Police called during heated exchange between Forward Township supervisors

No arrests were made, and Chairman Tom DeRosa’s verbal battle with Dave Levdansky continued.

Police were called to a Forward Township supervisors meeting Monday during a dispute between Chairman Tom DeRosa and Supervisor Dave Levdansky escalated into shouting and gavel banging, though no one was removed and the meeting continued before it was later abruptly adjourned.

The confrontation began over the township’s boat ramp project, but grew into a broader dispute over communication and participation in township business. Levdansky contends he is not being properly informed of or included in township proceedings, while DeRosa argues Levdansky does not spend enough time at the municipal building to stay involved and informed.

Levdansky first raised those concerns as supervisors considered ratifying minutes from July 28 concerning approval of bids for the boat ramp.

He said he received an email from the township secretary July 24 informing him of a meeting scheduled for July 27, but received another email minutes later saying it had been canceled.

A published bid notice for the boat ramp set July 24 as the deadline for submissions, but did not state when bids would be opened.

Monday’s agenda called for supervisors to ratify minutes from July 28 for approval of bids for the project.

Levdansky said he was not notified of the July 28 proceeding and therefore did not attend.

He cited the Second Class Township Code and argued the township secretary is required to inform supervisors of all township meetings. Levdansky said he cannot attend proceedings if he is not told they are taking place.

He pointed to other township proceedings he said he had not been adequately informed about, including bidding for a bridge on Kelly Hollow Road.

A township bid notice seeks construction bids for a bridge at 3817 Kelly Hollow Road under a design-build arrangement and requires bids to include a stamped design.

Bids are due by 5 p.m. Sept. 20 and, according to the notice, will be opened Sept. 23.

However, the notice does not list a time or describe the proceeding as a special meeting.

Levdansky said supervisors had not met to discuss putting the bridge project out for bid or how it would be bid, and said he was unaware of a board vote authorizing the advertisement.

He raised similar concerns about the boat ramp, question- ing whether supervisors had voted to authorize advertising that project for bids.

Levdansky also challenged how the boat ramp is being funded, arguing Forward Township could have pursued federal funding through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rather than using township money.

According to Levdansky, the approximately $250,000 project is being split between the township and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. He said similar projects elsewhere in the Mon Valley have received full federal funding.

He also raised questions about the bid submitted for the project, including whether a bid bond had been posted and whether prevailing wage requirements would be met.

Levdansky voted against ratifying the July 28 minutes, while DeRosa and Supervisor Amy Cline voted in favor.

After the vote, DeRosa defended his handling of the project, saying township officials have been working on the boat ramp for years and met numerous times with the Army Corps of Engineers.

“What Elizabeth Township gets, and what Elizabeth Borough gets, has no bearing on Forward Township,” DeRosa said.

He then turned his attention to Levdansky’s participation in township business.

“If you think you could do better, you ought to come here once in a while,” DeRosa said before repeatedly asking Levdansky how many hours he had spent in the township building since being elected.

Levdansky said he did not know because he does not keep track.

As Levdansky continued to speak, DeRosa repeatedly banged his gavel and told him he was out of order.

“You haven’t been in the building in three years,” DeRosa said. “You ought to be ashamed to talk to these people.”

Levdansky said there is a reason he does not regularly come to the township building alone.

“The reason why I don’t come here is because your solicitor, your police chief and my attorney told me not to come here alone,” Levdansky said. “When I come to this building, and I do come here, I come with an escort, and there’s a reason for that.”

Levdansky said that advice followed a previous incident in which he said he was falsely accused of harassment.

DeRosa said Levdansky was out of order and instructed someone to call police.

“Call the police, call them,” DeRosa said.

“Bring them,” Levdansky responded.

The two continued talking over one another.

“Tom, I have a right as a citizen and as a township supervisor to ask questions and state my opinion,” Levdansky said. “These people don’t have to listen to you,” DeRosa replied.

An Elizabeth Township police officer did respond and remained in the lobby. It was unclear who placed the call or when exactly the officer arrived. No one was removed from the meeting.

Despite the heated exchange, supervisors moved on with other township business briefly before arguments continued.

A resident asked Levdansky what he would have done differently with the boat ramp project. Levdansky said he would have pursued federal funding, prompting the resident to respond that the key words were “would have.”

DeRosa provided an update on the ramp, saying construction is about halfway complete.

He said concrete was poured Saturday and will need time to cure before testing is completed and the structure can be pushed into the river.

DeRosa said other contractors who bid on the work had not previously completed a boat ramp project, while the selected contractor had the experience and heavy equipment he said were needed for the job.

“You’re not going to push 36 tons of concrete in the river with a backhoe,” DeRosa said.

DeRosa then returned to his criticism of Levdansky, accusing him of waiting until shortly before meetings to request information and then using it to criticize township operations publicly.

“He comes here the week of the meeting and asks for the stuff. I give him the stuff,” DeRosa said. “He’s holding the same paper that I have in my hand.”

DeRosa accused Levdansky of using the information to “come here and start his charade.”

“You’re not fooling these people,” DeRosa said. “You’re making a fool of yourself.”

The dispute over communication resurfaced when DeRosa announced a few minutes later that engineers want to close Sadler’s Hollow Road.

“Guy said close the road, you can’t fix it, an engineering company. Go fix Sadler’s, Dave,” DeRosa said to Levdansky. “Go fix it. (There have been) five different engineers on Sadler’s Hollow in the last two months.”

Levdansky asked to be notified of the next meeting regarding the road.

“How about the next time you meet with them you let me know so I can be there,” Levdansky said.

“Nobody wants to meet with you, Dave,” DeRosa said.

Cline disputed Levdansky’s suggestion that he had not been kept informed.

“You were told about the meeting, and you made yourself unavailable,” she said.

“Tell him, Amy, every time we invite him, he doesn’t show up,” DeRosa said.

Levdansky said he was notified of a recent Sadler’s Hollow meeting less than 24 hours before it was held and already had plans to be out of town.

“You are always out of town,” DeRosa said.

“Thus I couldn’t attend it,” Levdansky said. “All I’m asking is to be present.”

“Be present?” DeRosa responded. “You don’t come here.”

DeRosa again criticized Levdansky for questioning his handling of township business.

“You’re not going to go through life critiquing me,” DeRosa said. “Last time someone critiques me, they’re brighter than me, and that don’t include you.”

As supervisors moved on to approving expenses from August, Levdansky raised questions about several expenditures, including coffee creamer appearing in two separate line items.

“One of the items on here lists, I think, $23.99 for coffee creamer, which is no big deal,” Levdansky said. “But then later on, there’s also another payment to the same company for coffee creamer, paper, highlighter, Post-it notes.”

DeRosa dismissed the concern. “I think we ought to arrest everybody here, $23 for coffee creamer,” DeRosa said. “We don’t even drink it. It’s for the people in the town who come here. You have got to be kidding me.”

Levdansky then questioned a $1,940 August payment to the township solicitor, whose monthly retainer is $1,500.

The township secretary said the additional amount reimbursed the solicitor for transfer fees he had personally paid while handling a township property transaction.

“That has been ongoing for two months, Dave. If you were around, you would know that,” DeRosa said.

Levdansky then asked about royalties the township receives from EQT for two properties.

Township officials told him the royalties are recurring monthly payments and said additional information was available to him.

Without any other items on the agenda under new business, DeRosa asked the audience if they had questions.

Former township supervisor Tom Headley then weighed in on how the meeting had unfolded.

Headley said that during his 12 years as a supervisor, board members regularly stopped at the municipal building, sometimes several times a week, to speak with township officials and keep themselves informed.

“Dave, your problem is, you get information, you come to the meeting and you ask questions you should have answered yourself sometime prior to the meeting,” Headley said. “You put on a show. It is an embarrassment to the township that you do this.”

Headley said he believes Levdansky would be better informed about projects, finances and upcoming proceedings if he maintained a closer working relationship with township staff.

“You act like it’s the township’s responsibility to prepare information for you and inform you of all of these things,” Headley said. “That might work in Bethel Park or Upper St. Clair, but this is Forward Township.”

Levdansky responded that he has participated when asked and again raised his concerns about security at the building.

At that point, DeRosa abruptly adjourned the meeting and walked away.

Cline and Levdansky continued their discussion after the adjournment. During that exchange, Levdansky questioned whether residents had been informed about what he referred to as a “special meeting” scheduled for Thursday concerning township-owned property.

The township’s published notice describes the proceeding as a bid opening.

Forward Township is accepting sealed bids for two township-owned vacant lots in Golden Circle, identified as lot and block numbers 1906-B-149 and 1906-B-170. The advertisement lists each lot as 4,200 square feet and says the properties have water, sewage and electric service.

Bids will be accepted at the township municipal office until 5 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 16, and opened at 9 a.m. Thursday, Sept. 17, according to the notice.

Cline said the properties could not simply be sold to an interested individual and had to be put out for bid.

Resident Rick Reese challenged the accuracy of the dimensions listed in the advertisement, saying the properties were not each 4,200 square feet. He said one was approximately 9,100 square feet and the other approximately 7,100 square feet.

“They were misadvertised, period,” Reese said.

Cline said she was aware the advertisement had run but had not measured the properties herself. She encouraged anyone interested in the lots to come to the township office, where officials could show them where the properties are located and they could receive additional information.

Levdansky questioned how the decision to advertise the properties had been reached, and he and Cline continued to go back and forth over the process after adjournment.

An Elizabeth Township police officer remained in the lobby as the discussion continued, but no one was removed from the building.

Elizabeth Township police Chief Ken Honick, whose department provides police coverage for Forward Township, was attending another meeting Monday night and was not at the Forward Township meeting.

Honick said he could not comment on information relayed to him about what may have occurred after the meeting concluded and would have to examine the circumstances “from an internal review” before commenting further.