June 30, 2005 Special Meeting where Claude Beaver was appointed Supervisor:
This meeting was for the purpose of appointing a replacement to serve until the end of the year, since Gloria Kemmerer had resigned as supervisor.
Mistakes were made:
Let me preface this by saying that I made two mistakes at this meeting. First, I never should have told the last two people making public comment to “make it quick.” This was unnecessary.
Second, we probably should not have had any names printed on the agenda. Diane Hollenbach, the township secretary, had printed the names of people who had contacted the township office to be considered for Gloria's seat. I contacted several people who regularly attend meetings, and I believe Bob did the same. In addition, the previous edition of this web site had said, “If you are interested in serving the township on the board of supervisors please contact Bob Kopfer or myself. You can use the email link at the bottom of this page to let me know your interest.” and several people did just that. They directly contacted Bob and myself. There were several people being considered, whose names were not printed on the agenda. I understand that people were confused when Claude was nominated since his name was not on the agenda.
Claude Beaver:
Claude has been a Maidencreek resident for over 20 years. He has worked in the township, as a technician, for some 18 years. He has regularly attended the township meetings for longer than I have been a supervisor. He has served the township on the Agricultural Security Board.
The Meeting:
The meeting started with public comment. Joe Rudderow, my former opponent, read his letter into the minutes. It stated that he was willing to serve, and gave several of his credentials. Joe currently serves on the planning commission. Joe had many of his supporters present. They spoke on his behalf as well. Gloria also spoke on Joe's behalf, but I'll say more about that later. Their argument to nominate Joe was essentially based on the notion that since he had run in the primary, he had received votes for the position even though he lost the election, and thus was more qualified than anyone who had not run for the position. If running were a requirement to appointed, then Joe Rudderow, Samantha Wesner (2nd place 2002 general election) and Karl Bolognese (2nd place 2002 primary election) would be the only ones Bob and I could have chosen. It does not logically follow that because Joe ran against me, and lost, that the people would prefer him to Claude Beaver. The point was made that the election was a low turnout, and Joe did “well.” I can only conclude that a low turnout election means that the people who stayed home were pleased with the status quo. They certainly did not demonstrate any desire to change the leadership in the township. Anyhow, I nominated Claude Beaver. Bob seconded my nomination. The people present asked why I was not supporting Joe. That is a fair question. I've known Claude Beaver a little longer than I have known Joe. Claude understands the issues, and I believe is a limited government conservative. I have concerns that that Joe is not committed to a limited local government. In fact, I am concerned that Joe would make the township government more controlling than it ought to be. I will provide you with two examples:
Zimmerman Poultry Barn: Blue font is added on 7/13/2005. I originally wrote that Joe (on the planning commission) and Gloria (on the Board of Supervisors) supported additional regulation for the Zimmerman poultry barn. Mr. Zimmerman decided that he needed to build a poultry barn to keep his farm economically competitive. Our planning commission wanted additional regulation such as an engineering study or the Land Development process. Land Development is normally applied to commercial development. To give you an example, land development to transform the antique shop on Route 222 into a music store cost the owners about $17,000 in engineering fees. I do not know Mr. Zimmerman's financial situation, but I believe there are very few farmers that can afford to spend between $15,000 and $20,000 in professional fees that don't even get them a better quality barn. Let me say that the quickest way to assure that Maidencreek Township expands its suburban sprawl is to fetter the farmers with increased regulation. These farmers produce commodities that have to be competitive in a world market. Do you think that Mr. Zimmerman's Mexican or Venezuelan competitors are paying $15,000 to $20,000 for permission from their government to build a barn on their property? If Mr. Zimmerman finds that he can not compete, is it not likely that he will sell to a developer? I suppose you may say, “If he sells, the supervisor's can just not approve any development plan.” That is not true of plans that comply with the ordinances. If the supervisors do not approve a plan that is in accordance with the ordinances, we can be sued in mandamus. We may even end up with a federal civil rights law suit for depriving the man of the lawful use of his property.
I received communication that my original post was not supported by the minutes. I recall hearing that Joe had supported additional regulation for the Zimmerman Poultry Barn. I was not at this meeting. The minutes show that various members of the commission did support the idea of additional regulation, but Joe's name is not mentioned in the discussion. The May 2003 (emphasis mine) planning commission minutes follow:
The Planning Commission stated that Eli Zimmerman had been granted a variance to install two poultry barns. Part of the installation will include building swales, an access drive and tanks. The Commission members agreed that they would like to see the plans. They posed the following questions: How will it be regulated and how will the storm water be diverted? Gene Orlando explained that the current Maidencreek Township ordinance does not require a land development plan for any agricultural accessory structures. The Commission questioned if a swale would be considered an accessory structure. Storm water runoff could be substantial. This could be a health, safety and welfare issue. Don Glass commented that the pig farm in Perry Township took 3 years to approve but a poultry farm in Maidencreek doesn’t even have to go through plan review. The Commission agreed that looking back, the Zoning Hearing Board could have requested a land development plan. David Brown stated that the Susquehanna Valley Water Shed require farmers to show how their waste is managed. Mr. Brown suggested checking with the Berks County Cooperative Extension for details on the poultry farm. There may also be a DEP nutrient management plan and an erosion and sedimentation plan. The Commission asked if the Zoning Officer had sent a letter to Mr. Zimmerman as requested at the May Board of Supervisors meeting. The secretary was not aware of a letter.
A motion was made by David Brown, seconded by Randy Wolfe, to recommend that the Board of Supervisors, on behalf of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the township, ask for the Zimmerman poultry farm plans for construction, a site plan showing all construction and detail improvements, all applicable permits, documentation from Berks County Soil Conservation District, Penn State Extension Service approvals and for the contractor to show plans for storm water. All members voted, “Aye.” Motion carried.
The minutes indicate the planning commission contemplated land development, and seems to be frustrated that they are unable to more fully regulate the poultry barn. I can find no evidence in the official record of Joe supporting land development for the poultry barn. I believe by the way Gloria talked about the project she would have put the poultry barn through land development if she could have. My point here is that there are unintended consequences to this type of regulation. One such consequence may be the farmer selling to a developer.
St. Matthew's Greek Orthodox Church was given some land along Route 222. They are supported through voluntary contributions. They placed a sign on Route 222 stating “Future Home of St. Matthew's Greek Orthodox Church.” Undoubtedly they were soliciting contributions from their congregation, and saying, “Look for the sign on Route 222 to see where the new Church will go.” Before the July 2004 planning commission meeting Joe Rudderow and Dick Thren had a conversation to the effect, “Where do they get off putting a sign on that land? How do they know we'll let them put a church on that land?” Let me tell you that Churches are an allowed use in ALL of Maidencreek's zoning districts. This means that there are no officials in the township appointed or elected that can legally stop a church from going on that land. This incident convinced me that members of our planning commission did not understand the principles of limited government. I purchased a case of Fredrick Bastiat's “The Law” to give to members of our government, as well as any local residents who have interest. This conversation took place before the start of the meeting and is not in the minutes, however, I was there in person, and several people have told me they remember it as well.
Joe is a dedicated citizen. He has a beautiful family, and a passion to serve the community. I have no question about his sincerity, and commitment. However, these two events, as well as others, gave me concern that Joe was not committed to a limited local government. The reason I did not support Joe's appointment is I have concerns about his style of government. I do not have these concerns about Claude Beaver.
Why does Roy give away Fredrick Bastiat's book “The Law”?
There are two reasons
Because P.J. O'Rouke's book Parliament of Whores is too expensive. For information on buying this book click here
Bastiat asks the question, “What ought government to do?” In other words what is the proper role of government? Bastiat also answers this question. You may not agree with his answer, but at least he gets you thinking about the question. We need to be asking this question at the federal, state, county and local level. I do not expect everyone to agree with Mr. Bastiat's answer to the question, but it needs to be asked, and discussed.
Gloria Kemmerer:
Gloria made several allegations on her web site, one was that I never contacted her after her resignation. Gloria's resignation was a surprise. She stated that her reasons were personal. Her use of the word personal led me to believe she did not want to be questioned on her reasons. Just after her resignation (I was on the road for two weeks) I sent her the following email:
Gloria, I'm on the road, and to my surprise I can not update my township web site from here. I think it is some issue with the firewall at this college. Anyhow, what follows is what I intend to post concerning your resignation. I will miss your wisdom and input at the meetings. - Roy Gloria has served the township faithfully since she replaced Terry Rarrick when he resigned. Two years ago Gloria ran unopposed for the supervisor position. Her resignation was for personal reasons, and was unexpected. Gloria gave a tremendous amount of time to the township, and had a great attention to detail. She was an asset to the board, and will be missed.
Gloria is intelligent and able to understand the issues. Gloria's husband works, and her children have left home. Gloria had the time to drill deep into the details of the issues and she drilled into these details willingly; I had no idea that she felt that she was given the mundane tasks. I still mean what I said in my June 7th email. I am, however, saddened by Gloria's attitude displayed on her recent website. I had no idea that those were her true feelings. Gloria made several remarks that are loosely based in fact, and I want to clarify the record. Gloria and I differed on style of government. Gloria, Bob and I had all combinations of 2 to 1 votes. I have gone over the times I differed with Gloria, and largely they were on issues of control. The above section on the Zimmerman barn is one example. Another is the trailer parking ordinance concerning trailers. This was a catalyst that caused me to run in 2000. The ordinance as passed by the old board allowed no parking of trailers on the public streets at any time. (This meant that you could not legally resurface your driveway.) My initial supporters were the people who gave testimony in favor of a waiting period to allow street parking of trailers for load/unload purposes. I had even received criticism from one man who voted for me in 2000, because I had not addressed this issue until recently. Bob and I voted to allow trailers a 24-hour period on the street. No one can legally store a trailer on the street (unless they are willing to move it every day.)
Creeks:
Gloria also alleged that I told a resident that they could build a retaining wall next to the creek without any permits, etc. What I did say is that he may benefit from a retaining wall, and he would have to check with the township engineer to determine the requirements. The resident later told me that it would cost him $14,000 for an engineering study to get the permits for the wall. He has since abandoned the plans. He lives on Faith Drive. On 5/27/05 I received an email that a man on Cornerstone Drive (other side of the same creek) was filling in the area behind his house without a permit. I never spoke with this man, and I believe Gloria has confused these two people.
Censorship:
In the spring Gloria's daughter, Diane Hollenbach, the township secretary and newsletter editor, contacted me that she wanted to do a piece on each candidate running. I did not like the idea of using a taxpayer funded township newsletter to campaign for office. I told her to see if she had two out of three supervisors that favored it. Gloria was the only one that favored it. We discussed it at the 6/2/05 public meeting and concluded that it is fraught with problems. It puts the newsletter editor in a no-win situation. Suppose one candidate gives 500 words and the other gives 250 - does the 250 get a bigger font? Who gets the top of the page? You know the loser is likely to complain about the editor and the layout. There is the issue of what ought government to do? Should candidates be responsible for getting their message out to the voters, or should the taxpayer fund those of us who want to run for office? Bob and I thought the candidate is responsible, not the taxpayer. As chairman I did not write a piece for that issue of the newsletter, because I did not want to be accused of abusing any privilege of incumbency. Gloria claims that keeping campaign literature out of a taxpayer funded newsletter is an abuse of privilege, and censorship. Censorship is when the government coercively represses a message, not when a government refuses to spend other people's money to promote a candidate's message. If I had sided with Gloria would she still accuse me of abuse of privilege?
The Balance:
Gloria's other claims are like the rest; they have a kernel of truth, but lack substance. If anyone is interested in any issue that I have not covered here, please email me. Gloria claims that she believes I am seeking power to the detriment of the Maidencreek residents. With all the differences on votes that I can remember, Gloria was on the side of making the local government more controlling. If she really has concerns that I will abuse power she should have stayed in office where she could be an effective check against the abuse of power. If Claude Beaver is the limited government conservative I believe him to be, he will be an effective check should I try to abuse power. Bob would not tolerate an abuse of power any more than the rest of us.
You can view the official Township meeting minutes at:
http://hometown.aol.com/maidenminutes/minutespg1.html
I still have copies of the Fredrick Bastiat book “The Law” available to Maidencreek residents. Email me if you want one.
Paid for by Roy Timpe