Dan Truitt’s record on environment (33%/100%)

Many legislators like to talk about their concern for environment, but how about their votes?

Clean Water Action, Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania, and the Sierra Club have compiled the the 2013-2014 Pennsylvania Environmental Scorecard.

The report comments: “This legislative session was notable for the large number of attacks on environmental protection. The PA House of Representatives generated most of this anti-environmental legislation.”

Dan Truitt, PA House-156, is no exception. Here are the votes considered in the report in the 2013–2014 session. Bill descriptions are those of the report, not the official ones, which usually obscure the true intent of bills.

+ = Pro-environment vote
– = Anti-environment vote
X = Absent

– Green Buildings (HB 34 – Final Passage)
+ Corporate Tax Credits for Gas (HB 301- Final Passage)
+ More Tax Credits for Gas (HB 305 – Final Passage
– Creating Loopholes for Gas (HB 307 – Final Passage)
– Sewage in Our Streams (HB 1325)
– Ignoring the Health Impacts of Fracking (SB 259 – Amendment A2700)
– Creating Municipal Stormwater Authorities (SB 351)
+ Encouraging Good Stormwater Management (SB 1255 – Final Passage)
– Selling Our Parks to Drillers – Step 1 (HB 2328 – The Budget)
+ Selling Our Parks to Drillers – Step 2 (HB 278 – The Fiscal Code – Concurrence)
– Blocking Clean Power (HB 2354 – Final Passage)
– “Providing for potential pollution” (HB 1565 – Final Passage)

His overall score: a paltry 33% out of a possible 100%.

Some issues with primary election articles

Letter, Daily Local News, 5/17/13

The article “Board hopefuls represent competing camps in primary,” printed in the May 13 Daily Local News, deals with a vital race in the May 21 primary but has some issues, as they say.

The print article says that the “Better Directions” slate of Ricky Swalm, Joyce Chester, Robin Kaliner, and Chris McCune “were endorsed by the Democratic committee, though they are all registered Republicans.”

There were two errors there: the Democratic committee does not “endorse” Republicans (and vice versa) and one of those four is a Democrat.

The online edition (under the title “8 West Chester school board hopefuls represent 2 slates“) changed that quote to:

“Chester, the only registered Democrat is endorsed by the Democratic committee. Though Swalm, Kaliner and McCune are registered Republicans, they received a recommendation from the committee, but cannot be fully endorsed.”

That is a lot better, but a candidate cannot be partly endorsed. The proper term, used by the Dem committee, is “supported.”

For further confusion, the bipartisan group just described and the other four candidates, representing the current board majority (with one substitution for an outgoing board member), are all cross-filed in the primary, meaning that all eight will appear on both ballots on May 21.

Why is this such a mess? Because the whole system of electing school boards is faulty in Pennsylvania–one of only three states to put board candidates on primary ballots. Such a vital community resource as public education should not be part of the business-as-usual political process.

State Senator Andy Dinniman (D-19) and state representative Dan Truitt (R-156) have both filed bills to remove school board elections from the primary ballot. Rather, candidates would get on the November ballot by filing petitions over the summer, with a required number of signatures.

One of the benefits would be to give Independents–20% of the electorate, who currently have virtually zero chance of getting on a school board in our state–a chance to serve.

Finally, the print edition headline’s term “camps” suggests that electing school boards is a military or political maneuver. Rather it should be a chance for voters to mull over a diversity of candidates’ backgrounds and positions on education and our communities’ ability to support education for the common good.

NATHANIEL SMITH
West Chester