Jul 21, 2016 4 min read

Foolishness by our so-called leaders at the state and federal levels of government gets a lot of ink, but we also get a fairly steady diet of misguided shenanigans courtesy of our local elected officials.

Case in point: the recent controversy over a memorial in Cecil Township Park.

By way of background, last year, Gary Andreis, a lifelong township resident and small-business owner, was the leading vote-getter among Democrats running for township supervisor in the spring primary, but he died unexpectedly before the November election. At his funeral, his daughter, Jennifer Andreis Moninger, received donations for a memorial she hoped to place in the township park.

Moninger followed the proper channels, preparing her proposal and submitting it to the township’s parks and recreation board. It clearly spelled out there would be a stone marker with a tree planted behind it. The plan was approved by the parks board and taken up by the board of supervisors in March. Shirley Burns, the chairwoman of the parks panel – according to the supervisors’ own meeting minutes – advised the supervisors “Jennifer Moninger, daughter of Gary Andreis, is requesting to have a tree planted and a rock (with his likeness etched on it) placed in the park as a memorial to her late father.” The minutes noted the four supervisors in attendance – Chairman Tom Casciola, Elizabeth Cowden, Eric Sivavec and Frank Egizio (Cindy Fisher was absent) – voted in favor of Moninger’s request.

Hence, the small memorial was installed at the park by township workers, and all seemed well – for a couple of months.

Then, earlier this month, according to Fisher and Moninger, a couple of local residents, Janice Gibbs and Judy Bowser, launched an effort to have the memorial removed, supposedly on grounds it was a safety hazard and/or an example of preferential treatment. There was some indication Gibbs and/or Bowser may have stumbled over the memorial rock. We’ve seen the photos of the memorial, and we’re pretty sure Ray Charles wouldn’t have tripped over it. So, what’s the real reason for their wanting it out of the park? That’s anyone’s guess, but it sure does seem mean-spirited to us. Nevertheless, Gibbs and Bowser apparently found receptive ears when they, according to Fisher and Moninger, buttonholed Casciola, Cowden and Sivavec in a private confab. Before you could say Jack Robinson – and without benefit of any public discussion or a public vote – the memorial was removed from the park.

Sivavec and Cowden declined to comment on the matter. We reached out to get comments from Gibbs and Bowser to no avail. Casciola provided a contorted explanation that concluded with, “There was a vote to allow a tree and a stone. We’ve had requests for years, and we’ve never allowed a cemetery monument or that type of feature in the park.”

Casciola and the others were clearly advised in March a stone would be placed as part of the memorial. Does Casciola not pay attention during meetings? Could he not conceptualize what the word “rock” meant, in terms of Moninger’s proposal. We’re a bit confused.

But all that aside, it would seem clear if the installation of the monument was approved in a public vote, its removal should have been discussed and voted upon in a public setting, not through some private chit-chat with a couple of disgruntled residents after an official meeting was over.

That’s the basis of a court action filed on Moninger’s behalf by attorney Jesse White, who is contending Casciola, Sivavec and Cowden violated the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, and should be fined.

We’ve had our differences with White. We’ve even been the target of one of his lawsuits. But we’re 100 percent behind him on this.

The actions by those who ordered the removal of the memorial were gutless, and quite possibly illegal. If the goal was to look small and incompetent, well, congratulations! Now, do the right thing and put the memorial back.