Editorial: Reform, Now

Did you catch Chris Satullo’s editorial in the April 24 Inquirer, the one about Philadelphia’s culture of corruption? A better argument for chucking our storied complacency on this issue cannot be found.

Satullo notes that back in 1903, when journalist Lincoln Steffens called Philadelphia “corrupt and contented,” the booming city could afford its contentment. “No longer,” he says. “With its challenges, Philly can’t afford to waste one penny, frustrate one willing worker. We’ve gone from corrupt and contented to simply content with corruption.”

Satullo’s right — this can no longer continue. Its time for folks in the middle of the political spectrum — Philadelphia’s silent majority— to make some noise about that which most concerns them: political and tax reform.

Those who know what’s going on and do nothing about it — be it a public official who accepts the corruption around them as “the way things are done” or a citizen who chooses to ignore the problem as long as their particular special interest is pandered to — are as much to blame as those whose names we have seen splashed across the headlines.  

I hope that Donna Reed Miller was sincere in her reasons for opposing an ethics bill in City Council. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt; but it’s our job, as constituents, to let her know how important meaningful reform is to us here in her district. The relatively well-educated, politically active Northwest should not be one of the few parts of the city lagging  behind in the push for reforms. We in Chestnut Hill, especially, have a strong tradition of participatory Democracy and reform activity dating back to the Progressive Era. Now is the time to prove that we still demand the best from our public officials.

There are some who believe that we need reforms in place in order to feel good about this city. I feel the opposite: we need to believe we deserve better, that good government belongs to Philly as much as to Chicago or New York, in order to make needed change happen. Let others be cynical; it’s our job to say that petty graft, racketeering and a political climate that fosters, rather than discourages, such activity is simply beneath us.

James Sturdivant

Lodging  questions

The Chestnut Hill Community Association has floated a bold idea: the purchase of the Masonic building at 8427 Germantown Ave., otherwise known as Hiram Lodge. The building, built in the Romanesque style in 1889 and “colonialized” by the Chestnut Hill Development Group in 1960, currently houses El Quetzal. It is one of the most high-profile structures in the business district.

The building has unusual qualities, most notably open upper floor plans designed as meeting space (most other buildings on the Avenue are subdivided into small apartments) and massive size. The 205-year old lodge, faced with declining membership, is said to have an interest in retaining the building’s community role, which would explain why they did not immediately plumb for a developer when a decision was made to sell. If the proposed sale goes through, tentative plans call for the CHCA’s offices to move across the street and the entire current “town hall” space to be turned over to the Local.

The issue of whether Hiram Lodge should be bought, and the association’s motives for doing so, boiled over at last week’s board of directors meeting. While most of the concerns raised were over financing and use of the space, with executive committee members promising to provide more details at a later date, board member Lawrence Walsh referred to the idea as CHCA president Maxine Dornemann’s “personal vanity project.” Community member Ann Ward Spaeth expressed concerns about the purchase causing the fund to be “wiped out.”  

Whether or not purchasing Hiram Lodge is a good idea is for the CHCA board to decide. The board needs to ask the tough questions before agreeing to embrace such an undertaking; but the very fact that the issue is complicated, carries some inevitable risk and will undoubtedly influence the future direction and priorities of the CHCA is what makes comments like those from Walsh irresponsible. How does politicizing this particular debate help the board make a reasoned decision? Is it really constructive for those who oppose the purchase to proceed from an assumption that there is no possible good argument for it? Does engaging in personal attacks help other board members to feel free to voice their own concerns related to the proposal? I think not.

The Chestnut Hill Community Fund, which would own Hiram Lodge (as it does two other buildings), is something of a “sacred trust” carried by the CHCA on behalf of the community. I believe that the board recognizes this and knows that, if there is any sense that matters related to the fund are not being managed appropriately, annual donations will simply dry up. The fact that every penny donated to the fund this year is going back out in the form of community grants seems to indicate that there is a strong interest among the current leadership in being fiscally responsible. While they have made mistakes, there is simply no cause for the high level of mistrust witnessed at last week’s board meeting. Accountability and transparency should be demanded; at the same time, constructive public dialogue and debate based on the assumption that all concerned have the best interests of Chestnut Hill at heart should be the rule.

Opinions

A list of concerns, offered to the community

Editor’s note: The following is signed by Lou Aiello, Dorothy Corn, Janine Dwyer, David Fielding, Martha Haley, Quita W. Horan, Claire Lemisch, Virginia Mallery, Rujean I. Mitinger,  Ron Recko, Barbara Rosin, Barbara Russell, Ann Ward Spaeth, George L. Spaeth, Jonathan Sternberg and Lawrence Walsh.

A group of us has met together five times over the last month in order to share and discuss our concerns over what is, and is not, happening in Chestnut Hill. Some of us are currently board members of the Chestnut Hill Community Association,  others have previously served on the board and as officers.

What we all share, in common with all members of the community, whether they live and work here or elsewhere, whether members of the association or not, is a love for Chestnut Hill — its environment, history, character and beauty — and a wish to preserve and protect it from changes that will impact negatively on its character. At the same time, we want to encourage community participation in bringing forward and developing ideas that will further enhance Chestnut Hill. We believe that the best way of ensuring that is through an open democratic process in which all are free to participate in assessing needs, developing priorities and programs so that these are not developed in isolation but with support of the community as a whole.

The following list represents only a portion of the more than 50 concerns that have been expressed at meetings, in calls and in writing. For the most part, we did not list references, as the list was intended simply to bring attention to situations which exist, and to invite community comment. Differences of priorities, perspective and style exist. The community needs to hear yours.

Synoptical list of concerns offered to encourage discussion and dialogue in the community:

• Inattention to the fundamental of democratic process, such as proper organizational structure, composition of committees and order of meetings.

• Inattention to, and resulting violations of, the bylaws by the leadership.

• Loss of focus on the association’s “objectives” as defined in the Composite Certificate of Incorporation and referred to in the bylaws.

• Lack of long-range planning with full participation of board, appropriate committees and community members.

• Many of the bylaw changes presented last year serve to decrease rather than to increase community participation.

• Focus on limited area of interest by the leadership causes neglect of other essential responsibilities and undertakings.

• The annual meeting is late this year, for the first time in memory.

• Lack of centralization and availability of information in the CHCA office.

• Failure of the administration to give board members timely delivery of notices of meetings (including date, time and location), together with agenda, minutes of previous board and executive committee meetings, and monthly financial reports prior to their meetings

• Lack of maintenance, preservation, safe-keeping and availability of association records for those seeking information, and for their historical value.

• Micro-management of committees and employees vs. delegating of responsibility.

• Too many committee positions and chairs held by the same people. This limits participation by the broader community and overburdens those individuals.

• Board and community are not informed of existing committees or of vacancies in their membership.

• Leadership is using autocratic as opposed to democratic process.

• Executive Committee is circumventing the board in important decisions.

• Board members, as representatives of the community must have fair time to be heard on all issues.

• Delay of discussions and voting on major and controversial issues until the end of board meetings limits discussion and full participation.

• Fiscal responsibility is a concern.

• Board’s responsibility with regard to the budget requires, regularly updated; a) a full list of all employees, their titles, individual job descriptions, and their respective salaries, and b) a complete list of any outsourced and contracted positions authorized by the executive committee.

• Lack of an accurate report of received dollars vs. pledges in the 2004/5 budget.

• The proposed purchase of additional real estate under current fiscal conditions is unrealistic, with little time given for open discussion at board level to consider immediate and long-term budget consequences.

• The lack of written reports from those proposing this plan, together with a lack of its prior consideration by, and of advice from, the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee, the Long-Range Planning Committee, from the Legal Committee, and a written analysis from our Budget and Finance Committee, makes it impossible to consider the purchase of more buildings at this time.

• Maintaining the independence and freedom of the editor of the Chestnut Hill Local from any source of internal or external political pressure is crucial to the health of the community and to the vitality of the Association.

• The bylaw change presented at the annual meeting last year changing the name and charge of the “Chestnut Hill Local Management Committee” (Article VI., B., 5., a., b., and c.) — it sounds so innocuous  — reverses a 50 year tradition of editorial freedom, and states that the “Chestnut Hill Local Publisher’s Committee,” an appointed committee of five (instead of twelve), will represent the Association (the publisher) instead of the Board elected by the Association. Further it states that the committee, instead of overseeing “the day to day financial and business management of the Chestnut Hill Local,” now “… represents the Publisher (The Association, the entire membership) “regarding the editorial, financial and business management of the Chestnut Hill Local.” The words “The committee has no jurisdiction over the editorial policy or the content of the paper, other than advertising” are crossed out — this by a voice vote! — at the end of the annual meeting, when people were leaving and many had already left! [Article III, F.6. and 7,; Article IV. B., 1.c.]

• There is a question as to the validity of the bylaw changers made in 2004.

Opinion: Recent management of community fund troubling

by MARIE LACHAT

Thank you to the editor of the Chestnut Hill Local for printing the list of Chestnut Hill Community Association’s community fund grants. It is imperative that the donors to the fund know where every cent of their money goes. For this reason, most nonprofits produce an annual report, which they make available to all of their constituants and donors.

It is also imperative that, as the steward of this nonprofit, the Chestnut Hill Community Association keep its records open and available to the public, since it is the people’s money which allows the association to exist and function.

The fund solicitation listed reasons to give and street tree replacement was a reason many donors supported the fund each year. So it was disturbing to see that not a cent of this year’s fund grant money went to planting street trees and less this year was given to the care of the landscape in public spaces.

Until the last few years of its almost 35-year history, the budget and finance committee has always  allocated generously to the street tree committee to reforest this neighborhood (not just the Avenue), which is an edge of the Wissahickon, our greatest ecological and economical asset. While a specific source for street tree money is no longer available, the leadership of the CHCA should have filled that gap several years ago.

The stated goal of the community association in its bylaws is as clear as this: encourage a sense of community in Chestnut Hill and improve the quality of life in the community. This is the CHCA’s mission statement and it must guide every move its board of directors makes.

The Chestnut Hill Community Fund Declaration of Trust lists one of its specific purposes for exisiting and enjoying a 501(c)3 status is protection of the ecology and the conservation of natural resourses.

Since street trees benefit the quality of life of the entire neighborhood aesthetically, environmentally and economically (we know that property values are much higher in neighborhoods with tall stately trees), how can the leadership ignore this responsibility and allow a long existing street tree committee to become defunct? 

Two years ago, Paul Meyer, director of the Morris Arboretum, spoke to members of the Chestnut Hill Rotary Club. He warned that our tall stately trees are in decline and at great risk of disappearing altogether. Reforestation takes years. Several CHCA board members were present for this talk.

Coincidentally, this year the fund drive and fiscal year ended on March 31, having only raised a little over $55,000 as reported at the March 31 board of directors’ meeting (see Local April 7). During the presidency of the late Maurice McCarthy (term filled by Stewart Graham) twice as much was raised, especially because Maurice made it his mission to raise the fund income. He succeeded, with serious support from the board.

The fund chair can never be blamed for the failure of the fund because the role of fundraising belongs solely to the board of directors. The association had a terrific chair, energetic and extremely able; however, in the past two years the leadership of the current board failed him. It is the responsibility of all nonprofit boards to see that their fund drive succeeds.

Wisely, the task force for financial responsibility, as well as budget and finance committee, recommended that the association spend only the fund donations that come in during the annual fund drive. It’s not clear in the board meeting reports that these recommendations were adhered to.

Three years ago the stewards of the fund assets took a $95,000 loan from Merrill Lynch, insisting that this $95,000 was going to solve the financial problems that the current leadership had inherited. This year the fund accrued equity in the 8431 Germantown Avenue property was reduced by taking a $50,000 loan against the property. Instead of growing the fund, it looks like they may pass on $145,000 in deficit spending to the newly elected board.

With this leadership, how can anyone talk about buying Hiram Lodge? As the months have gone by, the board has seen nothing in writing. The “one-man committee” once verbally ran through a scheme that would make Donald Trump proud; however, Donald Trump operates with private money and he has gone bankrupt more than once. How do the fund trustees weigh in on this? Do they know how much work needs to be done on these properties as well as the two that we already own?

As a nonprofit, the CHCA via the fund is privileged with a tax free status in order to do good work in this community. It does this work with the people’s money. The work of any nonprofit must comply with its mission statement. Do board members know the mission statement for the fund? How about the mission statement for the CHCA and the one for the Local?

Does the leadership know the effects that Sarbanes-Oxley legislation will have on nonprofits? Does it know that both the state of Pennsylvania and the federal government have legislation pending that will form special IRS units to scrutinize the finances and activity of nonprofits? Does the board know of the Financial Accounting Standards Board and its effects on nonprofit accounting practices?  How does FASB view a budget based on $34,000 of “promised” money, only a little over $1,000 of which was verified and turned over to the CHCA staff to retrieve?

Most importantly, does this board know that each and every member whose name is listed has a legal responsibility for every cent of the people’s money, for every decision made by the association and for every violation of the bylaws?

Marie Lachat is a former CHCA board member, vice president of the CHCA physical division and community manager. A member of the CHCA, she has been an active volunteer since 1995.

Editor’s Note: According to CHCA treasurer Chris Kemezis, the FY2006 Chestnut Hill Community Fund drive has raised $61,500 as of April 25, 2005, with $7,000 more in pledges expected to come. The fund drive’s best performance in recent years was in FY2003, when $104,000 was raised; $75,000 was brought in in FY2004, and $90,000 in FY2005. According to financial reports distributed at the March executive committee meeting, net proceeds from the Black and White Gala, if any, will go toward repaying the Merril Lynch loan.