Allegations by residents that local government is engaged in retaliation against it’s own citizens is as difficult to contemplate as it has been to write about.
I’ve done a lot of soul-searching over the past couple of weeks about how I would present this, if at all. In the back of my mind, the thing that was holding me back is the sense that the information will, again, be chalked up to a “few negative individuals” and it will be dismissed on that basis.
Nevertheless, I’ve chosen to go forward, to lead this horse to water…
I want to start off with a word about “perception.” Perception has become a kind of mantra, a catch-all phrase for borough officials who would like to give the outside world the perception that they are tackling our challenges intelligently, with a carefully considered plan and sound processes.
At the very least, perhaps, officials hope that chanting the virtues of Pottstown, (and convincing others to do likewise), will drown out the voices of “negativity.” However, with the exception of High St., which finally seems to be getting the attention it’s lacked for decades and, the recent efforts of local, area and MontCo law enforcement working to gain the upper hand on crime…
There is little evidence, where it matters most – on the streets and in the neighborhoods of Pottstown – that people’s perceptions are skewed. Many conditions are in steady, if not accelerated, decline in the borough.
Transparency and Open Meetings are one, exceedingly important factor of democracy that was found woefully lacking here in journalist Evan Brandts’ research for multiple articles that were published, last month, in The Mercury News and on his own Digital Notebook blog.
“That’s the Way We’ve Always Done It.” << click to read Evans’ post
The incident, that was brought to light, about the violation of the Open Meeting Law has further eroded trust and confidence in local government. Evan wrote in the above blog post:
“That’s because we keep trying to pursue a fractured future the same way we always have — with an automatic preference for secrecy, turf wars and “policy by personality.”
Disappointingly, not surprisingly, no council person or authority member has, to date, mustered the gumption to even speak to the recent violations of the Open Meetings Law by Borough Manager, Mark Flanders.
But, I just want to talk about the long standing, continuing incidents, in our community that give rise to the perception that there are officials and public employees that engage in retaliation toward residents and business owners.
I’d hoped to talk to a local business person for this post regarding an experience, (as told to me by a 3rd party), that was perceived as retaliation from the borough. Understandably, my request was declined …
“With personal agenda Flanders at the helm, and we’re all sure he reads your stuff, I’m not comfortable at this time. It really sucks that as a business owner I don’t feel I can express what has happened or voice my opinions without repercussions.”
Summing up one of the most profound reasons people in Pottstown give for not speaking up in any venue, including council meetings, is intimidation and fear of retaliation.
That is a fact that has virtually locked the lid and thrown away the key to democracy in Pottstown while keeping harmful secrets safely locked inside.
I can’t say what the truth is. I don’t know what the truth is. But, I believe the people who have had these experiences really do believe that they have been victims of retaliation. They express feelings of fear and intimidation …
They are afraid of speaking up about local government. I also believe that not every elected official knows what the truth is either. In part, council is extraordinarily hands-off and unaware of the day to day functions of the borough, (contrary to the defined roles for borough council people in a weak mayor form of government, such as Pottstowns’).
I firmly believe, for as long as council members are content to enable secrecy / lack of transparency and, for as long as council members refuse to look the beast in the eye, they are merely giving lip service to their objective of sending a better perception of Pottstown out to the world. In that regard, they are their own worst enemies.
The following comments and videos were posted to Facebook.
Apr 14th: Dawn Cupycake Smits (courageously using her name, published here with her permission) “I have a clip for you. 2 Weeks after we put up the sign all cars in the back parking lot tied to our address were tagged last night by the cops. This is King St. and the entrance to our parking lot is on York St.” (they were actually tagged by the L & I Dept.)
Exterior renovations to this building, across the street from borough hall, near where the cars were tagged appear to be of no concern to the borough although, the paint scrapings are going down the storm drain in the next video. Disparity.
4/23/15 Dawn updates with the final video:
Comment beneath the video posts on Facebook:
J.P. “Inside scoop: Flanders made a call to Drumheller about the signs. Bc drumheller only knows to kiss butt, he instructed his officers to “strong arm” the anti Flanders propaganda. Illegal? Yes. Unfair? Yes. But what if the WHOLE town had those signs? Would that mean the police would go out and monitor the mundane, that they hate doing? Just a thought.”
Posted sometime back to Facebook:
The only thing that is consistent in Pottstown is the inexplicable disparity of treatment between one situation and the next. You can live beside one of the worst blighted properties in town yet YOU will singled out and cited for peeling paint on a shutter. No rhyme no reason no explanation.
FB – Larry Hespeth: YES. WITH CODES. WHEN YOU START COMPLAINING ABOUT BLIGHTED PROPERTIES, THEY COME AROUND AND USUALLY FIND SOMETHING VERY SMALL TO HASSLE YOU ABOUT.
– There was an arrest, last year, of an outspoken citizen who was handed trumped up felony charges. The resident was thrown in jail, sent to MontCo and denied a phone call for 4 days to let family know their whereabouts. Charges were dismissed but mistrust persists as this incident is widely known in the community.
– Two women, (one of them a community activist), in a domestic violence setting, last summer, were given citations for trying to keep the children safe when the abuser violated the PFA. On another occasion the same abuser was actually returned, by police, to the occupant of the house he was ordered to stay away from.
– A blogger received two comments from the borough IP address, a couple years ago, in response to a post about the PPD. The comments were perceived as threatening. Indeed, they were foul and a very ugly representation of the borough government.
Elected officials refuse to hear the people of Pottstown, to open their minds to residents perceptions of their real experiences and people have begun to courageously share their stories on social media.
Increasingly, “the way things have always been done,” is spawning an outcry among residents and former borough employees for outside intervention.
With nowhere else to turn, residents want to have their experiences validated or, invalidated, whatever the case might be…there is a reason for secrecy and it’s time to unlock the box because….
It’s no longer acceptable to be kept in the dark by the established culture of silence in Pottstown local government or, to fear retaliation for taking responsibility to be a functional part of a democratic society. Fear and intimidation are the legacy of Mark Flanders, as Police Chief. Now, this seems to be at the crux of a grassroots movement to remove Mark Flanders, as borough manager.
Whatever the reasons, one thing is clear, the government will not right the the good ship Pottstown without the help of it’s passengers. As long as their are sunshine law violations and widespread mistrust, no matter what the reasons, we are doomed to keep bailing water. We will never reach our desired destination.
At minimum, I believe everyone deserves answers to one, very important question, “what’s behind the lack of transparency in Pottstown”? What’s in the box?
