UPPER POTTSGROVE — A $31,500 payment approved by the Upper Pottsgrove Board of Commissioners to resident Matthew Murray is drawing increasing scrutiny, as key details surrounding the decision remain unclear and, in some cases, disputed.
The payment surfaced through a Right-to-Know request filed by a township taxpayer seeking an explanation for the “settlement” paid to Matthew Murray, along with any related communications between Murray and commissioners. While the township confirmed the payment was made, the response failed to explain how the amount was calculated or why it was warranted.
The lack of transparency has raised concerns among residents, particularly given the township’s prior legal battle involving the same individual.
On January 9, 2025, Upper Pottsgrove filed a complaint in Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas seeking to limit what officials described at the time as an excessive volume of Right-to-Know requests submitted by Murray. Legal costs tied to those RTK requests had already surpassed $55,000, with township officials warning that taxpayer resources were being strained.
By the end of 2025, township officials reported that more than 100 requests had been filed by Murray, with total costs nearing $100,000. The township’s attempt to impose limits through the court was ultimately dismissed, leaving no restrictions in place.
Against that backdrop, the newly elected board’s (including Taylor) decision to approve a $31,500 payment to the same individual has prompted sharp questions: What changed, and why was the payment necessary?
At a recent public meeting, Commissioner Elwood Taylor attempted to address the issue but offered little clarity. Instead, he referenced a supposed court ruling related to a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) claim—an assertion that does not align with the case record. The matter was dismissed before trial, and no judge issued a ruling on the merits of the SLAPP lawsuit.
Residents in attendance challenged the explanation, with some describing the remarks as inaccurate and evasive, typical for Taylor.
Newly released documents have further intensified concerns. Records provided through the Right-to-Know response show that communications between Murray and certain commissioners occurred not only through official township email accounts, but also through private, non-public email addresses.
That distinction carries legal and ethical implications. Under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law, public business conducted by elected officials—regardless of the account used—is subject to disclosure. The use of private email accounts in a matter involving active litigation has raised questions about whether officials were attempting to conduct township business outside public view.
The township solicitor’s inclusion of some of these private email exchanges in the response suggests they were deemed part of the public record.
One email attributed to Taylor, sent from a private account, downplayed public concern over the payment, stating that “members of the audience made a big deal” about the amount. For many residents, however, $31,500 is anything but minor—roughly equivalent to the annual property tax contributions of more than 30 township households.
Critics argue that dismissing public concern over such a sum reflects a broader disconnect between township leadership and taxpayers.
The situation also comes amid earlier controversy involving a proposal by Taylor to direct $30,000 in taxpayer funds to an outside organization with which he is affiliated—a measure that was ultimately blocked by other commissioners.
Taken together, the issues have fueled broader concerns about transparency, accountability, and the handling of taxpayer funds. What adds to the controversy is that Taylor has worked closely with Murray before Taylor became a commissioner again in January of 2026. Taylor was heavily involved in assisting Murray with his lawsuit against the township concerning land management. He became a witness for Murray as well and attended settlement meetings during the suit.
Of note with the statement above “…became a commissioner again…”, Taylor has been a township commissioner, on and off, since 1998, only leaving office when he was beaten in an election.
Key questions remain unanswered:
Why was the $31,500 payment approved?
What justification supports the amount?
And why were communications with a litigant conducted, at least in part, through private email accounts?
With public trust increasingly at stake, residents are now looking to the Board of Commissioners for clear answers—answers that, so far, have not been forthcoming.