The Upper Pottsgrove Board of Commissioners voted unanimously last week to hire Dan Weand as interim township manager, replacing longtime and popular manager Michelle Reddick. The vote came swiftly. Discussion did not.
Weand will be paid $100 per hour — a rate approved without public debate, comparison to other candidates, or explanation of how it was determined. In fact, no other candidates were publicly considered.
When Weand’s name surfaced as a probable candidate, questions began circulating about a potential conflict of interest tied to his hiring. Specifically, Weand is the father-in-law of Sean Kilkenny, who is married to Weand’s daughter, and whose firm is now the township solicitor.
The commissioners hired Kilkenny’s law firm to replace its longtime and very capable solicitor Eric Frey in January. At issue, the interim manager’s responsibilities include reviewing township bills — including legal invoices. That means, at minimum, a family relationship exists between the official reviewing payments and a member of the firm submitting them.
Even the appearance of such a relationship warrants disclosure. That disclosure did not happen before the vote.
The Upper Pottsgrove Journal raised the potential conflict with commissioners after the February 2 meeting and again publicly on our Facebook Page for all to see before Tuesday’s vote. No response was provided prior to the hiring.
After the contract was approved, Commission President Al Leach told the Pottstown Mercury, “We didn’t know until he told us,” referring to the family connection. He also stated that Commissioner Cathy Paretti suggested the hiring.
That statement presents its own problem. If commissioners learned of the relationship before the public vote — as the quote suggests — why wasn’t it simply disclosed before approving the contract? And if they did not know until after discussions began, why was that not addressed transparently at the meeting?
The issue is not whether Weand is qualified. The issue is process — and whether transparency was sacrificed to avoid the issue.
A simple public acknowledgment and clarification of safeguards could have resolved the concern. Instead, silence preceded approval.
In local government, trust is built on disclosure and when information surfaces only after a unanimous vote, residents are left asking a simple question: Why wasn’t this addressed before the vote?