I am pleased to learn that Act 93 employees and PSD administrators have taken voluntary pay freezes. The teaching staff is not part of this group. The Pottstown Federation of Teachers is now involved in a contact dispute with the district that is not going well.
Teachers in the Fleetwood School District (Berks County) have been asked to take voluntary pay freezes, along with the administration, which will save the Fleetwood School District $800,000.
Teachers in the Twin Valley School District (Chester County) have been asked to take voluntary pay freezes, along with the administration, which will save the Twin Valley School District $600,000 to $700,000 a year. The Superintendent, Dr. Robert F. Pleis has already volunteered to take a pay freeze along with his colleagues at Fleetwood and Pottstown.
We give the PSD administration two Roy’s Rants thumbs up for leading by example.
The board also voted NO on “forward borrowing”. “Forward borrowing” would have allowed the district to borrow up to an additional $23 million, over and above the $28 million already authorized. The $28 million was authorized for renovations at the district’s five elementary schools. We applaud the fiscal responsibility shown by the board. PSD already has an enormous debt from the renovations at the high school and middle school. Taxpayers cannot afford more debt. Any amount over $28 million will need voter approval!
Roy's Rants - For Your Information 
Applause for the admin’s decision to take a pay freeze. What puzzles me are the raises given to Flanders and Bobst at Monday’s council meeting. This was not on the agenda of the COTW the previous week, is there an explanation? It’s not that they do or don’t deserve the raises, it’s that we are in such dire times and actions speak louder than words to the P.town taxpayers.
SP suggests, (tongue in cheek), that the old elementary schools could be boarded up and keep only one of the 5 schools open. I hope this is a consideration. The costs of keeping them all open are unrealistic. Housing values are so desperately low, there are more investors buying rentals that will house more Section 8 people and their growing families that we support with our taxes, starting at the federal level on down. Our Codes and Police Departments have not got a handle on enforcement issues that are grossly impacting this community and I don’t understand why the SD and the Borough are not teaming up to get to the very heart of the problems that plague so many of the downtown areas, including High St. No plan is going to succeed for Pottstown until our town is presentable and reasonably safe, or until they begin to slam the door on the greedy slum property owners who are about the only businesses that prosper here. Both the SD and the town have everything to lose by allowing these circumstances to go unchecked.
Those amendments were not even discussed (other than what Jody read) or spelled out! We had no idea they were raises. Without access to the actual documents it was very anti-transparency!
We heard those concerns at the Trail Town meeting about saftey and crime from some of the members who attended the workshop. They do not feel safe in parts of Pottstown. We have a higher crime rate than Scranton, which is a city of 76,000 people! Obviously our crime index needs major improvement. It should be 150 points lower! It should be about what Scranton’s is!
Much more work to be done folks!
The anti-transparent nature of these raises is unacceptable. It seems one step forward and two back where issues of honesty in this borough administration is concerned. Under the circumstances is it not logical to insist that these two people invest in homes and live in Pottstown? They can give back by paying the property taxes that we pay and fighting the good fight on the same turf, under the same circumstances. I almost guarantee that if they lived in a home in the Washington St. corridor they would clean that area up in a heart beat. As it should be.