Is throwing a private party using any public monies whatsoever feeding from the public trough?  (Of course any municipality is free to throw a party, but do they use taxpayer funding of any level to throw private parties? If so, is this a wider conversation which needs to occur?)

Or, is it just in West Vincent that this is different?  (I am asking because I do not know.)

Is it just to be chalked up as no worries, it’s only money?

I figure I would throw this out there and ask.  West Vincent is a Township that has a Republican majority so pardon me if I don’t quite grasp how it is fiscally responsible to use any taxpayer funds in this sort of economy to throw a private party.  Times are tight, times are different.  Is what happened 30 years ago, ok now?

I understand that the funds were spent so they could honor Zoe Perkins, a former supervisor and member of the township’s planning commission.  However, that being stated and given the continued issues over there in this little slice of Chester County, wasn’t that just a bad idea? As in dumb de dumb dumb dumb?

I mean is it not true that Farmer in The Dell, Supervisor Ken Killer uses some township owned land as part of the land he farms on? (And what is “Project Moo” I unearthed about this?)  And Chester County’s Queen of Eminent Domain, former Executive Director of French and Pickering Creek Conservation Trust, Clare Quinn?  Who is receiving taxpayer funded health benefits?

So they wanted to throw this Zoe a party to honor her?  It should have been an open reception of some sort if they were using any township monies.  Why?  Because don’t those monies stem from residents/taxpayers?

And OH.MY.GOD the utter neurosis of these West Vincent officials when it comes to whomever “Chickenman” is?  Why does it matter?  If Chickenman sends out missives based upon publlicly available information, well couldn’t anyone do this?  Given the fact they are seemingly so obsessed with Chickenman, I have to ask if a right to know request was submitted on West Vincent that asked for costs involved in any and all surveillance of private citizens at any time or occasion, what would be the end result?

It just seems to me that isn’t it reasonable to assume that if they are so obsessed still with a Chicken who has been around a few years that they might be spending taxpayer money in all sorts of ways that no one knows about?  Mind you I am just asking a fair question, as it just seems like every time West Vincent is in the news or gets an unpleasant light shined on them, they resort to the furtive and paranoid Chickenman references, and pardon me but is Chickenman the only one who notices things sometimes aren’t quite what they seem? Gosh it was like this in Delaware County a few years ago with a secret blogger named Delco Tom Paine, and I thought it was ridiculous then in that situation.

Why is it they think the public and the local reporters who cover them are stupid?  If they are adding 2 + 2 = 5, duh-oh aren’t people going to ask where the extra 1 came from?

West Vincent, it is not so much you threw someone a party or how much money you spent, it is that you seem to be unable to resist the urge to feed from the public trough, only the public wasn’t invited, were they? If they had a public ceremony open to whomever wanted to come, let’s get real?  How many people would have come? Probably no more than who went to the private affair.  BUT it would have been a public thing.

And I am sorry but yes, saying good bye to a public official might be a genteel thing to do, but if all you were serving was a sip or two of soda, it could have been paid for differently.   And lordy, doesn’t everyone have enough extra glasses and plates and table linens that they did not need to be rented?

You can’t keep wearing the “I’m With Stupid” shirts, West Vincent.  You can’t keep using a lone chicken as your scape goat.  Times have changed, even in West Vincent, and people want accountability from their officials.  And above all else, you can’t say you are a Republican majority run municipality if you are using taxpayer funds on anything other than their immediate benefit.

And people of West Vincent, if you are going to keep voting these people back into office year after year, you do in fact, deserve each other.  Sorry for the tough love, but it’s time to man and woman up: you want change, vote for it this coming November and every season after that until you feel you have a better degree of municipal representation.  These politicians and municipal folks work for the taxpayers and residents, not the other way around.

Posted: 07/22/12 12:09 am

WEST VINCENT — Using a combination of donations and township funds in May, township supervisors hosted a private appreciation party for a former supervisor.

The party was held to thank Zoe Perkins, a former supervisor and member of the township’s planning commission. It was attended by invitation only and held in the township building, which is adjacent to West Vincent Township Park.

 According to Supervisor Jim Wendlegass, the party was kept small primarily due to cost restrictions and occupancy limitations of the building’s room.

 Supervisor Clare Quinn, who worked with Perkins, said township funds are occasionally used to pay for refreshments, and this is not considered an extraordinary expense or activity.

The township party was first publicized in a recent posting on a website about West Vincent affairs written by “Chickenman.” The website, chickenman.medianewsonline.com, states that the focus of the articles posted there is an effort to fight “corruption in West Vincent.”

  The exact identity or identities of “chickenman” are subject to speculation. “Chickenman” and the newsletter comments have been the topic of public comment at township meetings….“(Perkins) served for 18 years, and gave all her money back to the township that she served,” said Quinn. “Every now and then we think it’s OK for the citizens of the township to thank somebody with a little bit of soda.”…It’s not like we rented a country club and had an exorbitant affair,” said Wendlegass, who estimated the total cost paid for by taxpayer money, including the sundial, was about $600. “We are very sensitive to the taxpayers and we try and do things as cheaply as we can.”