The word for today: ANONYMOUS

You may be asking why that is today's word?  At the June 24, 2013 West Vincent Township meeting, the AGENDA listed the following:
5. Anonymous letter to the West Vincent Police Department thanking them for their service http://www.westvincenttwp.org/images/docs/062413-Agenda.pdf

The minutes from the meeting of June 24, 2013 state the following: 
The Police Department received an anonymous letter dated June 3, 2013 thanking them for the help they provide every day. This was acknowledged as received. http://www.westvincenttwp.org/images/Minutes/06-24-13%20BOS%20Minutes.pdf

The video confirms that the letter was not even read, just acknowledged. Note the way letter was addressed in the Township meeting. The video is less than a minute.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VutPGmMnklQ

The Board always reads letters from the public unless it has legal matters connected with it. That has been expressed previously when the Board was asked how they choose to read or not read letters at a meeting.

That is wonderful that someone took the time to send a thank you letter to West Vincent PD for a job well done.They do a lot of good things such as working with the DARE program. In fact, I thought that I would publish the letter so that everyone could see it, since the township did not publish it. Here it is:

Two things seem out of place here.

One, it doesn't really appear to be anonymous. It seems clear to me that someone signed their name. It would be highly unusual to end a letter with "Very Sincerely," - note the comma following - and then not sign a name. Also, you can see where the name was and then the signature looks to have had either white-out applied or maybe a piece of paper laid over the name(s). Note the telltale remnants of a signature at the bottom of each "y" in Very Sincerely.  Then there are some mysterious dots above the date, especially above the '2'.  Could they be the remnants of the sender's address, remaining after white-out has been applied?

Two, this "anonymous" letter came with a donation of $10,000.  Even if the sender did not sign their name there would have to be a signature and an account name on the check.   (Unless it was a stack of $100 bills which be even more suspicious)  What is being hidden from the public? In a world where campaign donations 1% the size of this amount have to be disclosed, why did the West Vincent Board of Supervisors cloak this information? No mention of the $10,000 donation was made at the Township meeting. The letter has a notation on it stating "Also in receipt of a $10,000 donation to the Police Department". The letter doesn't request that the donor not be revealed and even suggests that the donor is known by addressing the letter "Dear Mike". Even if the letter WAS truly anonymous, why hide the fact that the Township Police Department received a windfall $10,000? I have a difficult time believing that not recording this donation is simply an oversight by the Supervisors.

I'll stress.  I have no objection whatsoever to someone donating to the police department in thanks for the good work they do. Maybe more people would do that.  But why are the supervisors apparently twisting the truth and claiming it is anonymous, and then not mentioning the amount of the donation or even that there was a donation?  Are they frightened it might be construed as a bribe?

Open and transparent?

Word for Tomorrow. Maybe it should be OBFUSCATE. 

Best wishes


To see my previous mailings please click on http://tinyurl.com/westvincentinfos  As usual, if you want to be on or off my list, or have some comments or suggestions, or know someone who would like to be on the list, please let me know.  Just  write to chestercountynews@gmail.com  Feel free to forward this email on to anyone you think might be interested.