Although a CNN Money Magazine ranking placed Millcreek Township in the top 100 Best Places to Live, it appears not all are happy with the form of government. Yes, the second most populated Second Class Township in Pennsylvania (53,000)
Comments [Add Comment]
which is located on the southern shore of Lake Erie and known as the gateway to Presque Isle State Park, could see a change in the form of government. Or, is this talk no different than the annoying weather advisories which crawl across the bottom of your television screen and never materialize? We don’t know. What is known for sure, Millcreek voters have the opportunity to decide if the current form of government made of three elected road master-supervisors should be replaced with an optional form of government. In a brief refresher of local government, Pennsylvania has three basic types; city, borough and township. Each type has different classifications thus allowing modification to serve the wishes of the municipality’s residents. In Millcreek’s case, the plan is not change the type of government but the form. It will remain a township under this study question. What could change is the way it operates both legislatively and administrative.
The process goes like this; the voters are asked if they want to research other possible forms of government and if so, who would serve on a commission charged with conducting the study. The Study Commission is selected and conducts a comprehensive assessment of the present form. Upon conclusion of its work, the commission offers a factual non-binding recommendation to the voters if change should occur. On November 8th, Millcreek voters overwhelmingly supported the ballot question to form a government study commission and also chose those who would serve on it.
However, to know how it got to this point in Millcreek, we must revisit earlier this year when the newest township supervisor (elected in 2009) Rick Figaski commented during a public meeting about conducting a study and possibly changing Millcreek government. As one could imagine, the comment was met with gasps and mortified looks from his fellow supervisors, Brian McGrath and Joe Kujawa. Both are long term supervisors, 18 and 17 years in office respectively. An important point to all of this is the fact all three supervisors are former township employees. As Figaski, a retired township police officer explained, this comment was one of his campaign platforms and he was fulfilling that promise to bring it to the voters.
Somehow that didn’t cut it with the other two and from that scene, continues to create constant news stories for the local media. Metaphorically, it was “the shot heard all over the world” or at least in Millcreek Township. Keep in mind, any change in government would mean the form which has been in place since the township was chartered in 1803 would be changed forever. Worse yet, the elected road master -supervisor office could go the same way as the pony express and the lamplighter of yester year. To further explain, as it currently operates, the township supervisors have a dual function. They enact ordinances and set budgets but they are also administrative employees, each earning a salary of around $72,000 /-
It could be the end of a long chapter in township history if the residents voted to convert to an elected non-paid township council/ hired professional managerial form of government. Of the 25 largest townships in Pennsylvania, Millcreek is ranked number 2 and is the only one of the 50 largest still using this rural form of government. In other words, a separation of legislative and administrative powers and functions could be the result, not to mention a possible cost savings and perhaps more elected representatives.
Now that I have provided you with some of the background, allow me to add some of the politics that always seems to go hand in hand with this. Remember, politics is politics and some of this you may agree with and some, you may not. As Rick Figaski was leading this charge to place the study commission question on the November ballot, he was met with strong opposition, namely from his fellow supervisors. Who could blame them? There is a lot at stake, so the posturing intensified. In June, the petition drive to place the question on the ballot began. There was a large group of concerned citizens which expressed an interest in serving on the commission and volunteered to circulate petitions for the ballot question. Many of them although not all, were part of a citizens’ group which had forced change in regards to the unequal water rates in the township. The individual nominating petitions to serve on the study commission would be circulated by those interested a few weeks later as required by law.
One of the ways Figaski sought to obtain study petition signatures was to set up a manned table in the lobby of the township building on a Monday morning. This was to allow visitors to the building the chance to sign the petition. It was met with a great deal of media coverage. The Millcreek Supervisors conduct their weekly meeting on Tuesday in which they enacted a resolution barring petitions on township property. Of course, Figaski was in the minority of that 2-1 vote and stated that citizens could come to his office to sign the study petition.
Brian McGrath and Joe Kujawa have stated they didn’t want the petition in the township building since “it would appear the supervisors endorsed the petition” and “they didn’t want any township employees to be placed in awkward situations”. Of course, this was countered by Figaski with numerous examples in which both supervisors had circulated their own petitions for re-election throughout the township building in the past. Some employees had even circulated the petitions for the candidates. Further, a more recent example was the Sewer Authority Manager whom was seeking an elected office at the Erie County level and circulated petitions without any repercussion. The irony to all this was the fact there was a petition sitting in the lobby asking for public support for high speed rail in Erie County. The study petition matter soon became a hot political matter that raised a few eyebrows and blood pressures of the public. The result of that was a fair share of letters to the editor and angry public participation at the supervisors’ weekly meetings. Even the local newspaper couldn’t help but comment about the self-serving actions by the two veteran supervisors.
Figaski took it one step further by contacting an attorney whom in turn, contacted the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU did investigate the matter and sent a letter to the Millcreek Supervisors asking they repeal the resolution since it violated the First Amendment and several US Supreme Court rulings. The supervisors responded with “no” and the vote for that action was 2-1. This still hasn’t seen the end yet according to Figaski. The petition matter also took a strange twist when one of the townships’ police officers had circulated the study petition, unknowingly against police department policy manual. That too, brought on further political drama.
As I conclude this writing, I will say this is the first in a series of articles about the Millcreek Township Government Study Commission and the changes which are possible.
Next article: The Study Commission is elected and who they are.
