There have been various surprises throughout the borough council’s recent maneuverings over the planning commission appointments. What should have been no surprise to anyone, especially those at the hub of the maneuvers, was that these would cause controversy.

Before last week, council had re-appointed George Martynick to his seat with the planners. That was no big surprise, and no controversy, although perhaps a bit hasty, because he has a strong record and no one else had applied for his seat.

But on Feb. 12, council voted against reappointing Michael Hott to the planners, and instead gave the post to their ex-president, a former planning commission member himself, John Messina. The ultimate result may not have been a huge surprise — Messina had said shortly after losing his council re-election race that he would be interested in rejoining the planners by taking Hott’s seat — but the shortcut speed of how that happened surprised and angered many residents, generating a storm of controversy that continued over the weekend.

Messina specifically went after Hott’s seat, probably not because of any perceived deficiency of Hott’s (various council members have stated that Hott is strongly qualified), but basically because he wanted to stay involved in borough government (as a dedicated do-gooder or as a PPG pal, take your pick). Hott almost certainly looked like an easier target for replacement than Martynick, who is known as both a competent planner and well connected in borough and county politics (his mother was a Chester County commissioner, after all).

However, council ended up bypassing its own plan for an orderly Feb. 25 process of interviewing Messina, Hott and paralegal Michelle Beaver for that second planner’s post on Feb. 12 when Richard Mark Kirkner made a motion, which council passed 5-1-1, to go ahead and name Messina to it.

Readers of www.PhoenixvilleNews.com found out by Wednesday about the events of the council meeting. The story was printed in The Phoenix on Thursday, Feb. 14, and a storm of angry comments on www.PhoenixvilleNews.com showed that Messina would not be feeling any valentine love from Phoenixville, then or anytime soon.

Many of the protests have centered on Messina himself. The feeling is that the citizens had spoken clearly in November by rejecting Council President Messina in favor of young Jeff Senley, for various reasons topped off by Messina’s staunch support of then-Borough Manager Anthony DiGirolomo. Having ousted him from Phoenixville politics, they were upset to see the council, even with three new members (though Senley wasn’t there that night), putting him back in power again.

But the way this was done added insult to injury. Council had agreed (and advertised) to interview for that second position, and no doubt a lot of people were planning to line up for public comment and announce why they didn’t want Messina back, in any capacity. Council’s Feb. 12 vote took that away from them, thereby disrespecting not only Hott and Weaver but also the residents and voters.

Numerous angry comments had been made by Thursday, and Messina asked council to rescind his appointment and reconsider his application along with Hott’s and Weaver’s after all, following interviews with all of them. On Friday, he altered that request a bit, saying that Martynick’s appointment should also be rescinded, and all four candidates should be interviewed for the two seats together. Martynick has said he is willing.

Councilman Mike Handwerk plans to move to reopen the appointment process at the next borough meeting. If council has any collective sense, that will be approved. The interviews had originally been set up to take place at the council committees meetings on Feb. 25, so probably all the candidates should be there then, ready to convince council and the citizens why they deserve to be appointed.

Messina reportedly was quite surprised and disappointed to find himself at the center of such a controversy following his shortcut reappointment. That apparent obliviousness to the will of the people was a big part of why he lost his council seat, and a factor council should consider carefully when choosing whom to appoint to the planning commission.

Posted by
Patricia Matson