POTTSTOWN PA – The presence of uniformed Lower Pottsgrove Police Department officers during Tuesday night’s (Feb. 28, 2012) meeting of the Pottsgrove Board of School Directors was the result of a misunderstanding in communications, Acting Police Chief Michael Foltz, district Superintendent Dr. Bradley Landis, and board President Michael Neiffer all said Wednesday (Feb. 29).
Lower Pottsgrove police officers talk with an audience member Tuesday night at the rear of the Pottsgrove High School auditorium
The three also rejected allegations, loudly voiced by some members of the public, that the law enforcers’ arrival was intended to stifle discussion about or intimidate opponents of Pottsgrove’s adoption of grade-level education centers, which was unanimously approved by directors.
The police detail was a hot topic of discussion during the meeting in the auditorium of Pottsgrove High School, attended by about 150 people, and after the directors’ vote at online social media outlets.
Neiffer told the crowd Tuesday the district had not requested the detail. Foltz and Landis agree they did not speak to each other directly about such a request. And that’s where what was characterized as “a miscommunication” (by Foltz), “a misinterpretation” (Landis), and “a misunderstanding” (Neiffer) arose.
Here’s the back-story, as The Post understands it, from separate interviews with all three:
- Neiffer and Landis, in a conversation Sunday (Feb. 26), determined that with emotions on the centers’ concept running high, and with a large number of parents and residents expected at the meeting, it might be helpful to have security personnel in place. They decided to hire EPS Services, which provides security at Pottsgrove sporting events, to supply two guards in the auditorium.
- Landis later asked police Ofc. Wil James, the school resource officer who is regularly on duty some weekday evenings at the high school’s alternative education classes, to join the guards if he was available. James agreed, and told his commanding officer, Foltz, about his discussion with Landis.
- Foltz, believing Landis was asking the township for additional security, formally assigned three duty officers – James, Robert Diesinger and Daniel Kienle – to the detail. A police sergeant, their supervisor, was on site during a portion of the evening for a customary check on his men.
- When centers’ opposition spokesman Rick Rabinowitz asked Neiffer about the police presence, Neiffer in turn talked with James, and believed he understood James to say the officers’ arrival was voluntary. “We didn’t call them,” Neiffer then offered publicly, and mentioned Rabinowitz’s inquiry.
Although Foltz emphasized he was under the impression the detail was sought by Landis, the acting chief acknowledged he might have considered placing one there on his own anyway. “It made sense to me to have added security there. This being a controversial subject, you just never know what could happen. I directed our officers not to interfere or intervene unless a crime was being committed.”
None was; the officers remained quietly at the rear of the auditorium throughout the night. Some were seen helping to open and close doors as people moved through, and several passers-by stopped to talk with them. All were smiling and pleasant.
Foltz noted the department incurred 3 hours of overtime costs for one officer with the detail, correcting an earlier error by The Post.
Was intimidation a consideration? “Absolutely not,” Landis said. “We wanted to maintain a calm and orderly discussion. We just wanted to make sure things would go smoothly,” and avoid a repeat of a January meeting at which audience members shouted at the board and caused Neiffer to abruptly end the session.
“I personally don’t think intimidation was anyone’s motivation,” Foltz added. “It definitely was not on our part.”
The presence of Lower Pottsgrove police at public meetings other than those conducted by the township is not unusual. There was a significant police detail last September (2011), when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission held hearings in Sanatoga’s Sunnybrook Ballroom over the relicensing of power plants at the Exelon Corp. Limerick Generating Station.
Related (to Pottsgrove School District redistricting):
- Police Presence At ‘Grove Labeled A ‘Misunderstanding’
- Pottsgrove Board OKs Ed Centers, Full-Day Kindergarten
- On Facebook, Via Cells, First The News Then A Firestorm
- Attention-Getter: Philly TV Crew Spends Its Day In ‘Grove
- Get A Seat Early For Tonight’s Pottsgrove Board Meeting
- Bright Yellow Signs Flag Pottsgrove Centers’ Opposition
- The Case Against Centers in the Pottsgrove School District
- Pottsgrove Ed Centers’ Opponents Launch Petition Drive
- Pottsgrove Principals Distribute Redistrict Info Letters
- Debate Aside, Pottsgrove K-Classes Sign-Up Starts
- Pottsgrove’s Case For Education Centers, Take Two
- Pottsgrove Says It Will Work To Improve Public Notice
- Pottsgrove Centers’ Talks Subdued; Decision Delayed
- Notebook Worthy: Pottsgrove, The Master Of Brevity
- It’s Official: ‘Grove Meeting Moved To High School
- Pottsgrove’s Case For Ed Centers: A Nutshell View
- In ‘Horse Race’ Of Opinions, Pottsgrove Serves As Track
- ‘Grove Residents Want Proof Ed Centers Will Succeed
- ‘The Blues’ May Await Pottsgrove’s School Board Tonight
- Both Sides In Pottsgrove Redistricting Head To Facebook
- Pottsgrove Crowd Vocal In Opposing Educational Centers
- Advocate: Pottsgrove Centers ‘Best Access’ To Resources
- Debate Over Pottsgrove Redistricting Gets Started Tuesday
- No Matter What Plan Pottsgrove Adopts, Buses Ready
- Redistricting Info ‘Slanted,’ Pottsgrove Volunteers Charge
- Pottsgrove Redistrict Discussions Quietly Move Ahead
- In Pottsgrove, Redistricting Study Work Gets Started
- Pottsgrove Sets Dates For Redistrict Committee Work
- As Expected, Interest A’Plenty In Pottsgrove Redistricting
- Landis Calls For Pottsgrove Redistricting Volunteers
- Touchy Pottsgrove Redistricting Now Being Considered
Related (to the Pottsgrove Board of School Directors’ Feb. 28 meeting):
- Police Presence At ‘Grove Labeled A ‘Misunderstanding’
- Pottsgrove Board OKs Ed Centers, Full-Day Kindergarten
- On Facebook, Via Cells, First The News Then A Firestorm
- Attention-Getter: Philly TV Crew Spends Its Day In ‘Grove
- Get A Seat Early For Tonight’s Pottsgrove Board Meeting
Joe,
Thanks for giving our department the opportunity to reply to this controversial issue. We, as a department, understand the perception the police presence may have given to some but we strive to maintain peace and positive community interactions within the township. Politically charged situations like these, historically, have tendency to develop into full-blown protests. People have the right to be heard and the right to protest in the proper manner. We as police officers also need to ensure that those voices are heard within their constitutionally protected freedom of speech, but that such expressions are conducted peacefully. Our sole mission in these situations is maintaining safe and healthy interactions of both sides involved in the dispute.
To correct a misprint in the article pertaining to overtime, the department did incur (3) hours of overtime costs for one of the officers to be present.
Mike Foltz
Acting Chief-of-Police
Mike, thanks very much for your comments. I have already corrected our article to reflect your change and our error.
Joe Zlomek, Managing Editor
I appreciate this… I understand the need for added security, but after the first overcharged centers meeting there was not police pressence, nor after the second one. I was insulted by this pressence as many were. There would not be a need for police if the vote was to put a hold on the centers. This creates doubts in people minds and creates an expectation that something would occur.
I am very insulted that they were not wearing riot gear to control this extremely volitile group of radically thinking parents
Thank you to all the officers that were there, I am thankfull that we have such Officers in our township.
Greg, I suspect you and others would have been just as “insulted” (your term) had a police presence been available at any or all meetings following the second. If Tuesday’s detail created any “doubts” or “expectations” that you identified, they would have just as readily surfaced then.
Although I posted your comment, I must tell you I think its sarcasm is inappropriate. I understand the resentment, anger, hurt and frustration felt by opponents to the centers. But I, like others who offered comments here, on Facebook and elsewhere, urge us all to be civil in this process. Our community’s children are at stake now, and a decision about their scholastic future has been made. Unless that decision gets reversed or delayed, we will need to help them through the process. Our own attitude as adults – and in my view, that includes district residents who are childless or who no longer have children in the system – will in part determine the students’ attitudes too.
As always, Greg, I’m grateful you’re a Post reader. Regards,
Joe Zlomek, Managing Editor
During the previous meeting that ended abruptly because people were shouting over each other and at Mr. Neiffer, there was no violence. When Mr. Neiffer ended the meeting, people went home quietly. No crimes were committed. Shouting at Mr. Neiffer, though bad form, doesn’t come close to elevating to criminal behavior. And, despite the fact that the police were present, Tuesday’s meeting ended with people shouting at Mr. Neiffer. The issue here, is why were the police present at THIS meeting and not the others; their presence, particularly in light of the 9 to 0 vote on a plan that was so universally opposed by the community, gave the people in the audience the APPEARANCE of impropriety. Couple that with statements that have come from school district employees about administration members characterizing the centers as a “done deal” and with the amazing coincidence of Ringing Rocks being built with 6 kindergarten rooms, and you have the situation sized up. If this was not a predetermined decision, the board and the administration gave plenty of fuel to the idea that it was. Mr. Foltz, the people who came to this and previous meetings did so because NOTHING is more important to them than their children. I respectfully submit to you that you could not find a group of people LESS likely to devolve into a riot. And, if anything could have inspired them to do so, it was your presence at our meeting.
Rick, I don’t know where you and Greg have found the words “riot” or “violence” anywhere in Lt. Foltz’s comment. He referred to a “full-blown protest,” yes, and although his use of the phrase was unspecified I didn’t equate it to “riot” or “violence.” I’m surprised you have.
Regarding the reconstruction of Ringing, let me point out that its original plan drawn by Gilbert Associates and advocated by the administration two years ago, in February 2010, was for NINE additional classrooms (http://sanatogapost.com/2010/02/26/pottsgrove-student-enrollment-up-yes-down-yes-again/). By July 2010, the school board itself had already rejected plans for four of the nine (http://sanatogapost.com/2010/07/29/ringing-rocks-bids-accepted-at-1-5-million-less/). At least three board members openly suggested building even fewer: three. In the end, five additional classrooms were built, and their use can be allocated to any grade.
If you’re going to size the situation up, as you suggest, let’s do it with facts.
As always, Rick, thanks for adding to the discussion.
Joe Zlomek, Managing Editor
Joe, I suggest you visit the vacant classrooms at Rocks, and compare them to other classrooms in the school. You will find that the current Kindergarten classrooms have bathrooms; the classrooms in the rest of the school do not. When you visit, please let me know if the vacant classrooms have bathrooms? If they do, what explanation is there for building 3 extra Kindergarten classrooms?
As for the police presence, I fail to see any good reason for it unless there was a fear of violence. Indeed, they didn’t escort Mr. Neiffer out of the room because he was offended by the shouting!
The only people that are intimidated by police officers presence are those with underlying motives that are inhibited by that presence.
Let’s just say this: an officer or two is fine. The rest could have been summoned if needed. This larger presence was, as you said, a misunderstanding and should be avoided in the future.
With all of the troubles in schools recently, having officers there regularly may be a good idea. Just keep it to one or two.
Take a moment next time to express your thanks to a small department doing yeomans work…
Mr. Cox,
I didn’t say, nor did I read anyone else saying, that I was intimated by Lower Pottsgrove police. I said that their presence was offensive to a group of concerned parents and that the fact that they were present added to the tension. Why? Because the only reason it would have been necessary to have four police officers in the room was if the board or administration already knew they were going to vote for the centers. No one that I know felt any antipathy towards the officers that were there. In fact, many of us spoke and joked with them. I asked them if they wanted to sign our petition. The issue isn’t the officers, it’s the distrust of the community that was evidenced by the mistaken belief that they were needed in this situation.
I view the presence of police officers at any large gathering of the public as a positive. They can provide help and security if needed.
Rick, my comments were general in nature. I do not direct them to any individual so don’t think they were specific to you.
I raised three children here. Proximity to schools and quality was an issue when we selected our homesite of 30 years. I actually think the public at large sees schools in the vicinity of their homes a rationale for purchasing or not. So I actually think that the proposal that might have your kids bused far from home as not a good thing. As side issue here is the perception that some schools because of locale are better than others. That issue needs to be dispelled unless valid.
That said, I want an officer at large gatherings to assure order and prevent issues from getting out of hand, whatever the subject of discussion might be. In a world where we often see violence coming out of issues most people cannot fathom as cause for high emotion, I’d rather be safe than sorry.
As was said above, the multiple officer presence was misunderstanding. I don’t think it reflected any predisposition on the part of the board and wouldn’t attribute that motivation.
Sorry if you disagree.
EJ, thanks for your reply. I don’t KNOW if the officer presence implied a predetermined result. I said, however, that it gave the appearance of one, inflamed tensions that were already very high, and given the 9-0 vote on something that was so universally opposed by the community, adds to that appearance. Still, thanks for your responses and your interest.