April 28, 2005

The Jackson Township Supervisors held their regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the Jackson Township Municipal Building. Members present were Supervisors Dave Bracken, Bob Stephens and Bruce Baker along with Secretary-Treasurer / Manager Dave Hirko and Solicitor Bill Barbin. The meeting was called to order by Dave Bracken, Chairman with the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

Board Roll Call was taken with all three Supervisors present.

Public Comments Concerning Agenda Items:

Baker, second Stephens to approve the minutes of the March 31, 2005 and April 7, 2005 Board of Supervisors meetings. Vote-3 yes.

Township Financial Report:







$       7,629.62

$  103,137.00

$    106,536.01

$       4,230.61


$ 1,366,505.19

$   57,624.80

$     38,984.57

$ 1,385,145.44


$       3,863.16

$ 131,874.49

$              .00

$   135,737.65


$     24,298.02

$    3,715.63

$       3,041.94

$     24,971.71

Stephens, second Baker to approve the bills for the period of April 1, 2005 through April 28, 2005. Vote-3 yes.

General Fund

Highway Aid Fund

Senior Center Fund

$    106,536.01

$           .00

$       3,041.94

Township Police Reports:
Supervisor Stephens
had comments on the police reports. He said it has come to his attention that there have been at least 4 robberies within the last two weeks on the 271 corridor and we havenít heard anything at all from the news reports or the newspapers based on what he saw and he asked why. Bracken said he should ask the Chief of Police. Stephens said youíre the Chairman. Chairman Bracken said you brought the question up Bob and itís time for you to start paying the piper. He said if youíre going to bring these questions up, you go to the Chief of Police and you ask him. Stephens said youíre the Chairman of the Board and I have a right to ask you at a public meeting, why. Supervisor Baker clarified the definition of the Chairman of the Board by saying that he runs the order of the meeting and he doesnít answer to you or me and that we answer to each other as a Board. Stephens said he asked the question to make it a matter of record. Baker said that this was a police matter and why would you want to stick your nose in the investigation of robberies going on. Stephens said it was to let the citizens know. Baker asked if he wanted them to say who theyíre investigating so the guy can run away?

The February & March, 2005 Police Reports submitted by Police Chief Bob Fatula were presented. The figures for February were as follows: 911 Calls dispatched to Police were 371. Reportable Incidents were 27 broken down as follows: Trespassing-5, Criminal Mischief-4, Harassment-4, DUI (Driving While Under the Influence)-3, Assault-2, Drugs-2, Fleeing Police-2, Underage Drinking-2, Disorderly Conduct-1, Receiving Stolen Property-1 and Resisting Arrest-1. Non-Traffic Citations Issued-9. Traffic Citations Issued-53. Accidents Handled-7. Criminal Charges Filed were 19 broken down as follows: Trespassing-4, DUI (Driving While Under the Influence-3, Drugs-2, Fleeing Police-2, Harassment-2, Underage Drinking-2, Assault-1, Disorderly Conduct-1, Receiving Stolen Property-1 and Resisting Arrest-1.

The figures for March were as follows: 911 Calls dispatched to Police were 341. Reportable Incidents were 41 broken down as follows: Criminal Mischief-6, Harassment-6, Theft-5, Forgery-4, Receiving Stolen Property-4, Assault-2, Burglary-2, Drugs-2, DUI (Driving While Under the Influence)-2, Identity Theft-2, Vehicle Theft-2, Disorderly Conduct-1, Counterfeiting-1, Tampering With Evidence-1 and Terroristic Threats-1. Non-Traffic Citations Issued-2. Traffic Citations Issued-23. Accidents Handled-7. Criminal Charges Filed were 24 broken down as follows: Forgery-4, Receiving Stolen Property-4, Theft-4, Harassment-3, Assault-2, Drugs-2, DUI (Driving While Under the Influence-2, Burglary-1, Criminal Mischief-1 and Tampering With Evidence-1.

Manager Hirko
said that a letter was received from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources dated April 13, 2005 stating that we were approved of $25,000 for Recreational Purposes. He added that the grant was originally applied for the development of a Master Recreation Plan.

Chairman Bracken stated that it came to his attention that Mr. Barbin had a letter to read under correspondence. Solicitor Barbin read the letter as follows: I am writing this letter as your Township Solicitor. I wish to address to you certain matters of concern and update you in writing on matters being investigated concerning the Chief of Police, Robert Fatula. This past Monday I spent two hours in the company of Mr. Hirko, the township Manager, meeting with Supervisor Stephens, at his request, ostensibly for him to provide evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Chief Fatula. When I got to the Township Mr. Stephens handed me a four-page handwritten letter, attached, in which he outlined concerns and asked me to provide a legal opinion. I did inform him that while I will provide any assistance authorized by the Manager or Board of Supervisors, the policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors designates the Township Manager as the person to investigate and make initial findings on complaints involving the Chief. Items one through five of Mr. Stephensí letter relate to the pending criminal charges against Eugene Kist and Denise Sabo. Item six apparently relates to the report on Channel 8 News last week concerning an allegation of misconduct while the Chief was a police officer at Nanty Glo and would not be a subject of Jackson Township discipline. Item eight in Mr. Stephensí letter relates to a statement alleged to have been made by Chief Fatula that he has a collection of knives taken from arrestees. It is not known when these were obtained or if it was during employment with the Township. I have prepared a policy concerning the keeping of an inventory of items of personal property taken by police which you will be considering tonight. During the meeting, Mr. Stephens read to us extensively from a document which he identified as the transcript from preliminary hearings on pending criminal matters. He alleged that the statements by Chief Fatula constituted evidence of improper conduct and suggested that the Chief should be suspended pending an investigation. I have made it clear to Mr. Stephens and would repeat to you through this letter that the pending criminal charges involving contested factual matters should await Township action, if necessary, until the Court determines the facts. I asked Mr. Stephens if he had evidence of wrongdoing other than the factually contested matters in the two pending criminal cases and he advised that he did, but that he was not at liberty to disclose either the identity of the complainants or the specifics of the complaint. I pointed out to him that his withholding of this information made it impossible fro the Township to investigate this matter under its policies or to make this "secret" information part of a charge which the Chief would be required to answer. Mr. Stephens responded that he "might" decide to wait for the Attorney General to disclose the information which he claims to have. At the end of the meeting I requested any additional information from Mr. Stephens to which he gave no direct answer. After considering Supervisor Stephensí actions, I question whether any of the independent evidence identified by Mr. Stephens actually exists. I can state that at this time the only alleged items of wrongdoing which the Township could proceed with now are: (1) Objections to Chief Fatulaís police procedures relating to some searches conducted. (2) Questions concerning the Chiefís statement that he has a collection of knives (to which he could easily respond that they were prior to his service at the Township). (3) Whether the Chief properly notified the State when Officer Sabo quit working for the Township. Without prejudging, even if each of these items were proven, I would suggest that they would not warrant more than minor discipline. You should remember that a police officer has the right to challenge the reasonableness of discipline or the fairness of hearing procedures in an appeal to court. If the Supervisors wish to initiate a discipline proceeding now, I believe it would be limited to the items listed above and, if proven, would only warrant a reprimand or direction. If you did wish to initiate a proceeding, the matters complained of must be put in writing to the Chief and a response requested. The Police Tenure Act requires that the officer be provided a hearing either public or private at his choice. Case law prohibits the participation of a Supervisor who has conducted the investigation into wrongdoing or who is otherwise impartial. If you expect the results of a hearing to be sustained by a court, it is my advice that Supervisor Stephens must be excluded from the Hearing Board. Case law also provides that as I have participated in portions of an investigation, mostly by having to deal with Supervisor Stephens, I can prosecute but not assist the Supervisors in coming to their determination. It is general practice to engage an independent attorney experienced in these matters to assist the Board in coming to a determination. There are some other options which we can discuss, if you wish. Barbin then stated that he wasnít necessarily asking the Supervisors to do anything but wanted them to be aware of the facts. Supervisor Stephens asked if he had time for a rebuttal. Bracken replied that this was correspondence. He then asked Stephens to proceed with his comments. Stephens told Mr. Barbin that I did not at anytime make accusations. I said I requested an investigation into this matter. I said I started off at last monthís meeting by requesting you to look into all of the transcripts of the Denise Sabo and Eugene Kist. I said as of Monday morning at 8:30 you have not reviewed them. I said you asked Mr. Hirko to order the transcripts. I then said I went over the one transcript in detail, page by page, line number by line number which you wrote down. I asked after we reviewed the transcript of the one hearing I asked what you have done or what your intentions were and I gave you a four page letter on Monday morning at 8:30 with questions and I never made any statements concerning this matter. I said if you had looked into the Townships best interest in providing adequate council and it ticked me off to find out some three and a half weeks later that in my opinion you havenít done anything. That evening I received a transcript only to find that there might have been other possible wrongdoings in the conduction of that meeting and you still didnít do anything about it. If today you reviewed all three transcripts of those hearings. . . Barbin said he wanted to answer that and said that this was a pending criminal matter right before the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County and I or neither Bob have the right to make a decision that would override a pending criminal matter. I said I have told you that at least three dozen times Bob and it doesnít sink through your head. Stephens said what it comes down to is Iím interested in the protection of the Township in the event of a possible lawsuit. I asked if weíve done everything that we can do and I question that. Supervisor Baker said while weíre on the subject Bob, weíre talking about potential lawsuits to the Township, if you have information that needs to be dealt with about the Chief, we need to get that out on the table now and get it over with. The Township has been made a laughing stock in the media and particular, Fox 8. Stephens said thatís because a lot of people didnít do their job. Baker said if youíre withholding information. . . Stephens answered Iím not withholding. Baker said youíve told me a hundred times. Barbin said you held up in front of me and told me I have a letter here but Iím not going to tell you who did it and Iím not going to tell you what it says. Stephens said Iím going to do that tonight in Executive Session. Barbin said you said that Bob and youíre withholding information and youíre still withholding it. Baker said I am really going to be opposed to spending Township tax dollar money to defend you in a court of law against Bob Fatula and Bob Fatula against you in a court of law. He said weíre going to end up paying way too many legal fees and if thereís stuff that needs to be brought out, it needs to be done now. Barbin said Mr. Stephens police investigation and naming himself Police Commissioner is not within the scope of his position as Township Supervisor and that is clearly my opinion. You wonít be defended at Township expense because you took this on yourself. You as the Board of Supervisors have not assigned him this responsibility to carry out. Dave Bracken & Bruce Baker . .You two are assigned responsibilities as Roadmasters and if you do something as Roadmasters, you will be defended by the Township because youíre carrying out an assigned duty. Dave as Township Manager and youíve assigned him as Township Manager and somebody sues him for what heís doing will be defended by the Township but Bob has assigned himself responsibilities as a Police Commissioner and the Supervisors have not done that and he will not be defended if he is sued while heís engaged in these duties and thatís absolutely clear Pennsylvania law. Stephens said all I have done is respond to the complaints that Iíve received and ask the Boards investigative bodies to investigate these complaints that Iíve received from people. Barbin said weíve adopted a policy and youíve not told me of one single complaint that youíve received and I know of no person who has made a complaint to you and I know of no specific facts of individual complaints other than the two pending criminal cases that are going on. He said that itís been a month since we adopted a procedure to investigate those but we still donít have any facts before us and I wrote that letter to you saying those are the facts before us, period. He said there were three things and we could do something with them but theyíre relatively minor things though and theyíre certainly not what everybodyís talking about and if you want to go ahead, we can do that but Chief Fatula has a right to respond and they may or may not be true. He said we can do that but it has nothing to do with the statement that Mr. Stephens just made saying heís received three complaints from the public. He said I have no idea what these are, who made the complaints or what the complaints are. He said you were present with me Mr. Hirko and we both asked Mr. Stephens to provide us this information on Monday morning and he refused. Stephens said I canít divulge the contents of that letter because it was an anonymous letter and I told you itís the specific information provided that gave a guaranteed response. Barbin said thatís how Secret Police operate. . . Iíve got charges against you but Iím not going to tell you what they are. Stephens said letís go into Executive Session and Iím going to give you a case number on our computer right here of a possible violation of law and maybe more than one violation of law. Barbin said everything you have told me factually has been minor procedures such as not sending in a report at the right time. He said theyíre minor violations but theyíre procedural violations and Iíve asked you repeatedly and youíre telling me now you have something additional but I really donít believe that when we leave tonight that Iíll have one more speck of information. He added, I came out here and we spent two hours of time sitting with you to do this and all you did was read to us from a transcript. Stephens said you didnít review the transcripts. Barbin replied those are pending criminal charges and whose going to decide which fact is true Bob. Stephens replied that you can get out and take from the evidence presented and testify whether there might have been a violation of law and whether it was worthy of conducting an investigation and this is exactly what Iím looking at. If the testimony given there was worthy of an investigation, we are remiss if we donít investigate it and thatís where Iím coming from. Barbin said all you want to do is help a friend who has criminal charges and thatís the truth Bob. Bracken said thereís one thing we canít do and thatís interfere with a criminal investigation and weíre not going to do that whether Mr. Stephens says so or not. He said, Mr. Stephens, I would like to see your law degree or P I License. Barbin said you cannot interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation and you do not have a right to.

Old Business:
Supervisor Stephens
said he had two things he wished to discuss under old business. Solicitor Barbin said motions were required to discuss the items. Stephens said he would wait until public comment at the end of the meeting.

New Business:
Mr. Terry Shook, CPA of Barnes Saly & Company
presented the 2004 Township Audit. Mr. Shook first explained that the correspondence for the audit was addressed Zelenkofske Axelrod LLC which Barnes, Saly merged with at the end of last year but tax and accounting services are still be operated under the name Barnes, Saly & Company. He said the audit field work was completed January 19, 2005 and the audit was completed on March 23, 2005 and was delivered shortly thereafter. The audit revealed a clean opinion of the financial statements subject to the procedures of the audit meaning basically there were a clean set of records. He added that there were no problems encountered with the audit and they did not identify any unusual transactions and there were no disagreements with management. He then presented a handout with visual presentations and graphs.

Motion Stephens, second Baker to approve subdivision of Audrey (Kris) Sherrer. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Stephens, second Baker to hire Pashek Associates to help develop a Master Recreation Plan for Jackson Township. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Baker, second Bracken to approve Solicitors Representation Letter. Supervisor Stephens requested to make comments on the motion. He said we should all vote no because we already have an agreement in place for more than two years and now the Solicitor wants to change it during the course of the year. The agreement was made this past January, 2005 and there is no reason to make changes at this time. Any changes in the agreement should be proposed next January. Supervisor Baker said we didnít ask him to make changes and that you asked for a clarification Bob. Stephens said I didnít ask for a clarification. I questioned the legality of another man coming from Barbins law firm and what he wants now is approval to have that happen and Iím not giving that. Chairman Bracken asked why not and he didnít understand. A vote was then taken. Baker & Bracken-yes, Stephens-no.

Motion Baker, second Bracken to advertise Mutual Aid Agreement Ordinance authorizing Fire Company activities and mutual aid. Supervisor Stephens requested to make comments on the motion. He said this proposed ordinance proposed for advertisement contain a provision that if a Jackson Township resident requests a particular fire or ambulance service to respond irrespective of who arrives first on the scene or the domicile, or the wreck in question, the one requested have priority and authority over any other respondent, fire or ambulance personnel now at the scene. We as Supervisors must consider and do what is necessary to protect the rights of all citizens, particular those living near Township lines to determine if in their opinion if the closest fire or ambulance service would serve their best interest and needs in an emergency. The citizens should ultimately have the right for first responders in the event of an emergency. The requester should also have the right to who should be an authority when one or more responders are at the scene. This is like selecting a doctor. . .age doesnít determine ability. Each individual should have a right to determine what they think it best for them in the event of an emergency, we are appreciative of help but when we have a choice, the choice should be each individual. Chairman Bracken said that Mr. Stephens wrote the letter to the Fire Company saying if anything happened to him he donít want me to treat him in any way and itís all for personal agenda for Mr. Stephens against me so take it for what itís worth. Iím just getting a little tired of him. The Fire Company works well and 9-1-1 sets these things up and everythingís taken care of Bob and you should know that for one thing. Stephens said itís the right of the citizens. Bracken said itís all taken care of Bob and you have no idea what youíre talking about. You tried to tear the Fire Company apart the last month or so big time and we know why. . .weíre not going to say anything. A vote was then taken. Vote-Baker & Bracken-yes. Stephens-no.

Motion Baker, second Bracken to approve Property / Evidence Control Policy for Jackson Township Police Department. Supervisor Stephens requested to make comments on the motion. He said he didnít see anything in this property control document where it states about the disposition and by whom, to whom any money derived goes to who. Should the items be sold, any money should go to the Township. I donít see anything in there and that should be part of it. Solicitor Barbin said thereís only one circumstance when items seized can be sold and thatís bicycles. Theyíre the only item under Pennsylvania law with a special statement. It says seized bicycles where you canít find the owner can be sold by the Township, not by the police. All other items that are seized are returned to the property owner. If the property owner canít be found it goes to the State and basically you provide a list of what you have and turn it into the State and the State tells you sell it and send us the money or weíll take the items. This policy just clarifies what the State law really is. There is no money being kept except for bicycles which can be sold by the Township. The State has hundreds of millions of dollars of property and they make interest on it. If the individual asks for the money, theyíll be happy to turn it over what they have, money or property. State law says all unclaimed property must go to Harrisburg and the Policy says that. A vote was then taken. Vote-3 yes.

Solicitor Barbin says this adopted Policy requires the Chief to take all the items that have been in evidence for all the years and there is no general ledger right now. There are individual items in individual files but no general ledger in the Township. We need to request the Chief to create a general ledger of every item held in evidence. The Township Manager has authority over police hours and the Police Chief is the sole responsible person at the end of that and if you want to leave it up to a Township Supervisor to see that this policy is implemented in a reasonable timely manner as itís not going to happen in a week or two. Itís going to take a while to do it. The other option is to assign this to the Manager to be responsible for being satisfied that thereís progress being made and itís being carried out. Otherwise, youíre going to wonder at every meeting asking where is that. Itís a big thing and itís not going to happen right now and it would be done taking time out while doing all the other duties all at the same time. Short of adding an additional secretary or staff the easiest thing would be to assign the Manager to see that it gets done. Motion Stephens, second Baker to assign the Manager to implement policy in a timely manner. There was no public comment. A vote was then taken. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Baker, second Stephens to approve Amendment to Jackson Township Police Contract to clarify three issues. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Baker, second Stephens on transferring $ 38,984.57 from the Capital Reserve Fund to the General Fund - $12,550.00 to Laurel Highlands Fence for 2 new backstops at Mitchell Park, $10,000.00 towards April 12, 2005 Payroll, $7,248.00 to US Municipal for plow and sign posts, $6,186.57 to Luther P. Miller for fuel and heating oil and $3,000.00 to Heggman & Wray Consulting Engineers for work done on Pike Road Water Project. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Baker, second Stephens on approving the time sheets from March 27, 2005 through April 9, 2005 and April 10, 2005 through April 23, 2005. Vote-3 yes.

Chairman Bracken said we would go into other new business. Supervisor Stephens said he would like to into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. Solicitor Barbin said that before we go into Executive Session perhaps there are some people here who would like to say something and then go home. Stephens said we would have to change the schedule being that weíre under other new business. Motion Baker, second Stephens to change the order of the agenda to hear public comments at this time. Vote-3 yes.

Public Comments:
Delores Edsel
said she had just recently written a letter regarding a request she had made from August 25, 2004 Jackson Township Meeting and at that time I asked for some policies and procedures and investigation into possible improprieties in the way that Chief Fatula handled the situation and accident on May 20, 2004 involving my mother and 23 month old daughter and also the arrest of my father. At that time I was told by Supervisor Bracken that the situation was under FBI investigation. In a letter dated September 1, 2004 from Mr. Hirko, he included some policies that I asked for but there was no further mention of my request for an investigation and I havenít heard anything further and was wondering why. Lately Iíve heard a lot on television concerning Chief Fatula and his character and conduct on the Task Force. I feel that this should also be a reflection on the ethics of being a Police Officer of the Township also. I know that with several important officials of the Township including you three Supervisors there is no love lost when it comes to my Dad; however I feel that justice was served with my daughter and her best interest was considered out of the negative feelings towards my Father. I would like to know how many of your Police Officers are required to attend training and educational seminars to prepare them to handle feelings and natural reactions at a trauma site. Are they taught how to handle families involved in situations and if not, I strongly suggest that the Jackson Police do this. I would like to know if Chief Fatula answers to only one of you Supervisors or the Board as a whole. Lastly I want to know if my request was taken seriously and I want to get back to the condition of my daughter. I was in the hospital and my parents were responsible for her and I feel it was handled inappropriately. Manager Hirko said there was a letter sent to you recently with a copy of the Complaint Procedure Policy. Edsel said she never received that. Hirko said he may have sent it to her father, Eugene but did respond directly to her most recent letter and it was just mailed out a day or two ago. Solicitor Barbin said it answers some of your questions. He said there is currently another higher body than us and they will be making a decision that clearly overrides anything we decide. There are disputed facts. Chief Fatula says the facts are one way and your Father and a witness or whoever says it happened another way. Thatís a matter where those factual disputes are going to be resolved in the Court. When those factual disputes are resolved, then if the factual disputes are resolved against your Father in the form of a conviction which is proof beyond reasonable doubt then we have to accept Chief Fatulaís rendition of the facts. If your Father is vindicated from criminal action then it doesnít say one way or another but you and your Father have raised serious questions which the Township should address, but we canít address it and decide what we believe the facts are before the Court decides what the facts are because weíre just asking for contradiction. Edsel said she understands all of that but her concern but did anyone address Chief Fatula and the handling of my daughter. I was not contacted not my husband. Supervisor Stephens said referring to the statement that there was no love lost from the Supervisors, I canít speak for anybody else and Iím here today to represent every single person fairly, equitably irregardless of whether I like them or not and that will be done on my part. As far as your daughterís concerned, I understand your concern about the procedures and we need to address that and look into it to see if all could have been done and the way that they should have been done to best facilitate what you need. Edsel said that was her concern. Barbin said youíre getting an answer and it wonít be the full answer that you want at this point but once the matter is resolved in Ebensburg then there is no reason not to resolve everything across the board and your issues are legitimate issues. We canít prejudge what facts we believe or not believe but once the Court tells us then the Supervisors can look at it and have Chief Fatula respond to it and make a determination. It might be a while before the matter is resolved in Ebensburg but I think everybody wants this done as quickly as possible. Hirko said a copy of the Complaint Policy would be mailed to her as soon as possible.

William Ondrizek commented on the closing of Gillin Lane. He said he was here to voice some concerns over two upcoming events in our Township, the Battle of the Barrel at our Heritage Festival and the second thing is the Firemen Convention. They close our road for these activities and itís a dead-end street. I canít get mail. . I canít get home. . .I canít get to work and Iím told to drive on a dirt lane that used to be used for a farm where if thereís an accident, my insurance doesnít cover it. I donít understand why my street has to be blocked off for a day or a week at a time without anybody ever consulting any of the residents. Thereís never been anyone come in and ask me if I have a problem with that road being closed. Iíve been trying to solve this problem behind the scenes for twenty-five years and Iím a little tired of not getting home whenever thereís an activity at the Fire Hall. Is there any way we can alleviate that problem. Supervisor Stephens asked Solicitor Barbin if there was any way that we could alleviate the problem of them blocking off the streets and him not being able to get home. Solicitor Barbin asked if it was a public Township road. Chairman Bracken replied yes. Last year they made a thing through the yard then somebody blocked his truck and they have things to get around but there is another access here and Billís saying the roadís too bad for his vehicle. Barbin asked if the other access was a public road. Bracken replied no and that it was a private road. Barbin said we have a duty to keep the public roads open. When thereís an emergency or a safety issue, we have a right to close the road and detour traffic but we have a duty to keep the roads open. Bracken said he agreed that they need to open the road up when you need to get through when they do the Battle of the Barrel. Ondrizek said they never let us through and when we tried to get through we were swore at and threatened. Bracken said weíll meet with the Fire Company and come up with some kind of solution and then give you something in writing. Ondrizek said he just wants a public record of it.

Executive Session:
The Supervisors entered an Executive Session to discuss police personnel matters at 7:48 PM and returned at 8:28 PM.

Other New Business:
Stephens to suspend Chief of Police Robert Fatula with pay effective immediately pending an investigation or hearing with the stipulation that Robert Fatula not enter or go on what is normally considered Township Police utilized property or use what is considered Township owned equipment. The motion died from lack of a second.

Supervisor Stephens had additional comments to make. He said at the March 31st meeting of the Supervisors I asked Solicitor William Barbin if the Township retired, retained or hired him or the law firm of Gleason, McQuillan, Barbin & Markovich as Solicitor for Jackson Township. As I recall Mr. Barbin stated we hired the law firm and not him personally. I stated as I recall the Board hired Mr. Barbin personally and not the law firm. The minutes of the Reorganizational Meeting of 01-06-03 reflect that we appointed Bill Barbin as Solicitor. The minutes of the Reorganizational Meeting of 01-05-04 reflect we retained William Barbin as Township Solicitor. The minutes of the Reorganizational Meeting of 01-03-05 reflect the Board reappointed William G. Barbin to the position of Township Solicitor. 03 said Bill Barbin, 04 said William Barbin and 05 said William G. Barbin. Now Mr. Barbin, did the Board hire you personally of did the Board hire the firm of Gleason, McQuillan, Barbin & Markovich as Solicitor. Solicitor Barbin replied he was not a sole entity and you clarified that tonight by approving a detailed representation letter which made it clear it is the firm. Stephens replied I didnít vote for it. Stephens continued with his second comment stating that at the March 31, 2005 meeting, the burning of construction and or demolition was discussed where I pointed out on Page 7 of Ordinance # 118 that is says in quotation marks, no one may burn construction or demolition waste. As I recall Solicitor Barbin stated that itís a definition and not a rule and Supervisor Bracken chipped in with thatís a definition. If we go back to Page 4 we see Article # 2, rules and definitions. Rules are laws and definitions are as Webster states, that definition is a statement of the meaning of the word or a group of words. What part of no one may burn construction and demolition waste that you would think a definition was needed. If we are receiving inaccurate or illegal advice or proper legal action isnít taken is Solicitor Barbin, or the law firm of Gleason, McQuillan, Barbin & Markovich or the Township Zoning Officer and the Township or all of the above legally accountable if carcinogens were exposed to the public in violation of Township or State law.

Chairman Bracken
made an announcement that the Board of Supervisors next scheduled meeting will be held on Thursday, May 26, 2005 at 7:00 pm at the Jackson Township Municipal Building.

Baker, second Stephens to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 pm. Vote-3 yes.

Respectfully submitted,
David M. Hirko, Secretary