested resolutions because it is offensive.  We should be willing to trust them.
• An additional grant of $15,000 will reduce the financial exposure.  However, like the above mentioned behavior to be trusted, this grant is nowhere to be found in the contract.
• As a forcing mechanism Supervisors Dunphy and Funk voted to suspend further Township project expenditures until the requested resolutions are received.
• Supervisor McNeil then stated that that action violates a valid contract.  I will “get our lawyer to go against you on that” - A supervisor willing to side with another entity to take action against the Township and the Taxpayers who elected him/her does not seem in keeping with an elected official’s responsibilities to the citizenry.

Don’t let yourself be misled. This dispute is not about breaking a valid contract or politics.  It is simply about:

1. Elected officials protecting the taxpayers who elected them to do just that.
2. Dealing with an issue raised in an official audit report.
3. Following good business practice by securing written confirmation of an operating behavior reportedly not at issue.

Please read and listen for yourself.

Worth Holder

Spring City