In a recent news release concerning an injunction filed against an individual in what the Upper Pottsgrove Township’s complaint describes as a person using the “Right to Know” law as a weapon to hold hostage and financially drain a township of its limited resources, the release states that all commissioners supported the injunction (see release link here https://upperpottsgrovejournal.com/township-files-for-injunction/ ).
After the news release, Commissioners Paretti and Commissioner Waldt denied ever having supported the legal action to a local newspaper reporter. Paretti answered for Waldt in the initial denial to the reporter and went as far as stating in her response “That’s the first I heard that UPT is filing the suit.”
An injunction is a legal order issued by a judge to stop a certain activity. In the Township’s case, this was to stop an individual from submitting multiple requests for information above any reasonable measure. Although the case continues, Judge Saltz denied the initial temporary Injunction (see release here https://upperpottsgrovejournal.com/temporary-injunction-denied/ )
Commissioner Read, after the local reporter contacted him and questioned him on Paretti’s denial, released a memorandum prepared by the Township’s solicitor documenting the “unanimous support” of the legal action (see memo link here https://upperpottsgrovejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Memo-injunction-matter_1.pdf). Read stated to the Journal “There were eight people present and six confirmed that the support was unanimous. The two others present were Paretti and Waldt.” Read further said, “We watched the Township manager personally thank Paretti and Waldt for supporting the injunction.”
The Township Manager handles the Right to Know requests and works closely with the solicitor on their fulfillment. The vast number of requests from the individual named in the suit has consumed a significant amount of the manager’s time and she wanted to make sure Paretti and Waldt knew she appreciated their support.
During the January 2025 Commissioner Board meeting, Board President Trace Slinkerd asked Paretti and Waldt why they stated to the same local reporter mentioned above that they did not support the injunction action once it went public. They both again denied that they ever supported the action; the record indicates otherwise.
Slinkerd went on to say during the exchange, “I asked several times if there were any objections and if everyone was fine with the injunction.” Paretti offered, “Well, you know, we are going to have to agree to disagree on that.” Slinkerd cited the solicitor’s memorandum as well as the township manager thanking them both after the meeting—the same reference Read stated in his comment. He further commented that it seemed their denial was more about their concern over others seeing they supported the injunction more so than the actual injunction itself.
To document that the action to support the injunction was unanimous, Commissioner Hank Llewellyn made the motion that the solicitor’s memorandum be placed in the January minutes. The motion carried 3 to 2 in the February Board meeting with Paretti and Waldt voting against the motion.