Bits and Bobs, odds and ends for Exeter
Exeter Solicitor steps into a RTK request that has nothing to do with township residents, and we're paying for it, and the welfare continues
Call it bits and bobs, or housecleaning, but a couple of items came to mind to inform the citizenry of Exeter about.
Today, Exeter Township injected itself into a Right to Know RTK issue that had nothing to do with the taxpayers of the township. In docket #24-1575, before Judge Ben Nevius, Exeter Solicitor Chad Schnee argued that the Township should get a say in a RTK request filed by Exeter resident Lisa Tasker, because the township had no opportunity to weigh in on the matter.
In the RTK, Tasker asked for the identity of the person who “wrongfully and maliciously” reported her under the Childline system as a suspected child endangerer. The Exeter PD found nothing to the report, deeming it an “unfounded” claim. Tasker filed the RTK for the identity of the reporter, which was denied by Exeter Police Chief Matt Harley in his station as the ETPD’s RTK officer. Tasker then appealed to the Berks District Attorney’s office in the proper line of appeal. The appeal was granted, and the ETPD was told to release the information to Tasker. It was at this point that Exeter intervened, citing procedural and substantive issues concerning the right to anonymity of Childline reporters.
In the courtroom today, Tasker told Nevius that she was blindsided by the allegation, had no idea any report had been filed until the ETPD told her it was unfounded. She went on to say, “Chief Harley told me he had no issue releasing the info” once the DA granted her appeal, but that was when Schnee stepped in, using the authority granted by a 4-1 vote of the Exeter Supervisors to intervene.
Tasker cited state law that clearly calls out that false reporters can be identified.
Judge Nevius began the proceeding spelling out to all concerned that he was the Solicitor for Exeter Township many years ago, and asking if either participant had an issue with that. He told them he had no issue, but wanted them to be able to weigh in.
At the end of the hearing, Nevius cited his previous volume of work with Exeter RTK’s as a reason why he should pass this case on to another judge. He named Judges Fudeman and Gavin as possible replacements, and assured the parties they would move it along quickly in getting the case adjudicated.
In those ending remarks, Nevius alluded to not realizing that the issue at hand was an RTK. It might well be that the judge’s case load kept him from looking closely at the file. Other cases decided during the day included things that were “slam dunk” rulings. To an untrained legal ear, it appeared they were things that just needed clearing out, that required a legal ending. The other three cases we observed were things that were already hashed out, and merely sanctified by Nevius. I’m not picking on the judge here, but I didn’t appreciate the fact that Exeter taxpayers probably spent about $650 to continue this thing today. We’re assuming an hour travel to and from home for Schnee, and an hour-ish in the courtroom, to which he is entitled. The Supervisors gave him the OK to pursue this using our money.
Nothing that Schnee cited involved the taxpayers of Exeter in any way. We are not responsible to defend, with OUR money, some high minded legal point. That would be the jurisdiction of the state Attorney General, or perhaps even the PA Bar Association. But not the taxpayers of Exeter. So Judge Nevius’ wasting of our money is not appreciated.
Schnee declined comment, citing ongoing legal action. Tasker did likewise.
Item #2 is that apparently Reading Hospitality Management (RHM) is opening up and rebranding the snack shack on the RCC golf course, complete with cheap food for the golfers on the course. The following was sent to me by three different people.
In a Facebook post by RHM honcho Craig Poole, he details that the snack shack and the restaurant will be opened and rebranded to an Irish theme. The picture is apparently the menu for the snack shack, now to be called “Mulligan’s”, and it shows very low prices for food. $5 for a burger. $5 for a salad. Since we’re participating heavily in the cost (100%) of the facility, and get just 25% of the take, is it too much to ask that the prices be raised on a captive audience to ATTEMPT to make the taxpayer feel like he isn’t getting ripped off and further subsidizing a golf course that he already subsidizes by more than $50 per round played? Can we have a heart for the poor taxpayer, who has done nothing but bleed for this thing so that other people can make and save money hand over fist?
Do we have a sense who the alleged “investor group” that’s going to buy the RCC is now?
The post ends with the words, “Change is good!”. Yep. Change is about all we the taxpayers are going to have left in our pockets by the time this is all over.
****UPDATE****
An Examiner reader called our attention to the clause of the Exeter/RHM contract that spells out the question of the snack shack property. Contrary to the reporting above of a 75/25 split, Exeter keeps all revenue from that structure, and provides for all costs.
.