Just eight months ago, the residents of Media Borough overwhelmingly elected the Media Democratic candidates to four council seats and the mayoral position. Mayor Bob McMahon retained his position and won by a margin of 2-1 over Republican Pete Alyanakian. Moreover, Democratic council candidates Monica Simpson, Dawn Roe, Monika Rehoric and Eric Stein were swept into office by margins of 30-40 percent.

This decisive victory was our residents’ way of showing approval of the past good performance of the Democratic council members and affirmation of the Democratic platform as well as expressing repudiation of the campaign tactics used by the Media Republican Party.

Democrat Peter Williamson was chosen to be council president and Monica Simpson was chosen to be vice chair, reflecting the confidence of their colleagues and the will of Media’s residents.

I was not alone in my surprise and disappointment over what happened at the July 15 Media Borough Council meeting. In a surprise coup d’état, Republican Pete Alyanakian, was made council president, replacing Peter Williamson, and Monika Rehoric was made vice president, replacing Monica Simpson. To say this came as a shock to Media residents, the other members of Media government and the Media Democratic Party is an understatement.

Certainly, council has the right to change their leaders. But the way this change was made — by surprise vote with no notice or discussion — left many residents wondering if Media Borough had finally succumbed to typical Delaware County backroom politics.

Is this change for the better? NO. Mr. Alyanakian’s stated reason for orchestrating the coup was: “Media has been paralyzed for far too long by partisan politics that has left us with mounting infrastructure and financial issues that need immediate attention.”

Since when? Media Borough Council’s makeup has been bipartisan for years. Rather than being “paralyzed,” through the leadership of a Democratic led borough council, Media has thrived and remains one of the most sought after places to live. This change is troubling not only because it undoes the vote of a vast majority of Media’s residents, but also because it undermines public confidence in local government.

After all, how can Mr. Alyanakian and his supporters lead council effectively after the underhanded way they seized the leadership positions?

One thing remains unchanged — the commitment that Media Borough Democrats made to Media residents during the recent campaign to do what is best for Media. I can assure you that we will continue to work hard to accomplish the goals we set during our campaign and to address the issues that concern Media residents most.

Media is a wonderful place to live. Despite the change in leadership and the tactics surrounding that change, your Democratic team is committed to accomplish the goals and address the issues relevant to Media’s future.

Please visit our website www.mediademocrats.com for more information on how you can volunteer and ensure that any future change is change for the better.

DEBORAH A. KRULL

Co-chair Media Democratic Party

1.    What happened? Two republicans (Jim Cunningham and Pete Alyanakian) and two democrats (Dawn Roe and Monika Rehoric) voted to oust sitting Council Chair Peter Williamson and Vice-chair Monica Simpson.  Next, they voted in Pete Alyanakian and Monika Rehoric as Chair and Vice-chair respectively.

2.    How can this occur?  The Chair and Vice-chair are typically voted in by Council members immediately following an election. Voting is by simple majority and ties are broken by the mayor. To maintain stability and allow the work of council to reach fruition, this usually only occurs once every two years. It is extremely rare for a vote to called between elections. Although the rules allow members to elect a chair and vice chair at any time, circumstances should warrant such a change.

3.    Did the circumstance warrant such a change? In my opinion, no. Six months is barely enough time to set goals and establish working relationships with Borough staff, committee members, and community groups. Changing leaders and committee assignments within months of an election is a bad idea in both the public and private sectors. Organizations spend billions of dollars on succession planning and leadership development for this reason. It is a waste of time, energy, and taxpayer money.

4.    What did I know?  I was not informed prior to the meeting that there would be a change in leadership. I was never contacted by the group that voted itself into office regarding the changes. As of this writing, I have not been contacted by Cunningham, Rehoric, or Roe regarding the vote, their goals or rationale. I have exchanged a few emails with Pete Alyanakian regarding my retention as the liaison to the MBA so as to not waste time and taxpayer money, a proposal to which he has agreed.

5.    How would I have voted? I was not present at the meeting for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted “no” to the change in leadership. I did not receive email to comment from the press until after the story was written.

6.    What do I think of the process by which the change was made?  I find it  troubling. Three members of council had no idea of the impending changes (Williamson, Simpson, and myself).  The group of four that voted for the change (Roe, Rehoric, Cunningham, Alyanakian ) did so without any input from the rest of Council or the public. This way of making decisions undermines the spirit and letter of the PA Sunshine laws. The Sunshine Laws state that if a quorum of members (e.g., four) meets electronically or face to face to make decisions or enact legislation, it must inform the public. This principle was clearly violated and should be investigated.

7.    What do we call this new group? It is a cabal. A cabal is a group that meets in secret to further the aims of the group. It is not a bi-partisan coalition as suggested for several reasons. In a two party system, a bi-partisan group is one in which Democratic and Republican parties agree to a course of action or principle. Ms. Roe and Ms. Rehoric are individuals, not parties, and do not represent the views of the Democratic party on Council since three democrats on Council were not included in the deliberations, nor do they represent the views of the Democratic party in Media. Therefore, this was not a bi-partisan effort. It is simply a coalition formed secretly to make decisions; i.e., a cabal.

8.    How important is trust?  Trust is a cornerstone of an effective organization, which is supported by numerous business studies. How you effect change is as important as the outcome. Trust took a serious hit in this case.

9.    What did I think of Peter Williamson as Chair?  In the six months I have served, I can honestly say that Mr. Williamson was thorough, approachable, fair, well-prepared, and earnest in serving the needs of the Media community. He consistently went out of his way to give voice to members of both parties, which is documented numerous times on tape at legislative and workshop meetings. He favored high levels of participation over making rash, simplistic decisions. He ran meetings appropriately and effectively. On a one-on-one basis, he listened even if he disagreed and apologized if he over-stepped boundaries. In short, he was good colleague.

10.    What do I think of the reasons given for the leadership change? Not credible.  I have been told that Democrats Rehoric and Roe voted for the change because “meetings took too long and were inefficient.” I disagree. Some meetings were long because there are many thorny and complex issues facing Media. In many cases, members of Council, democrats (including the ones mentioned above) and republicans alike, side-tracked the group on peripheral issues or simply put up obstacles. Participation takes time but is the hallmark of the democratic process. In the end, participation favors quality decision making according to hundreds of studies in the management literature. Mr. Williamson honored that process. Of all the meetings I attended in 2010, Roe and Rehoric never requested changes to the way meetings were run, committee assignments, or petitioned for a reformulation of goals.

In his prepared remarks, Mr. Alyanakian suggested that a change was needed because projects were not being completed. One example given was the sale of the 1 West State Street property formerly rented by Brodeur. This was a topic of considerable discussion and one that led to several split votes. Interestingly, the newly self-elected group is partly responsible for lack of progress on the project. I proposed in workshop to hire professionals to manage the process. The new cabal voted that proposal down and we are still left with a vacancy in the building.

In short, the reasons provided for the change are not consistent with the behaviors I have observed on Council for the past 6 months. The only obvious changes that were made was that new voting block took over governing positions on council and re-formulated committee assignments to suit its needs.

11.    What are the next steps? The people of Media should make clear their views on both the process by which the change was enacted and the outcomes. Attend Council meetings, which occur the first (workshop) and third Thursday (legislative) of the month. Email your Council members with your views and concerns (emails addresses are listed at Mediaborough.com). Attend committee meetings that support topics that you are passionate about since these are all public meetings.  It is your government. Make your voices known.

12.    Why am I on Council? I was brought up with the notion that at some point in your life you give back to the community.  I have been fortunate to work as a professor of Management Science and Information Systems at Penn State University. I have taught entrepreneurship, creativity, information systems, leadership, and decision making and am published in many top academic journals.  I thought it was time to give back because I love Media, its people and quality of life here. I am new to politics and am not beholden to any party or group. My affiliation as a democrat is that I feel the party comes closest to my ideals and goals, but in the end, I am most swayed by the quality of a person’s ideas. The party has never pressured me to think in a certain way. I vote my values and what I believe is in the best interests of the borough. My goals are to ensure a safe, attractive, and active community that boasts a solid business base, is progressive on waste management, energy use, community design, and exercises sound fiscal policy. I believe in openness and transparency in government. The manner in which this leadership change took place is of deep concern to me and I will work to restore a climate of trust and fairness to the Council.

    * Mayor Bob McMahon retained his position and won by a margin of almost 2 to 1.

    * Media democratic council candidates Monica Simpson, Dawn Roe, Monika Rehoric and Eric Stein were swept into office by margins of 30-40%.

Special thanks to the Bill Kreider and the Media Democratic Committee for their support during the election.

 
Media has purchased or retained significant properties in the borough over the past years. Our financial stability as well as the stability of our business district is secured by our public properties and spaces on State Street. As stewards of our public properties, we place a high value for these public buildings and properties in historical perspective as well.  Retaining ownership of buildings removes potential tear downs for pure land value. This is true for icons of our community – the Media Theater, former Borough Hall and the Media Armory. Keeping a balanced and eclectic retail area as opposed to an office park or towne center cookie cutter appearance is a much more visually appealing and the result sets us apart from other retail and service centers.
 
As retail values in Media have remained stable, and in some cases above the norm, in what has been a moving economy over several years, the return on these investments have proven sound. Ongoing revenues from leased properties, and the value of our properties as borough assets, have enabled us to be proactive and responsible as government property owners and business leaders. Recurring revenue from several properties contributes to our borough finances.
 
These ownership decisions are not always easy to reach. Listening to our residents, careful deliberation, discussions and collaboration are paramount to retaining the most viable use of our property while addressing zoning concerns.
 
Our vision is to continue to preserve our historic properties, conscientious of our community spirit, identify and act upon opportunities and best practices for retaining recurring streams of revenue and keep true to current and future residents. Media stands as a tribute to our history, mindful of our future and as a model for many towns and municipalities.

“Sustainability” and “green” are all the buzz these days. What does it mean to go “green?” The United Nations-sponsored Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future” (June 1987, A/42/427) defines it as: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (p. 8).

The important question is: What can communities and towns across America do to achieve progress in this direction? While there are many critical success factors, let’s look at one key organizational characteristic that supports such progress.

As a management scientist for several years, I and my colleagues study questions such as these and we have learned that achieving goals is not just a function of individuals but starts with the creation of key organizational structures. Toward that end, the town of Media is well-positioned and there is a lesson-learned here for other cities in the U.S.

The borough of Media has two structures that support its green efforts: Borough council and the EAC. Over the past several years, all members of council have shown a sensitivity and concern for sustainability/green, and have collectively passed legislation supporting such efforts.

The second body, Media Borough’s Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) has also proven to be an excellent resource under the direction of Walt Cressler. The EAC has taken the lead on a number of issues including energy, recycling, waste management and water conservation.

The EAC works with council and the borough grants writer, Karen Taussig-Lux, to research alternatives, evaluate technologies, provide advice on pending legislation, and to identify sources of funds for green projects. The EAC also works directly with the community to raise public awareness and enlist its support in programs such as PECO Energy’s initiative that allows consumers to choose wind power and other renewable energy sources as a part of their energy mix.

The lesson learned here is that for communities and towns to work toward a green sustainable future, they need to take the first step of creating organizational structures that support such efforts. By doing so, progress becomes less a matter of personalities and more a matter of organizational process.

An overwhelming number of management studies have shown that diverse groups make better decisions and render better outcomes than individuals. Collectively groups possess more information in an increasingly complex world and in groups, multiple view-points representing various stakeholders are brought to the table.

Although high-quality decisions may take a little longer, the results are worth it. Joni Mitchell once said, “Two heads are better than one.”

Greening our future is a task that can best be accomplished through teams arising from good organizational design.

ERIC W. STEIN, Ph.D.

Preservation requires true bi-partisan efforts. The challenge of how to effectively preserve Media’s older homes and buildings is a very real and serious issue facing our whole community — both political parties and all of the Borough Council candidates are in agreement with that.

They also agree with the balanced and lawful recommendations presented in the newly adopted Media Comprehensive Plan. These are neither "Republican" nor "Democratic" priorities, but "Media Community" priorities whose solution requires a true bipartisan approach.

Trying to turn "preservation" into some sort of political football for partisan election campaign purposes only pulls our community further and further away from working together toward finding an effective and balanced solution. Besides, playing politics with an issue this important does a real disservice to Media’s residents. Let’s put partisanship aside and work together to preserve Media, the small town by design we all love.