Arguments continue in Forward Township

Supervisors had heated exchanges on several topics Monday night.

Forward Township residents who’ve packed meetings for the past several months have grown tired of bickering among supervisors.

While residents attend for various reasons — to share concerns, ask questions or simply observe — there are often groans, laughs and comments from the audience as supervisors Tom DeRosa, Dave Magiske and David Levdansky bicker with one another.

During Monday’s meeting, there were four items listed on the agenda: the announcement of a bridge closure at Ridge Road and Pangburn Hollow, the duties, responsibilities and compensation of the road master, the 2023 audit and the monthly police report.

No items were put up for a vote and discussions on nearly every matter aside from police coverage seemed to spark contention between supervisors for various reasons, often trailing off topic before Solicitor Matt Racunas would step in to retain some semblance of order.

Bridge closure

The bridge closure was put on the agenda be DeRosa, who wanted to update residents on the closure and how long they can expect to be inconvenienced before it is fixed.

The bridge closed Tuesday, and DeRosa said he hopes it will reopen in September.

“It’s a long story and has been an even longer process,” DeRosa said. “I have been dealing with it for seven months with the state.”

DeRosa said it was inspected in January and the state determined it needed to be repaired.

“I have had so many meetings since with state representatives and engineers, but it’s in bad shape.”

Materials have been delayed, DeRosa said, but they should be in this week so work can get started.

“I would guess it will be three or four weeks,” he said. “As soon as we get the materials we will start on it.”

Road master

The next item regarding the position of road master, its duties, responsibilities and compensation, was placed on the agenda at the request of Levdansky, who also had handouts printed for the public outlining the duties of a road master.

Levdansky said the position has become a point of interest in the township. In May, DeRosa was again appointed to the role.

DeRosa had served as the road master for 28 years. In January, he was set to be reappointed, but “resigned” the next day as he realized the vote he cast for himself was not valid as it was a paid role.

During January’s meeting DeRosa proposed combining 23 agenda items, which Levdansky objected to because he had questions.

Supervisors decided to not follow Levdansky’s request and voted on all 23 items together. DeRosa and Magiske voted to approve all 23 items, which included his reappointment as road master, with Levdansky voting against all of the motions.

While the township’s road master is paid a salary, as determined by township auditors, DeRosa has never taken it, but that will soon change — which is what Levdansky wanted to discuss.

There was never an amendment made following January’s meeting to accept an official resignation from the post, but after questioning in April DeRosa informed supervisors and members of the audience the township was technically without a road master. He was reappointed to the job in May retroactive to Jan. 1.

Following May’s meeting, the township’s three elected auditors met to determine the position’s salary, as outlined in the second class township code.

Levdansky said he had no problem with appointing DeRosa, despite not originally voting yes in January.

“I had questions and concerns about several times, but this board decided to have one roll call vote on all 23 items and I urged that not to happen,” Levdansky said. “Most of the items I wanted to vote for, had they been separate, I would have voted yes. I would have voted to make Tom (DeRosa) chairman and road master. “

Levdansky said his problem isn’t with DeRosa holding the position, but he wants supervisors to have more input on decisions that are made.

No elected auditors attended Monday’s meeting, and therefore they were not able to directly answer Levdansky’s questions.

“They (the auditors) met and set the duties, responsibilities and compensation for the road master, but none of us know about this,” Levdansky said. “You don’t know about it and neither do I. It’s the lack of information and the way public officials sometimes go about making decisions, doesn’t breed confidence or trust in government. These decisions have been made by these people (the auditors) and no one has ever communicated with me.”

DeRosa stepped in and said compensation for the position he holds was set at $32 per hour.

Levdansky asked DeRosa if he could estimate how much time he would spend in the role on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis.

DeRosa was offended by the question.

“That might be the craziest thing you could ever ask,” DeRosa said. “How can I anticipate how many hours? For 27 years, I just did it.”

Magiske stepped in to tell the audience that DeRosa, himself and former supervisor Ron Skrinjorich all worked as road masters without compensation, but DeRosa always took the bulk of the work.

DeRosa, after providing examples of the type of work he does as road master, said he has never expected to be paid for the job.

But with the atmosphere the way it has been at meetings, he feels stupid.

“I’ve never wanted paid, but the atmosphere here now, I feel like a stooge. A total stooge,” DeRosa said. “I just go and do what I do.”

Levdansky said in other townships where supervisors hold the role, there are additional contracts in place that outline the job’s duties and keep track of time spent.

DeRosa said he is going to clock 1.5 hours per day, which totals $240 per week.

Levdansky said he didn’t have a problem with that, but still wanted to clarify if it would be billed weekly, monthly or hourly.

“OK, I will write down everything I do and get paid for it,” DeRosa said. “Next month, I will write down every hour I spend and it will probably be $3,000 a week.”

“It can go one of two ways,” Levdansky said. “We can do a weekly or monthly salary and you don’t have to keep track of hours, or you want to bill for hours.”

“You’re missing the point,” DeRosa said. “I’m not writing all that down. I want an hour and a half a day, that’s it. You should be ashamed to even ask me, people at Mc-Donald’s make more.”

DeRosa asked for residents to raise their hand if they wanted to see him paid hourly for the time he spends doing the job. A few people put their hands up, acknowledging he has done the job for free for nearly three decades.

Resident and former supervisor Tom Headley said he’s tired of seeing things that are non-issues become problems.

“In many second class townships people run to be supervisors to become road master because it is a fulltime job,” Headley said. “They put in 40 hours a week, overtime and we have never had that here. I don’t understand why there is a big focus on road master when a problem does not exist.

“Why are we talking about it and spending all of this time, concern and scrutiny? There was never a problem before, but now it looks like a problem because there is an expense involved. Tom (DeRosa) has been doing this on his own for free, but now it is being questioned. He should have been paid all of these years. It seems silly to waste this time talking about something that is a non-issue.”

DeRosa said until the matter was brought up Monday, he never planned to take payment.

“I never wanted paid,” DeRosa said. “I am tired of the games we are playing. If you want to know something, walk up and ask me. You might not like the answer, but I will tell you.”

DeRosa said he never planned to take any sort of stipend from the position, but when pressed he threw out the number of an hour and a half per day.

“It’s all ridiculous to me,” he said. “I don’t come here to waste my time, and this is a waste of time.”

Racunas said while Levdansky may want things to happen differently in the sense of an additional contract or job description, his concerns are addressed in the second class township code.

“It might be the way you think it should happen, but I want to be clear to the public that the duties, responsibilities and compensation are established in the second class township code,” Racunas said. “This is not something unique to Forward Township. It doesn’t need to be laid out because it is already in the law. The compensation is set by the auditors.

“Tom was appointed, they auditors met, they established the compensation, so he (DeRosa) can put in his hours or not, but those invoices for payment will come here and be paid. Establishing the position, the duties, responsibilities are in the law. I understand you want an extra contact but in terms of what is required by law, it’s already done.”

2023 audit

The third agenda item, the 2023 audit, was also brought up by Levdansky.

Last month, Magiske told residents and supervisors that the audit would soon be finished and made available to the public for review.

Levdansky questioned the audit and other reportable township finances, and brought it up again Monday.

The audit has not been finished or presented to officials, but before it is completed he asked if supervisors would consider having recommendations included from professionals.

Levdansky said the township’s past audits do not include “recommendations” from the professionals. He wants to ask the township’s hired firm to provide that additional information.

“I think we should take advantage of their professional expertise and ask them to do a section on recommendations as well,” he said. “When they give recommendations they will sit down with the board and our staff and can interact with us to share recommendations to improve our process. I would urge, and want to see, if they would be willing to do that.”

He then questioned why the process has been delayed, claiming the firm has waited for three months to hear from the township. The township has paid $8,000 for its 2023 audit so far.

One audience member said there are qualified township residents who can review the audit publicly and provide recommendations of their own if they see a problem. That resident also questioned the cost of adding that information to the report.

Levdansky said he didn’t price how much it would cost to have additional recommendations included, but offered to find out.

“If it’s doubled, probably not, but if it is a fraction of the cost, I think we would benefit from that insight and recommendation of a firm who does this for municipalities,” Levdansky said.

Magiske said in his decades as a supervisor and with his professional experience there has never been a problem.

“I interact with our CPA,” Magiske said. “We don’t have a problem. We have never had a problem. But, now, we want to make it a problem.”

Magiske said he has had many discussions with the CPA over past audits.

“We speak the same language, we have discussions,” Magiske said. “There is no charge for those conversations. If we ask for something in writing, there will be a charge. Guaranteed. If we want three pages of additional recommendations we will pay accordingly.”

Racunas said based on his experience dealing with municipal government, including audits, recommendations are largely related to overlap in services.

DeRosa and Magiske both stepped in to explain why that would not make sense, but Racunas simply said he was stating what “recommendations” included based on his past experience.

The conversation shifted to other financial matters as residents questioned Levdansky’s involvement in investing money.

In June, Levdansky and DeRosa got in to a screaming match about scheduling conflicts surrounding a meeting regarding the PLGIT account.

That conflict came up again Monday, with one resident recalling Levdnasky being asked to help and asking what had been done since.

DeRosa said he tookcare of it, and there was $2 million invested in PLGIT.

The conversation shifted to Levdansky’s involvement in that process.

DeRosa brought up text message exchanges and calls between he and Levdansky that boiled down to more bickering as they each spoke over each other to explain themselves.

Arguments shifted to meetings and involvement.

DeRosa and Magiske have both brought up Levdansky’s lack of presence in the township since being elected, specifically regarding “pre-meetings” held before each month’s voting meeting.

Levdansky said Monday he does not attend “pre-meetings” because he feels they are illegal, which sparked another debate.

Racunas countered that argument, claiming in his legal opinion there is not a violation of the Sunshine Act at those meetings as supervisors are discussing information items and not anything up for deliberation or a vote.

Levdansky said other attorneys or governmental agencies have “workshop sessions,” but the meetings held before the township’s monthly meeting do not fall in line with that.

Racunas said the “meetings” held before the voting meeting that Levdansky does not attend are not executive sessions and do not violate the law.

“I want to be very clear, you can’t meet to discuss items that are deliberated or to be voted on, you’re trying to explain the law to the public, but you are not the lawyer.” Racunas said. “I can tell you exactly what it says. You cannot deliberate in anticipation of a vote. There are certain items you can discuss in executive session, but informational items that are not up for deliberation are legal without brining it before the public,” Racunas said.

Levdansky said he would like to see the township hold workshop meetings ahead of their voting meeting.

“I spend enough time here without workshop meetings,” DeRosa said.

“Public discussion and public comment is not something you like, I get it Tom (DeRosa),” Levdansky said.

In the middle of arguments supervisors took comments from members of the audience, some of which added fuel to the fire.

Resident Rick Reese called attention to the way business is handled.

“The way you are acting in front of people is ridiculous,” Reese said. “You need to learn to get along.”

Reese said he tried to bring Levdansky and DeRosa together, which sparked another point of contention.

“I am 82 years old, I don’t need someone to get us together,” DeRosa said.

“Why?” Reese asked. “You hate him.”

“I don’t hate him,” DeRosa said. “I feel sorry for him. I don’t need someone to get us together.”

“Well you two need to learn to get along,” Reese said.