The newly elected Upper Pottsgrove Board of Commissioners was officially seated on January 5. The board’s three new members — President Albert Leach, Vice President Elwood Taylor, and Commissioner Tyrone Robinson — are currently plaintiffs in an active lawsuit against the Township and its taxpayers.
The lawsuit, known as the Gilbertsville Case, seeks to halt construction of a proposed Police and Administration building, a project intended to provide basic public safety facilities and public meeting space. The Township is currently without any public meeting space.
Within minutes of the new board taking office, concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest were raised by members of the public. Several attendees noted the repeated use of the term “conflict of interest” during the meeting. Sitting Commissioners Cathy Paretti and Dave Waldt also expressed concern, describing what they characterized as “an abundance of conflicts of interest,” given that a majority of the board members are actively engaged in litigation against the municipality they now govern.
The issue was further amplified by the board’s recent decision to hire the same law firm, Kilkenny Law, that initiated the lawsuit against the Township to now serve as the Township’s solicitor, generating more concerns of conflict of interest.
Those concerns materialized during a vote later in the meeting involving a separate but related legal matter known as the Evans Rd or Smola case. This case involves the site that the Township first selected to build the municipal building. An appeal hearing in that case was scheduled to occur within the next month before the Commonwealth Court. According to court filings, it was anticipated that the decision could be vacated or remanded to the lower court due to questions surrounding the legal basis of the original ruling. A reversal or remand could potentially undermine the lawsuit currently being pursued by the three new commissioners.
Commissioner Taylor, who is a plaintiff in the ongoing lawsuit against the township, made a motion for the township to “withdraw the appeal as expeditiously as possible.” The motion was approved.
Critics argue that the commissioners involved in litigation against the township should have abstained from voting due to the direct personal and legal benefit they may derive from withdrawing the appeal. Commissioners Paretti and Waldt previously cautioned that such circumstances represented a significant conflict of interest.
The board also discussed the commissioners’ own lawsuit against the Township and taxpayers. In that instance, the commissioners acknowledged the potential conflicts and elected to take no action, tabling the matter.
The situation has raised questions among residents regarding governance, transparency, and the appropriate handling of conflicts of interest as the new board begins its term, and this was only their first meeting.