The County Commissioners are expected to designate an "Open Records Officer" at their weekly Wednesday meeting.
The officer will serve as a point of contact for the public and ensure compliance with Act 3 of 2008, or the revised Pennsylvania "Right-To-Know" Law.
The Assessors Association of Pennsylvania explains, "Requests for agency records made after December 31, 2008 will fall under Pennsylvania’s new Right-to-Know Law, Act 3 of 2008. The new act expands the definition of records to include most governmental transactions, and brings the General Assembly and the judiciary under the act. Records are presumed open, unless otherwise kept private under another state or federal law or regulation or court decree. The burden of proof is reversed from prior law, so it falls to an agency to prove a record is confidential, rather than a requester proving it is open."
The Commissioners are expected to appoint Doris Crater to the position. Crater is currently the County's Director of Records Management.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
TRRAAC attorney denies F&M accusation
Editor's update: As of Thursday afternoon, we have not received the promised response to F & M from Attorney William J. Cluck.
In response to its inquiry, NewsLanc has received the following communication from William J. Cluck, Esquire, who represents The Rail Road Action &Advisory Committee (TRRAAC).
I have been tied up on two other cases this weekend and will not be able to draft a detailed response to Orris and Fry's charges until I return to town Tuesday afternoon.
However, I am told by TRRAAC that they have a videotape of my presentation and they confirm I did not say F&M dumped on the north side. I was very careful to say the former Lancaster Brickyard, as reported by EPA in its August 14, 2008 letter to TRRAAC and the 1987 DER Preliminary Assessment and the 1990 NUS inspection.
I believe the tape will be posted on Youtube with a link from the TRRAAC web site.
NewsLanc will publish Cluck's full response upon its receipt.
Below is the response to an inquiry from NewsLanc from Dulcey Antonucci of F & M's public relations department which NewsLanc had forwarded to Cluck for response: (NewsLanc had posted material from F & M's web site last week.)
Thank you for giving Franklin & Marshall College a chance to respond. I encourage you to spend some time on our Web site, where many of the misrepresentations made by TRRAAC can be corrected.
For example, TRRAAC claims that the very task of heavy construction equipment and trucks excavating the site and moving the waste would cause additional damage to the deteriorating backing, generating friable asbestos dust. This is explained here: http://www.fandm.edu/x18475.xml. Within the public meeting minutes on this Web page, we explain that asbestos content within the waste is indicated as being limited to waste floor tile (linoleum and vinyl flooring). Samples of the floor tile indicate that the asbestos content is non-friable, as the laboratory tests indicate it to be non-friable, organically- bound (NOB). Still, at the meeting the question is asked, What methods of dust control will be used to contain airborne asbestos associated with removal of waste from the former Brickyard site? The response is: Perimeter and work zone mister and soaker systems will be employed, as necessary, to control and eliminate work zone dust exposures and to prevent off-site migration of dust originating from the excavation, backfilling, compaction, and waste hauling activities.
TRRAAC also claims that F&M has only conducted "one twentieth" the amount of exploratory tests that normally are required to determine presence of friable asbestos. Since F&M received DEP's approval for cleanup at the site on Oct. 3, the number of samples we have taken is obviously enough to meet the standards for securing approval on a plan.
In response to the claim that F&M has been consistently giving half-truths, misinformation, incomplete information, and, in some cases, outright false information, again I would encourage you and your readers to visit the F&M Web site for the project. The homepage is here: http://www.fandm.edu/railyard.xml The site includes letters received by the College from TRRAAC as well as our replies. It also has .pdf files from consultants, Township representatives and other agencies. Your readers are thus able to read all of these documents in their entirety, look at project maps, and read frequently asked question and our answers. We also list TRRAAC's 12 reasons for an alternative location and our 12 responses here: http://www.fandm.edu/x18530.xml
Finally, I've attached a letter that Keith Orris sent to Dan Gillis today. This should make clear our response to Mr. Cluck's specific accusations.
In response to its inquiry, NewsLanc has received the following communication from William J. Cluck, Esquire, who represents The Rail Road Action &Advisory Committee (TRRAAC).
I have been tied up on two other cases this weekend and will not be able to draft a detailed response to Orris and Fry's charges until I return to town Tuesday afternoon.
However, I am told by TRRAAC that they have a videotape of my presentation and they confirm I did not say F&M dumped on the north side. I was very careful to say the former Lancaster Brickyard, as reported by EPA in its August 14, 2008 letter to TRRAAC and the 1987 DER Preliminary Assessment and the 1990 NUS inspection.
I believe the tape will be posted on Youtube with a link from the TRRAAC web site.
NewsLanc will publish Cluck's full response upon its receipt.
Below is the response to an inquiry from NewsLanc from Dulcey Antonucci of F & M's public relations department which NewsLanc had forwarded to Cluck for response: (NewsLanc had posted material from F & M's web site last week.)
Thank you for giving Franklin & Marshall College a chance to respond. I encourage you to spend some time on our Web site, where many of the misrepresentations made by TRRAAC can be corrected.
For example, TRRAAC claims that the very task of heavy construction equipment and trucks excavating the site and moving the waste would cause additional damage to the deteriorating backing, generating friable asbestos dust. This is explained here: http://www.fandm.edu/x18475.xml. Within the public meeting minutes on this Web page, we explain that asbestos content within the waste is indicated as being limited to waste floor tile (linoleum and vinyl flooring). Samples of the floor tile indicate that the asbestos content is non-friable, as the laboratory tests indicate it to be non-friable, organically- bound (NOB). Still, at the meeting the question is asked, What methods of dust control will be used to contain airborne asbestos associated with removal of waste from the former Brickyard site? The response is: Perimeter and work zone mister and soaker systems will be employed, as necessary, to control and eliminate work zone dust exposures and to prevent off-site migration of dust originating from the excavation, backfilling, compaction, and waste hauling activities.
TRRAAC also claims that F&M has only conducted "one twentieth" the amount of exploratory tests that normally are required to determine presence of friable asbestos. Since F&M received DEP's approval for cleanup at the site on Oct. 3, the number of samples we have taken is obviously enough to meet the standards for securing approval on a plan.
In response to the claim that F&M has been consistently giving half-truths, misinformation, incomplete information, and, in some cases, outright false information, again I would encourage you and your readers to visit the F&M Web site for the project. The homepage is here: http://www.fandm.edu/railyard.xml The site includes letters received by the College from TRRAAC as well as our replies. It also has .pdf files from consultants, Township representatives and other agencies. Your readers are thus able to read all of these documents in their entirety, look at project maps, and read frequently asked question and our answers. We also list TRRAAC's 12 reasons for an alternative location and our 12 responses here: http://www.fandm.edu/x18530.xml
Finally, I've attached a letter that Keith Orris sent to Dan Gillis today. This should make clear our response to Mr. Cluck's specific accusations.
Former Holiday Inn East
According to the Oct. 12 Sunday News, local tax officials and other sources nationally state that the Kronos Hotel and Resorts Company, operator of the local former Holiday Inn, has not been timely paying taxes, bills and workers.
Those familiar with the commercial real estate industry, especially as it applies to hotels, are not likely to be surprised. Fueled in large part with Asian funds, Indian-Americans (not Native-Americans!) have been purchasing hotels at irrationally high prices for several years. In many cases, their ability to raise money from friends and family back home has been greater than their business acumen.
Meanwhile, some hotel chains have been reluctant to withdraw the franchise when hotels fail to meet minimal quality control standards. Franchisers receive a percentage of gross revenue rather than out of hotel earnings. And some chains do not guard their brands' reputation as closely as do others.
Fortunately most hotels are well managed. Nevertheless, even well managed hotels purchased recently at escalated prices will have a hard time making ends meet if the country does slide into a steep recession.
Those familiar with the commercial real estate industry, especially as it applies to hotels, are not likely to be surprised. Fueled in large part with Asian funds, Indian-Americans (not Native-Americans!) have been purchasing hotels at irrationally high prices for several years. In many cases, their ability to raise money from friends and family back home has been greater than their business acumen.
Meanwhile, some hotel chains have been reluctant to withdraw the franchise when hotels fail to meet minimal quality control standards. Franchisers receive a percentage of gross revenue rather than out of hotel earnings. And some chains do not guard their brands' reputation as closely as do others.
Fortunately most hotels are well managed. Nevertheless, even well managed hotels purchased recently at escalated prices will have a hard time making ends meet if the country does slide into a steep recession.
Letter and Reply re LGH proper role
LETTER:
In your editorial on Lancaster oligarchy, you suggest that the amount of profit Lancaster General Hospital, a not-for-profit entity, routinely posts is more than needed for health care purposes and you suggest that they become philanthropists.
Why doesn't Lancaster General Hospital reduce its charges to its patients, across the board? Wouldn't that be the most constructive way to rein in the cost of healthcare to this community?
And if Lancaster General Hospital gouges its patients to such an extreme extent that they are posting profits in excess of $160 million, and can't build and extend their empire fast enough to use it all up, can they even be called "non-profit" any more?
And, while I am at it, if Lancaster General Hospital begins giving away vast amounts of money to charitable community causes, isn't it really "We the Patients"who are the true community philanthropists, since it is really our money?
If I overcharge someone for my services, then turn around and give a portion of my ill-gotten gains to the poor, that doesn't make me a philanthropist. It makes
me an unethical businessperson trying to salve my own conscience or make myself look like good!
REPLY:
NewsLanc published a series of article about the roots of LGH profitability based on research conducted by an analyst borrowed from a national organization. We received a certain amount of cooperation from LGH at the outset before they clammed up when they saw we were skillful in putting together the jigsaw puzzle.
Some of their profitability stems from efficiency. But much is due to the special circumstances of this local market and their dominant position in it.
Most of their revenue comes from third party sources - insurance companies and government. Lower rates would partially trickle down to those paying directly and through insurance programs since the programs' costs would be reduced. But, in general, there can be a good argument for LGH charging market rates similar to hospitals throughout the state.
LGH clearly does not need to spend $160 million a year, year after year, on expansion and upgrading. So what it can do is provide a larger ratio of its earning to subsidize worthwhile local causes. In its relatively meager giving (one of the lowest percentages in the state for hospitals), LGH prioritizing public health efforts. Where it to re-think its philanthropic responsibilities, it would be able to do much more for current recipients and expand the scope of its philanthropy to include certain types of educational activities such as schools and libraries.
God bless the Steinman family for all the wonderful things they did during the last century. But with the print media moving to the Internet, the Steinman foundation is unlikely to play so large a role for the betterment of our community.
LGH has no need to try to profit through questionable projects at the public expense. Also it is an institution of highly qualified, sophisticated individuals. Its ethos is consistent with service to the community.
Therefore, NewsLanc encourages LGH to make use of its extraordinary prosperity to assume two roles: Expand the amount and scope of its subsidies to important community activities; and also provide an altruistic anchor against the schemes of those who despite incompetency and sometimes through greed and by bullying have seized the business leadership of our community.
In your editorial on Lancaster oligarchy, you suggest that the amount of profit Lancaster General Hospital, a not-for-profit entity, routinely posts is more than needed for health care purposes and you suggest that they become philanthropists.
Why doesn't Lancaster General Hospital reduce its charges to its patients, across the board? Wouldn't that be the most constructive way to rein in the cost of healthcare to this community?
And if Lancaster General Hospital gouges its patients to such an extreme extent that they are posting profits in excess of $160 million, and can't build and extend their empire fast enough to use it all up, can they even be called "non-profit" any more?
And, while I am at it, if Lancaster General Hospital begins giving away vast amounts of money to charitable community causes, isn't it really "We the Patients"who are the true community philanthropists, since it is really our money?
If I overcharge someone for my services, then turn around and give a portion of my ill-gotten gains to the poor, that doesn't make me a philanthropist. It makes
me an unethical businessperson trying to salve my own conscience or make myself look like good!
REPLY:
NewsLanc published a series of article about the roots of LGH profitability based on research conducted by an analyst borrowed from a national organization. We received a certain amount of cooperation from LGH at the outset before they clammed up when they saw we were skillful in putting together the jigsaw puzzle.
Some of their profitability stems from efficiency. But much is due to the special circumstances of this local market and their dominant position in it.
Most of their revenue comes from third party sources - insurance companies and government. Lower rates would partially trickle down to those paying directly and through insurance programs since the programs' costs would be reduced. But, in general, there can be a good argument for LGH charging market rates similar to hospitals throughout the state.
LGH clearly does not need to spend $160 million a year, year after year, on expansion and upgrading. So what it can do is provide a larger ratio of its earning to subsidize worthwhile local causes. In its relatively meager giving (one of the lowest percentages in the state for hospitals), LGH prioritizing public health efforts. Where it to re-think its philanthropic responsibilities, it would be able to do much more for current recipients and expand the scope of its philanthropy to include certain types of educational activities such as schools and libraries.
God bless the Steinman family for all the wonderful things they did during the last century. But with the print media moving to the Internet, the Steinman foundation is unlikely to play so large a role for the betterment of our community.
LGH has no need to try to profit through questionable projects at the public expense. Also it is an institution of highly qualified, sophisticated individuals. Its ethos is consistent with service to the community.
Therefore, NewsLanc encourages LGH to make use of its extraordinary prosperity to assume two roles: Expand the amount and scope of its subsidies to important community activities; and also provide an altruistic anchor against the schemes of those who despite incompetency and sometimes through greed and by bullying have seized the business leadership of our community.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
EDITORIAL: Lancaster oligarchy reconsidered
NewsLanc has been criticized for our articles critical of Franklin & Marshall president John Fry. And although our viewers and newsletter distribution are at record high, we note with regret that some prior supporters have become alienated.
We are sorry for this. But it is Fry's arrogance, duplicity and over reaching that is to be blamed.
Some time ago we included General Hospital and Fulton Bank along with F & M, High Group and the Newspapers as part of the "Big Five" oligarchy. But ever since it extracted itself from the convention center hotel project, Fulton has kept a low profile. And it may be acquired by a national bank.
If non-profit Lancaster General Hospital would recognize that its earnings (over $160 million last year!) far exceed what is needed for health care, LGH could not only fund many worthy but neglected causes, but also provide a more benign and altruistic community leadership, thus filling the role left of late by the Steinman family.
We are sorry for this. But it is Fry's arrogance, duplicity and over reaching that is to be blamed.
Some time ago we included General Hospital and Fulton Bank along with F & M, High Group and the Newspapers as part of the "Big Five" oligarchy. But ever since it extracted itself from the convention center hotel project, Fulton has kept a low profile. And it may be acquired by a national bank.
If non-profit Lancaster General Hospital would recognize that its earnings (over $160 million last year!) far exceed what is needed for health care, LGH could not only fund many worthy but neglected causes, but also provide a more benign and altruistic community leadership, thus filling the role left of late by the Steinman family.
Friday, October 10, 2008
John Fry: The fraying of town and gown relationships
The controversy between The Rail Road Action And Advisory Committee (TRRAAC), a citizen organization, and Franklin & Marshall College over the relocation of the Norfolk & Southern railroad yard, is further evidence of the increasing estrangement between the college and the community.
The Intelligencer Journal reports on Oct. 10 "Fry said he called a representative from Donnelley and asked if, hypothetically, some of the land could be sold and used as a rail yard. He said a representative of the company told him no."
On its face, let alone that it comes from Fry, one has to question whether Donnelley would react differently if the request came from government officials and sufficient funds were offered. And there also is the possibility of a taking via the government's right of eminent domain.
F & M had long been a source of pride and its presidents held in high esteem until recently. A look at some of Fry's high handed actions since becoming president explains his and the college's estrangement in recent years:
1) Fry was a member of the Board of the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority and its assistant treasurer when millions upon millions of funds from the Hotel Room Tax were apparently expended on consultants without contracts and proper oversight.
2) Fry arranged for the passing lane on Harrisburg Pike to be eliminated for a block, thus potentially clogging a mile of traffic and impeding emergency vehicles.
3) Fry watched while F & M Security threw to the ground Lancaster Post news editor Ron Harper when he was peaceably standing across the road from Fry's residence, an episode partly caught on video. Fry has yet to apologize although trespassing charges again Harper were immediately dropped.
4) Fry's residing in the heart of School Lane Hills in a home owned by F & M has enabled its private security force to gain dual police jurisdiction over much of the community to the alarm of many.
5) Fry's response to media requests for information have often been brazen and self serving to the point of absurdity. (Example: The possible removal of the pedestrian overpass is to make things safer!)
6) Fry's handling of the legitimate concerns by School Lane Hills residents are considered devious at best if not downright dishonorable by many observers.
The railroad yard relocation to the site of an asbestos dump is a very serious issue and requires a full review by PennDOT and the state and federal environmental authorities. That is all that TRRAAC is requesting.
F & M's Board of Trustees needs to reflect on how much more damage to its reputation they are going to sustain by retaining John Fry as its president.
The Intelligencer Journal reports on Oct. 10 "Fry said he called a representative from Donnelley and asked if, hypothetically, some of the land could be sold and used as a rail yard. He said a representative of the company told him no."
On its face, let alone that it comes from Fry, one has to question whether Donnelley would react differently if the request came from government officials and sufficient funds were offered. And there also is the possibility of a taking via the government's right of eminent domain.
F & M had long been a source of pride and its presidents held in high esteem until recently. A look at some of Fry's high handed actions since becoming president explains his and the college's estrangement in recent years:
1) Fry was a member of the Board of the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority and its assistant treasurer when millions upon millions of funds from the Hotel Room Tax were apparently expended on consultants without contracts and proper oversight.
2) Fry arranged for the passing lane on Harrisburg Pike to be eliminated for a block, thus potentially clogging a mile of traffic and impeding emergency vehicles.
3) Fry watched while F & M Security threw to the ground Lancaster Post news editor Ron Harper when he was peaceably standing across the road from Fry's residence, an episode partly caught on video. Fry has yet to apologize although trespassing charges again Harper were immediately dropped.
4) Fry's residing in the heart of School Lane Hills in a home owned by F & M has enabled its private security force to gain dual police jurisdiction over much of the community to the alarm of many.
5) Fry's response to media requests for information have often been brazen and self serving to the point of absurdity. (Example: The possible removal of the pedestrian overpass is to make things safer!)
6) Fry's handling of the legitimate concerns by School Lane Hills residents are considered devious at best if not downright dishonorable by many observers.
The railroad yard relocation to the site of an asbestos dump is a very serious issue and requires a full review by PennDOT and the state and federal environmental authorities. That is all that TRRAAC is requesting.
F & M's Board of Trustees needs to reflect on how much more damage to its reputation they are going to sustain by retaining John Fry as its president.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Help Fight Hunger
A contributor forwarded this to us. It's unusual and for charity. So here it is:
Here’s a fun, simple way to help fight hunger in Lancaster and meet some emerging artists:
Lancaster's KEVIN LEHMAN STUDIOS HOSTS EMPTY BOWLS NOVEMBER 2ND
You PAY: $15
You GET: hand-made bowl by a local artisan
You EAT: great local food from Loaf of Bread, Bearcork Catering, Dosie Dough, Effie Ophelia, Essen Gursha’s GO FREE and John J. Jeffries
You MEET: other fun hip caring people like yourself
Please come and join us, help fight hunger in Lancaster , take home a hand-made bowl and get to meet some new people!
EMPTY BOWLS
Sunday, November 2, 2008, 4-7 pm
Kevin Lehman Pottery
http://www.klpottery.com/Gallery.html
Only $15 Helps Fight Hunger. To purchase tickets visit Kevin Lehman Pottery Studio or contact Amy Crystle at 717-306-8672 or amy@lancasterfarmfresh.com
What is Empty Bowls?
It is a grass-roots event organized locally to raise awareness and fight hunger in our home town
How does Empty Bowls fight hunger?
The proceeds for the Empty Bowls event will be donated to the Crispus Attucks Community Center in Lancaster , which serves 3 meals daily to as many as 200 people per meal.
What will happen during the event?
Kevin Lehman has orchestrated the making of over 100 bowls by local artists. The bowls will be glazed, fired and made available the evening of the event. The bowls will be laid out on a table at the entrance of the event. When you arrive you will choose and keep a bowl. Several restaurateurs and caterers, including A Loaf of Bread, Bearcork Catering, Dosie Dough, Effie Ophelia, Essen Gursha’s GO FREE and John J. Jeffries, will be present and serving one-dish-meals or soup to ticket holders. Charlie Crystle will be the special musical guest with a little help from his friends.
Please come and join us, help fight hunger in Lancaster, take home a hand-made bowl and get to meet some new people!
DETAILS
EMPTY BOWLS
Kevin Lehman Studios
560 S. Prince Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Sunday, November 2, 2008·4-7 pm
$15 Tickets, Please Purchase in Advance
Amy Crystle: 306-8672
http://www.klpottery.com/Gallery.html
Here’s a fun, simple way to help fight hunger in Lancaster and meet some emerging artists:
Lancaster's KEVIN LEHMAN STUDIOS HOSTS EMPTY BOWLS NOVEMBER 2ND
You PAY: $15
You GET: hand-made bowl by a local artisan
You EAT: great local food from Loaf of Bread, Bearcork Catering, Dosie Dough, Effie Ophelia, Essen Gursha’s GO FREE and John J. Jeffries
You MEET: other fun hip caring people like yourself
Please come and join us, help fight hunger in Lancaster , take home a hand-made bowl and get to meet some new people!
EMPTY BOWLS
Sunday, November 2, 2008, 4-7 pm
Kevin Lehman Pottery
http://www.klpottery.com/Gallery.html
Only $15 Helps Fight Hunger. To purchase tickets visit Kevin Lehman Pottery Studio or contact Amy Crystle at 717-306-8672 or amy@lancasterfarmfresh.com
What is Empty Bowls?
It is a grass-roots event organized locally to raise awareness and fight hunger in our home town
How does Empty Bowls fight hunger?
The proceeds for the Empty Bowls event will be donated to the Crispus Attucks Community Center in Lancaster , which serves 3 meals daily to as many as 200 people per meal.
What will happen during the event?
Kevin Lehman has orchestrated the making of over 100 bowls by local artists. The bowls will be glazed, fired and made available the evening of the event. The bowls will be laid out on a table at the entrance of the event. When you arrive you will choose and keep a bowl. Several restaurateurs and caterers, including A Loaf of Bread, Bearcork Catering, Dosie Dough, Effie Ophelia, Essen Gursha’s GO FREE and John J. Jeffries, will be present and serving one-dish-meals or soup to ticket holders. Charlie Crystle will be the special musical guest with a little help from his friends.
Please come and join us, help fight hunger in Lancaster, take home a hand-made bowl and get to meet some new people!
DETAILS
EMPTY BOWLS
Kevin Lehman Studios
560 S. Prince Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Sunday, November 2, 2008·4-7 pm
$15 Tickets, Please Purchase in Advance
Amy Crystle: 306-8672
http://www.klpottery.com/Gallery.html
CORRECTION
We apologize for publishing a letter from a source we deemed reliable that kids were beaten up by police at the Smithgall Pharmacy.
The letter writer has notified us that the information was incorrect concerning the location.
We will be more careful in the future.
The letter writer has notified us that the information was incorrect concerning the location.
We will be more careful in the future.
LETTER: F&M kept TRRAAC in the dark
In my files is an Intelligencer Journal news story dated Feb. 20, 2007, that documents how suburban homeowners were denied the information they requested concerning the relocation of the Norfolk Southern railyard to a tract of land adjacent to their neighborhood.
This story states that at an initial meeting with Keith Orris, F&M official, on Feb. 19, 2007, East Hempfield Township residents expressed concerns over the proposed "land swap" which would move a railroad switching yard to a new location near their homes.
At this meeting, Farmingdale Road resident Kathy Ashworth suggested to Orris that Norfolk Southern officials talk to East Hempfield residents before they draw up their designs, because, she said, "Once it's designed, it's pretty much a done deal".
A Wicklawn Drive resident, Dan Gillis, said Norfolk Southern has a “reputation” for not being sensitive to consumers. Citing a "huge trust issue," he said that the residents wanted to talk to the railroad before the design phase. "They should come here before their plans are done and listen to us", he was quoted as saying.
Keith Orris, F&M’s vice president for external affairs, responded to this request, according to the story, by saying that "Design and engineering will take place through the beginning of 2008 before the plan will be brought to government officials and the public".
The newly- formed Railroad Action Committee (later called TRRAAC) had expected to be given details of the F&M plan by mid-March, but when it was not forthcoming, went ahead with its planned meeting on Mar. 25, 2008 at Grace Baptist Church on Marietta Ave. Introduced at this meeting was Gary Brown, an environmental engineer, who spoke in generalities about potential environmental problems, but said that he could not make any recommendations until F&M held a meeting and puts their railroad relocation plan "on the table". This meeting was held on the F&M campus on June 18, 2008.
The TRRAAC group was kept largely in the dark about the environmental studies that had been done and the design of the proposed railyard until the June 18 meeting. This caused them to lose valuable time in which they could have been conducting their own research on the project.
This explains why the TRRAAC organization was caught "unprepared, out maneuvered, and unrepresented by counsel at the June 18th meeting," as reported in an editorial published today (Oct. 8) on NewsLanc. This was not due to a lack of activity on the part of TRRAAC. Rather, it was due to the deliberate withholding of information by F&M.
This story states that at an initial meeting with Keith Orris, F&M official, on Feb. 19, 2007, East Hempfield Township residents expressed concerns over the proposed "land swap" which would move a railroad switching yard to a new location near their homes.
At this meeting, Farmingdale Road resident Kathy Ashworth suggested to Orris that Norfolk Southern officials talk to East Hempfield residents before they draw up their designs, because, she said, "Once it's designed, it's pretty much a done deal".
A Wicklawn Drive resident, Dan Gillis, said Norfolk Southern has a “reputation” for not being sensitive to consumers. Citing a "huge trust issue," he said that the residents wanted to talk to the railroad before the design phase. "They should come here before their plans are done and listen to us", he was quoted as saying.
Keith Orris, F&M’s vice president for external affairs, responded to this request, according to the story, by saying that "Design and engineering will take place through the beginning of 2008 before the plan will be brought to government officials and the public".
The newly- formed Railroad Action Committee (later called TRRAAC) had expected to be given details of the F&M plan by mid-March, but when it was not forthcoming, went ahead with its planned meeting on Mar. 25, 2008 at Grace Baptist Church on Marietta Ave. Introduced at this meeting was Gary Brown, an environmental engineer, who spoke in generalities about potential environmental problems, but said that he could not make any recommendations until F&M held a meeting and puts their railroad relocation plan "on the table". This meeting was held on the F&M campus on June 18, 2008.
The TRRAAC group was kept largely in the dark about the environmental studies that had been done and the design of the proposed railyard until the June 18 meeting. This caused them to lose valuable time in which they could have been conducting their own research on the project.
This explains why the TRRAAC organization was caught "unprepared, out maneuvered, and unrepresented by counsel at the June 18th meeting," as reported in an editorial published today (Oct. 8) on NewsLanc. This was not due to a lack of activity on the part of TRRAAC. Rather, it was due to the deliberate withholding of information by F&M.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
EDITORIAL: Has TRRAAC derailed F&M scheme?
On June 19 in an article "F&M wows with freight yard relocation program", NewsLanc reported: "The upshot was that even most of the members of TRRAAC, an organization consisting largely of those most impacted, seemed to acquiesce to the relocation of a portion of the freight yard. Most people went away feeling better informed and favorably impressed."
If the TRAAC organization was caught unprepared, out maneuvered, and unrepresented by counsel at the June 18th meeting, on Tuesday evening it made up for its lapse with impressive presentations by an environmental consultant, veteran neighbors as eye witnesses, and legal counsel. They made a strong case for reviews by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
Franklin & Marshall, the owner of the former Lancaster Brickyard which had been a long term dump for Armstrong, has spent over $1.5 of federal funds in developing its case for relocation of the Norfolk & Southern rail yard to the location.
Nevertheless, TRRAAC provided sufficient information during its presentation to raise very serious concerns and to necessitate well funded and impartial governmental evaluations of F & M representations.
A member summed up the mood of the audience when he said "We have been consistently given half-truths, misinformation, incomplete information, and, in some cases it seems to me, outright false information."
TRRAAC has done its job by presenting sufficient information to justify careful government reviews before over $30 million in taxpayers money is spent on the project and the public health of the community is possibly jeopardized.
Hopefully, others will now join with the School Lane Hills community by insisting on full investigations and a conscientious evaluation of possible alternative sites.
If the TRAAC organization was caught unprepared, out maneuvered, and unrepresented by counsel at the June 18th meeting, on Tuesday evening it made up for its lapse with impressive presentations by an environmental consultant, veteran neighbors as eye witnesses, and legal counsel. They made a strong case for reviews by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
Franklin & Marshall, the owner of the former Lancaster Brickyard which had been a long term dump for Armstrong, has spent over $1.5 of federal funds in developing its case for relocation of the Norfolk & Southern rail yard to the location.
Nevertheless, TRRAAC provided sufficient information during its presentation to raise very serious concerns and to necessitate well funded and impartial governmental evaluations of F & M representations.
A member summed up the mood of the audience when he said "We have been consistently given half-truths, misinformation, incomplete information, and, in some cases it seems to me, outright false information."
TRRAAC has done its job by presenting sufficient information to justify careful government reviews before over $30 million in taxpayers money is spent on the project and the public health of the community is possibly jeopardized.
Hopefully, others will now join with the School Lane Hills community by insisting on full investigations and a conscientious evaluation of possible alternative sites.
Campaign apparel to be allowed in Lanc Co polling places
Campaign shirts, buttons, stickers, and the like will now be permitted to be worn by voters in Lancaster County polling places, according to a unanimous decision made by the elections board on Wednesday.
The previous policy of Lancaster County and other counties in the commonwealth was that such items constituted impermissible "electioneering" under state law, according to Lancaster County Elections Board solicitor Melvin Newcomer.
That all changed on September 4th, however, when, in response to a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Pennsylvania Department of State (PA DOS) issued an advisory opinion to county boards of election making a distinction between "passive" and "active" electioneering.
"We believe that if such electioneering remains passive and the voter takes no additional action to attempt to influence other voters in the polling place, then the wearing of clothing or buttons would not constitute not constitute 'electioneering' as that term is used in section 1220(c) of the Pennsylvania Election Code, 25 P.S. 3060(c)," PA DOS Commissioner Chet Harhut wrote in the memo.
The memo noted, "Of primary concern is that no duly registered person be turned away at the polls. If the conduct and apparel of a voter is determined to be more than passive, it should be addressed by the district election officials."
York County also recently changed its policy to allow such apparel in compliance with the memo.
In response, the three-member Lancaster County Board of Elections unanimously approved a policy on Wednesday, which reads, "Voters shall be allowed to wear tee shirts, clothing, buttons, hats, pins, or other apparel with a candidate or political party's name, picture, or emblem inside of the polling place, provided that (i) such items do not involve sound, lights or other active displays of any kind and (ii) the voter takes no further action to influence other voters in the poling place. Apparel may also include references to referendums, retention questions, and other political issues."
But the board was far from enthusiastic about making the policy change. Chairman Terry Kauffman went so far as to say, "I hate this position," opining that it may open the door to increasingly outlandish and offensive displays.
Newcomer and the board made clear that, in light of the PA DOS memo, Lancaster County might be putting itself at risk of constitutional litigation if it did not adopt the policy.
The policy only applies to voters. Election workers and poll watchers are not permitted to wear political apparel or paraphernalia.
Mary Stehman, the Chief Clerk of the Board of Elections, supported the decision to change the policy. She told the board that they should adopt "the path of least resistance" with respect to obstacles to voting.
She suggested that the previous policy against wearing political apparel was inconsistently enforced by judges of elections. If an individual was unable or unwilling to remove a campaign shirt, for example, sometimes they were prevented from voting and sometimes they were permitted to vote.
The previous policy of Lancaster County and other counties in the commonwealth was that such items constituted impermissible "electioneering" under state law, according to Lancaster County Elections Board solicitor Melvin Newcomer.
That all changed on September 4th, however, when, in response to a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Pennsylvania Department of State (PA DOS) issued an advisory opinion to county boards of election making a distinction between "passive" and "active" electioneering.
"We believe that if such electioneering remains passive and the voter takes no additional action to attempt to influence other voters in the polling place, then the wearing of clothing or buttons would not constitute not constitute 'electioneering' as that term is used in section 1220(c) of the Pennsylvania Election Code, 25 P.S. 3060(c)," PA DOS Commissioner Chet Harhut wrote in the memo.
The memo noted, "Of primary concern is that no duly registered person be turned away at the polls. If the conduct and apparel of a voter is determined to be more than passive, it should be addressed by the district election officials."
York County also recently changed its policy to allow such apparel in compliance with the memo.
In response, the three-member Lancaster County Board of Elections unanimously approved a policy on Wednesday, which reads, "Voters shall be allowed to wear tee shirts, clothing, buttons, hats, pins, or other apparel with a candidate or political party's name, picture, or emblem inside of the polling place, provided that (i) such items do not involve sound, lights or other active displays of any kind and (ii) the voter takes no further action to influence other voters in the poling place. Apparel may also include references to referendums, retention questions, and other political issues."
But the board was far from enthusiastic about making the policy change. Chairman Terry Kauffman went so far as to say, "I hate this position," opining that it may open the door to increasingly outlandish and offensive displays.
Newcomer and the board made clear that, in light of the PA DOS memo, Lancaster County might be putting itself at risk of constitutional litigation if it did not adopt the policy.
The policy only applies to voters. Election workers and poll watchers are not permitted to wear political apparel or paraphernalia.
Mary Stehman, the Chief Clerk of the Board of Elections, supported the decision to change the policy. She told the board that they should adopt "the path of least resistance" with respect to obstacles to voting.
She suggested that the previous policy against wearing political apparel was inconsistently enforced by judges of elections. If an individual was unable or unwilling to remove a campaign shirt, for example, sometimes they were prevented from voting and sometimes they were permitted to vote.
TRRAAC cries foul over rail yard relocation process*
The Rail Road Action & Advisory Committee (TRRAAC) held a meeting attended by an estimated 135 neighbors at Grace Baptist Church on Marietta Ave, Tuesday night, to rally against Franklin & Marshall, Lancaster General Hospital and Norfolk Southern's plan to relocate the Dillerville switching yard to a portion of the Armstrong dump site at the former "Lancaster Brickyard" behind the Post Office off of Harrisburg Ave.
Kathy Ashworth, the group's chair, said that she is seeking a "win-win" solution on an alternative rather than the current site, which she believes to be "win-lose." The winners being the project partners and the losers being the potentially affected community residents.
Testimony was given by Gary R. Brown, an environmental engineer and Dan Gillis, a former employee of Armstrong, Inc., and several members of the audience related particularly to the issue of asbestos containing materials in the dump site.
They explained how for two decades (1950s and 1960s) remnants from productions and damaged rolls of vinyl floor covering with hydrocord backing which contained asbestos were disposed of in the dump. Over time, the backing has deteriorated, causing the asbestos to be transformed from a relatively benign state to a dangerous friable condition. Photos recently and belatedly taken at the dump site by consultants for the project showed deteriorating asbestos containing backing.
It was pointed out that the very task of heavy construction equipment and trucks excavating the site and moving the waste would cause additional damage to the deteriorating backing, generating friable asbestos dust.
According to Brown, F & M has only conducted "one twentieth" the amount of exploratory tests that normally are required to determine presence of friable asbestos.
Attorney Bill Cluck who specializes on environmental issues set forth various grounds for challenging whether the "Partners" had been candid in the information provided to governmental agencies and the public and challenged whether they legally qualified for over thirty million dollars in federal and state earmarks, exemptions from environmental studies, and release from clean up liability under the law.
Asked specifically how they react to F&M's responses to their proposed alternative sites which they believe would largely serve the purposes of the various parties, TRRAAC member Gillis contended "We had the impression that their minds were made up before we even met with them... Compromise doesn't seem to be a term John Fry understands.".
Cluck, an environmental lawyer retained by TRRAAC, claims that the project partners held inappropriate "dry runs" of public presentations with various governmental agencies including PENNDOT and shared information among themselves without the public's involvement.
And that, as one attendee so aptly noted, seems to be the crux of the issue. "I'm not opposed to development in Lancaster County, I'm not opposed to moving the railyard, [and] I'm not necessarily adamantly opposed to moving the railyard where they want to put it. What I object to," he said, "is that we have been consistently given half-truths, misinformation, incomplete information, and, in some cases it seems to me, outright false information."
After having had his requests for various information denied by the Partners and government agencies, Cluck says that he has discovered through a Freedom of Information Act Request, that F&M itself has been dumping at the site as late as 1987, "which is contrary to the history of the former Lancaster Brickyard set forth in the Remedial Investigation and Cleanup Plan approved October 3 by the PA DEP."
The report claimed dumping at the site ended in or around 1962. According to Cluck: "If disposal of waste occurred after 1980 (the year the Solid Waste Management Act was passsed), then the release from liability provisions in Pennsylvania's cleanup law do not apply."
Pointing out that the "Partners" have received over a $1.5 million in federal aid to date for engineering and research and recognizing that a citizen’s group does not have the funding to be able to fully probe the "Partners" contentions, Cluck insists that PennDOT conduct an independent study of potential alternative locations to determine whether the claims made by F&M and the other project partners are valid.
When asked if there were representatives present from the County Planning Commission, the County Commissioners or any other regional governmental agency, no one identified themselves.
One thing was clear, the earlier approach of quietly negotiating with F & M President John Fry has now been replaced with a professional team with wide community support offering possibly viable alternatives that would achieve the goals of the Partners and the community.
NewsLanc intends to inquire further into this issue and will be filing additional reports along with commentary.
*Revised through noon, October 8th.
Kathy Ashworth, the group's chair, said that she is seeking a "win-win" solution on an alternative rather than the current site, which she believes to be "win-lose." The winners being the project partners and the losers being the potentially affected community residents.
Testimony was given by Gary R. Brown, an environmental engineer and Dan Gillis, a former employee of Armstrong, Inc., and several members of the audience related particularly to the issue of asbestos containing materials in the dump site.
They explained how for two decades (1950s and 1960s) remnants from productions and damaged rolls of vinyl floor covering with hydrocord backing which contained asbestos were disposed of in the dump. Over time, the backing has deteriorated, causing the asbestos to be transformed from a relatively benign state to a dangerous friable condition. Photos recently and belatedly taken at the dump site by consultants for the project showed deteriorating asbestos containing backing.
It was pointed out that the very task of heavy construction equipment and trucks excavating the site and moving the waste would cause additional damage to the deteriorating backing, generating friable asbestos dust.
According to Brown, F & M has only conducted "one twentieth" the amount of exploratory tests that normally are required to determine presence of friable asbestos.
Attorney Bill Cluck who specializes on environmental issues set forth various grounds for challenging whether the "Partners" had been candid in the information provided to governmental agencies and the public and challenged whether they legally qualified for over thirty million dollars in federal and state earmarks, exemptions from environmental studies, and release from clean up liability under the law.
Asked specifically how they react to F&M's responses to their proposed alternative sites which they believe would largely serve the purposes of the various parties, TRRAAC member Gillis contended "We had the impression that their minds were made up before we even met with them... Compromise doesn't seem to be a term John Fry understands.".
Cluck, an environmental lawyer retained by TRRAAC, claims that the project partners held inappropriate "dry runs" of public presentations with various governmental agencies including PENNDOT and shared information among themselves without the public's involvement.
And that, as one attendee so aptly noted, seems to be the crux of the issue. "I'm not opposed to development in Lancaster County, I'm not opposed to moving the railyard, [and] I'm not necessarily adamantly opposed to moving the railyard where they want to put it. What I object to," he said, "is that we have been consistently given half-truths, misinformation, incomplete information, and, in some cases it seems to me, outright false information."
After having had his requests for various information denied by the Partners and government agencies, Cluck says that he has discovered through a Freedom of Information Act Request, that F&M itself has been dumping at the site as late as 1987, "which is contrary to the history of the former Lancaster Brickyard set forth in the Remedial Investigation and Cleanup Plan approved October 3 by the PA DEP."
The report claimed dumping at the site ended in or around 1962. According to Cluck: "If disposal of waste occurred after 1980 (the year the Solid Waste Management Act was passsed), then the release from liability provisions in Pennsylvania's cleanup law do not apply."
Pointing out that the "Partners" have received over a $1.5 million in federal aid to date for engineering and research and recognizing that a citizen’s group does not have the funding to be able to fully probe the "Partners" contentions, Cluck insists that PennDOT conduct an independent study of potential alternative locations to determine whether the claims made by F&M and the other project partners are valid.
When asked if there were representatives present from the County Planning Commission, the County Commissioners or any other regional governmental agency, no one identified themselves.
One thing was clear, the earlier approach of quietly negotiating with F & M President John Fry has now been replaced with a professional team with wide community support offering possibly viable alternatives that would achieve the goals of the Partners and the community.
NewsLanc intends to inquire further into this issue and will be filing additional reports along with commentary.
*Revised through noon, October 8th.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Survey: SDL middle school students feel less safe
Franklin & Marshall College's Center for Opinion Research recently completed a survey of students in the School District of Lancaster.
The survey is intended to gauge student opinions about school safety, prevalence of drug use among students, and the effect of both upon academic performance.
Among other things, the survey finds that "Most students feel safe in school, but fewer middle school students felt safe in May 2008 than felt safe in November 2006. In fact, when it comes to safety perceptions, middle school students are the least likely to feel safe compared to elementary and high school students."
In spring 2008, 71% of a sample of 1,700 middle school students responded, "I feel safe at this school" compared to 82% in fall 2006.
There were also noticeable declines in the percentage of middle school students who rated the relationship between students and teachers positively. For example, in 2006, 53% of the middle school sample said that "Students get along well with teachers."By spring 2008, that number had dropped to 39%.
Changes at the elementary school and high school levels were less dramatic, although there was a small drop in the percentage of students at all levels who described their school as "clean."
The number of actual physical attacks at school, however, has not significantly changed in the past two years, according to the report. In spring 2008, 17% of middle school students and 14% of high school students said they had "been attacked and hit by someone, or beaten up, on school."
The survey summary goes on to note that "students who were attacked or assaulted had more unexcused absences, less frequent school attendance, and lower PSSA performance."
Alcohol and marijuana use among students has increased, according to the survey.
In fall 2006, 12% of middle school students reported having "had beer, wine, or hard liquor during the past 30 days." In spring 2008, the number was 19%.
For high school students, that percentage was 23% in 2006 and 34% in 2008.
In fall 2006, 6% of middle school students reported having "used marijuana during the past 30 days." In spring 2008, that number had risen to 10 %.
For high school students, 19% reported having used marijuana in 2008 as opposed to 10% in 2006.
The survey notes that students who reported having used both alcohol and marijuana had slightly lower attendance rates than those who had used neither and lower PSSA scores in math and reading.
The survey does not gauge the effect on alcohol use alone or marijuana use alone on these factors.
SDL Superintendent Pedro Rivera said he takes the findings very seriously. "This has to lend itself to changing what we're doing in the schools," he said.
He went on to note that the District is going to be implementing a bully education/awareness program at all middle schools later this school year.
The survey is intended to gauge student opinions about school safety, prevalence of drug use among students, and the effect of both upon academic performance.
Among other things, the survey finds that "Most students feel safe in school, but fewer middle school students felt safe in May 2008 than felt safe in November 2006. In fact, when it comes to safety perceptions, middle school students are the least likely to feel safe compared to elementary and high school students."
In spring 2008, 71% of a sample of 1,700 middle school students responded, "I feel safe at this school" compared to 82% in fall 2006.
There were also noticeable declines in the percentage of middle school students who rated the relationship between students and teachers positively. For example, in 2006, 53% of the middle school sample said that "Students get along well with teachers."By spring 2008, that number had dropped to 39%.
Changes at the elementary school and high school levels were less dramatic, although there was a small drop in the percentage of students at all levels who described their school as "clean."
The number of actual physical attacks at school, however, has not significantly changed in the past two years, according to the report. In spring 2008, 17% of middle school students and 14% of high school students said they had "been attacked and hit by someone, or beaten up, on school."
The survey summary goes on to note that "students who were attacked or assaulted had more unexcused absences, less frequent school attendance, and lower PSSA performance."
Alcohol and marijuana use among students has increased, according to the survey.
In fall 2006, 12% of middle school students reported having "had beer, wine, or hard liquor during the past 30 days." In spring 2008, the number was 19%.
For high school students, that percentage was 23% in 2006 and 34% in 2008.
In fall 2006, 6% of middle school students reported having "used marijuana during the past 30 days." In spring 2008, that number had risen to 10 %.
For high school students, 19% reported having used marijuana in 2008 as opposed to 10% in 2006.
The survey notes that students who reported having used both alcohol and marijuana had slightly lower attendance rates than those who had used neither and lower PSSA scores in math and reading.
The survey does not gauge the effect on alcohol use alone or marijuana use alone on these factors.
SDL Superintendent Pedro Rivera said he takes the findings very seriously. "This has to lend itself to changing what we're doing in the schools," he said.
He went on to note that the District is going to be implementing a bully education/awareness program at all middle schools later this school year.
Commissioners to hold evening meeting Oct. 20 in Leola
As part of an effort to hold occasional evening meetings in different parts of the county, the Commissioners will be holding an evening meeting in Leola on October 20th.
The meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at the Upper Leacock Township Municipal Building at 36 Hillcrest Ave. in Leola.
The Commissioners will conduct a portion of their usual weekly business at this meeting.
The board hopes that by holding meetings in the evening and in different parts, they can attract persons who are unable to attend their usual morning meetings in the city.
The meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at the Upper Leacock Township Municipal Building at 36 Hillcrest Ave. in Leola.
The Commissioners will conduct a portion of their usual weekly business at this meeting.
The board hopes that by holding meetings in the evening and in different parts, they can attract persons who are unable to attend their usual morning meetings in the city.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)