At the Board of Commissioner’s meeting on Feb 19, 2025, the majority of the Board, Commissioners Trace Slinkerd, Don Read, and Hank Llewellyn, approved a resolution (Resolution No. 788 link https://upperpottsgrovejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Resolution-788-.pdf ) condemning a letter written by Kate Harper and endorsed by Matt Murray and Nathaniel Guest, the two plaintiffs suing the Township over the municipal building site (Harper is the plaintiffs’ attorney). The letter falsely claimed that the Upper Pottsgrove Police Chief sent letters warning “people” not to speak out at public meetings (Harper letter link https://upperpottsgrovejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Harper-Letter-1-April.pdf ).
The Police Chief just sent out two letters, and these two letters went to individuals whose conduct at meetings had gotten to the point that it warranted an official warning. One of the two recipients was Murray—the plaintiff mentioned above. In addition to the warning in both letters, the Chief, contrary to Harper’s statement, went on to encourage their continued participation in meetings in line with the standing rules for public participation (Chief’s letter link https://upperpottsgrovejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Chiefs-Letter-Body.pdf).
During the discussion before the vote on the resolution supporting the Police Department, Commissioner Read stated that the purpose of the action is to condemn the blatantly false claims by Harper as well as to support and provide the members of the Police Department documentation if such documentation is needed in the future.
Commissioners Dave Waldt and Paretti said they supported the police then went on to vote no on the resolution. The interesting piece here is that they cited cost as the reason they voted no but there is no cost associated with the resolution whatsoever; it is simply to condemn Harper’s letter.
However, there are costs associated with the defamation suit that the majority of commissioners filed against Harper and Murray. These commissioners (Slinkerd, Llewellyn, Read) have stated there were two primary reasons for this filing, one, that Harper’s claims are false and, two, to protect the Township staff.
Both Paretti and Waldt, during the resolution discussion, were adamant about their support of the police. Paretti further stated that she “didn’t want to see any posting saying she didn’t support the police.” Commissioner Slinkerd responded to her comment, “Well, you’re not supporting the police.”
Read stated during the vote “I thought this action of supporting our police would be a unifying in its effect but that hasn’t happened.” After the meeting he went on to say “As I said in a recent article, there is a select few who seem to wield significant influence over Paretti and Waldt’s decisions. Others outside of the Board have referred to these select few as ‘handlers’ and this term certainly seems to fit.”
Commissioner Llewellyn, when asked about the Paretti and Waldt’s no vote, said “These two commissioners seem to be most concerned with protecting Harper and Murray rather than our police and using cost as an excuse. There are no costs with this resolution; it is a statement of support of our Police Department and Chief.”
Ask about Harper’s letter, Slinkerd responded “Trying to mask inappropriate behavior of the individuals that received the Chief’s letter behind the claim of suppression of free speech is absurd. Screaming out at meetings, continuing to talk when comment time has expired, and disrupting Board deliberation is not a violation of free speech.”
Slinkerd continued “The Township Solicitor, at each meeting, reviews the rules for public comment and explains them. These individuals chose to disregard these rules.” He went on to say, “It is my view that Paretti and Waldt are being directed to get the defamation case dropped regardless of the validity of the Harper letter and anything that counters that mission is a “no” vote.