Upper Dublin Township Responds to Transparency Criticism

Two recent transparency critiques paint different lights on . The first, a critique from the Sunshine Review, a nonprofit organization dedicated to state and local government transparency, gave Upper Dublin Township's website a solid 'B' rating, concluding the township met criteria in eight of ten categories.

However, a recent editorial in the Ambler Gazette, headlined "Upper Dublin budget process kept many residents in the dark," criticized what the paper saw as an ethical failure of the township to post an updated 2012 budget proposal to its website prior to the Board of Commissioners on Dec. 13.

Sunshine Review's 'B' rating

Township staff members, including technology administrator Deb Ritter, recently attended a workshop with Kristin McMurray, managing editor at the Sunshine Review, on ways to improve government transparency. The Review issued a 'B' rating to the township based on a 10-point checklist: the posting of a county directory; commissioner contact information; meeting schedules, agendas, and minutes; zoning and building permits; contacts for public records requests; bid opportunities; audits and budgets; and local tax rates.

Under a section titled "the bad," the Review stated that copies of contracts greater than $10,000 were not posted, along with information about any taxpayer-funded lobbying or connections to lobbying companies.

"Upper Dublin Township is pleased with the "B" rating for its website from the Sunshine Review," read a message sent to Patch by Ritter, who is tasked with the upkeep and improvement of the website. "The Township's website has over 250 webpages, over 550 forms and documents and close to 1,200 meeting agendas and minutes… All webpages and documents are audited annually for accuracy, updating and replacement and statistics are reviewed monthly on the web activity."

Gazette critical of township's budgetary process

However, one point of criteria that the Sunshine Review did not use to rate the township was on the timing of the posting of its budget figures-- the exact criticism of the Gazette's editorial.

On Nov. 15, the Upper Dublin Commissioners held the first of three budgetary meetings. As , the commissioners presented a proposed 2.8 percent tax increase at the meeting, but stated that additional capital projects of flood-mitigation systems would be "deliberated during the budget hearings." The proposal was then posted to the township website.

The following Saturday, Nov. 19, the commissioners held a second budgetary session that ran from 8 a.m. until the afternoon hours, and was broadcast on television. The details of that meeting were relayed at the final budgetary session on Nov. 29, when the commissioners containing a 5.91 percent tax increase after adding the new capital projects. However, the new proposal was not posted to the Upper Dublin Township website until after the budget was passed for adoption on Dec. 13.

That's where the Gazette took issue.

"The decision to propose a 5.91 percent tax increase was made at the Nov. 29 work session — two full weeks before budget adoption. Yet on the day of the vote, the original proposed budget with the 2.8 percent increase remained on the front page of the website," read the article. "A resident doing his or her due diligence by perusing the budget would have been seeing incorrect information."

Township responds to criticism

Upper Dublin Patch reached out to the township for a response to the Gazette's editorial, and township manager Paul Leonard sent Patch a two-page statement, which he says is a collection of the sentiments of various township staff and commissioners.

While the statement admitted the township had not posted the increased tax rate before voting for adoption, it added that the reasons for the increases had been publicly deliberated over the course of several years.

"Yes, the Upper Dublin Commissioners raised the tax rate beyond that which was initially listed. The average home will now pay an additional $1.10 per week," read the statement. "But all of this tax increase was for capital projects and the majority of it has been discussed in public meetings for over two years. The funds are dedicated to flood retarding structures (dams) in the Office Park, residential stormwater/flood control and the finalization of funding for the new fire house, which is designed & constructed to serve for 50 to 75 years without major renovations."

[Visit our media section to read the statement in its entirety.]

The statement went on to defend the township's history of transparency efforts and say that the issue has been a priority for over a decade.

"Beginning in the mid-1990s a website was created long before many people even had access to the Internet. Since that time it has expanded greatly with a multitude of documents readily available to the public," read the statement. “For over 15 years, Upper Dublin Township meetings have been carried live on cable television (now FIOS as well)… The Commissioners have made a point of showing everything without fail excepted only by discussions on legal matters with the solicitor and personnel issues. Upper Dublin goes well beyond that specified by the Sunshine Act."

Gazette and Township both call for increased resident participation

In the final portion of its editorial, the Gazette also says that residents have a role to play in the process.

"But while the township's transparency in the budget process should have been better, some of the burden must fall on township residents," the article read. "When the commissioners adopted the budget, not a single resident spoke up — not even the ones who had voiced complaints about the new tax increase in the days leading up to the vote."

The township's statement echoed these sentiments.

"For the 2004 budget process, we tried to get more public input at budget meetings since few, if any, residents came," read the statement, citing that year as an example due to a test mailing effort. "Postcards were sent to every home in Upper Dublin with the dates of the meetings inviting people to come to those meetings. A total of six different people came out of 26,000 residents."

Ira Tackel, vice president of the Board of Commissioners, also called Patch to voice his opinion.

"The township has gone out of its way [specifically in 2004], to not only make the process transparent but to engage the residents to participate, and I'm at a loss for how else to do it," said Tackel. "I hear a vocal few, but even among those who complained about the process, not one showed up to the last budget hearing. We were there with open arms to hear any concerns they may have had."

Tackel added that he believes residents are mainly satisfied with the township's financial decisions.

"I believe that what the vast majority of people in Upper Dublin are looking for, as has been voiced to me by many residents, is value for their dollars," said Tackel. "I [believe] the majority of people believe they are getting value, and that's why they're not showing up… Everyone has their priorities and limited time availability, but it's very easy to Monday morning quarterback after never having participated."