More than one hundred people braved wind, rain and cold to witness the reorganization of Borough Council on Monday night, January 2. Council reorganization, which takes place on the first Monday of January by law, fell on a legal holiday this year. Neither that nor the weather kept people away, and the result was a fairly exuberant celebration of our community.

Although West Chester is nationally recognized as a "Tree City USA," apparently not everyone values the distinction. Periodically new trees planted along the Borough's streets are vandalized, usually in the middle of the night. Still, that kind of vandalism is relatively rare, according to Denise Dunn-Kesterson, the Borough's Urban Forester who is in charge of tree planting and maintenance.

"The percentage overall is small, maybe ten trees out of every hundred that we plant, and [acts of vandalism] are sporadic," said Dunn-Kesterton. "They usually occur before events such as [WCU] graduation or spring break, before people leave town."

The Elm Street board held its first meeting of 2006 on Thursday evening, January 5. In addition to board members and interested citizens, Bill Fontana, executive director of the Pennsylvania Downtown Center, a statewide nonprofit group whose mission is to revitalize traditional urban communities. The main item on the agenda was the role of Geoff Brace, the manager for the Borough's East End "Elm Street" project which was funded in September 2004.

Brace, who was hired in April 2005, serves as the manager for projects funded under the state's "Elm Street Program" to revitalize and empower neighborhoods. In addition to the Elm Street Project, Brace also provides services to the East End Neighborhood Association. His role has become more important following last November's decision by C. Marvin Porter, founder of EENA, to step down from his position as that group's president.

At Thursday's meeting, the Elm Street Board agreed to have Brace function as the EENA executive director, although he will not assume a formal title. He will continue to operate as the Elm Street Manager. The group also voted to review the arrangement after six months to see if it should continue.

As the country and the region gears up for its annual Martin Luther King Day celebration, WCJIM recalls one of the local struggles that made a difference in West Chester. Twenty-one years ago today (January 9, 1985), community activist W. T. M. Johnson made a request to Borough Council that they start the process to change the system for local elections. Council refused and the result was one of the most remarkable legal battles ever fought in West Chester.

Between 1799 and 1988, all Council members were elected "At- large" from the entire Borough. In practice, that meant that Borough Council was made up predominantly of white males from the north end of the Borough, even though historically African- Americans have made up an average of one fifth of the Borough's population. With the exception of four African Americans elected between 1882 and 1892, all members of Council were white until Fred C. Beckett was appointed to fill a vacancy on April 24, 1968, less than three weeks after Dr. Martin Luther King was assasinated. (NOTE: Elinor Z. Taylor became the first woman on Council in 1974 and one of only three women to serve before 1988 -- the other two were Nancy Hickman Elters and Ann Aerie. Maria M. Chesterton became Council's first Hispanic member in 2002.)

Johnson and his co-plaintiffs, Norman Bond (father of Council member Stephen Bond, Rep, Ward 2) and Charles Melton (namesake of the Melton Arts & Education Center), filed a lawsuit that challenged that system. With historical research provided by Wilma Ford and legal guidance from Samuel C. Stretton, Esq., they proved that the at-large system of voting had prevented anyone from the predominantly African-American neighborhood on the Borough's east side from holding elected office.

The case was settled at the Chester County Court of Common Pleas when Judge John E. Stively found the at-large system to be in violation of the US constitution. As a result, West Chester was divided into seven wards, each of which elects its own Borough Council member. The first election under the new system was held in the fall of 1989 and resulted in the reelection of Democrat W. Barry Wright in Ward 1, and the election of newcomers James L'heureux (Dem, Ward 3), Ray Ott (Dem, Ward 5) and Mary Zimmerman (Rep, Ward 7).

The following time line of the case was originally published in the September 10, 1987 Daily Local News:

• 1870 -- Blacks win right to vote.
• 1882-1892 -- Four blacks win election to West Chester Borough Council from borough's east end.
• 1892 -- Predominantly black east end is divided into three precincts to dilute black vote. Voluntary ward system eliminated by borough Republican Party and at-large system installed.
• 1892-present -- No black candidates from the east end have been elected to council.
• Jan. 9, 1985 -- W.T.M. Johnson, president of the United Political Action Committee of Chester County (UPAC), requests West Chester Borough Council to ask the Chester County Court of Common Pleas to change council elections from an at-large system to ward system. Johnson says that the at-large system is unfair to black residents of the borough's east end. UPAC tells council that borough "residents can also petition the court if they win the support of 5 percent of the borough's population. Council agrees to study the proposal and it is referred to the Revitalization committee, chaired by councilman Steven Handzel. Similar proceedings, prompted by UPAC, are under .way in Coatesville.
• March 25, 1985 -- Handzel holds first public hearing on the ward system. No one opposed the ward system; then council president Anthony Polito said that converting to a ward system in West Chester was inevitable.
• April 9, 1985-- Former West Chester burgess Charles Lucas tells council he opposes the ward system and says he has the support of "the majority of qualified electors."
• July 3, 1985 -- UPAC begins drive in West Chester to get enough signatures to petition Chester County Court of Common Pleas for a ward system.
• Aug. 26, 1985 -- West Chester Council votes to place a non-binding referendum on the November 1985 ballot asking residents whether they favor a ward system. UPAC calls council's decision a delay tactic.
• Sept. 18, 1985 -- West Chester's Revitalization Committee, which was considering three options -- keeping the borough's at-large election system, switching entirely to a ward system, or some combination of the two system -- decides by a 2-1 vote to reccomend to borough council that a six-ward, one at-large election system was the best of the proposed election systems.
• Sept. 20, 1985 -- Polito argues that the six-ward and one at-large council election system would be unfair.
• Oct. 9, 1985 -- The revitalization committee's recommendation is "dead on arrival" when brought before council and no action is taken. UPAC vows to use the committee's report to petition the Court of Common Pleas.
• Nov. 13, 1985 -- UPAC, led by Johnson, borough activist Norman Bond, and Charles Melton, officially petitions Chester County Court of Common Pleas for the creation of a ward system of council elections in West Chester.
• March 26, 1986 -- West Chester Borough Council, with four new Democrat members, votes to support the ward system. Council president W. Barry Wright later testifies before Court of Common Pleas Judge John E. Stively that council does not want the borough to be a party to UPAC's petition.
• Aug. 12, 1986 -- Ward hearings begin before Stively. A group of West Chester residents, led by Polito, Lucas and former councilman Eric Lorgus, and represented by attorney Dallett Hemphill, oppose changing the borough's election system to a ward system. Stively asks for briefs from UPAC attorney Samuel Stretton and Hemphill to clarify questions on Pennsylvania's voters laws regarding installing ward systems.
• Dec. 18, 1986 -- Ward supporters march and demonstrate at the Chester County Courthouse.
• Dec. 19, 1986 -- Hemphill delivers brief which argues that the ward petition should be dismissed because the at-large system has "worked to the advantage of all electors and residents of this relatively small municipality." Stretton argues that the at-large system "has effectively denied the black citizens elected and appointed leaderships."
• Jan. 18 -- A poll of borough council reveals that the majority of council favors a ward system.
• Jan. 29 -- Witnesses for UPAC claim that, because of past discrimination and election losses, West Chester's east end blacks feel that trying to win borough wide elections to council under the at-large system would be futile.
• Feb. 15 -- Judge Stively dismisses Hemphill's petition to dismiss the ward petition.
• Feb. 17 -- UPAC files a petition in Chester County Court requesting an injunction to stop the primary and November council elections until a decision is made on the ward system.
• Feb. 24 -- West Chester Republican Committee votes 15-3 to oppose UPAC's injunction request and votes 16-3 to ask the county GOP committee to get involved in the injunction hearing.
• Feb. 25 -- A tenative agreement is reached between UPAC, West Chester, and the county which would eliminate the need for an injunction stopping the 1987 council elections. According to the agreement, the county will advise candidates for borough council that a ward system could be in place by the fall election.
• Feb. 26 -- Chester County Common Pleas Judge Thomas Gavin accepts the agreement which allows UPAC to keep the injunction request alive in Chester County Court.
• March 16 -- Handzel testifies that minor changes will have to be made to the borough's precinct boundaries to accommodate a ward system and insure that the one-man, one-vote principle, guaranteed by constitutional law, is upheld. A 7-ward plan seems to be favored by UPAC.
• March 18 -- Lorgus testifies that major changes are needed in the borough's precinct boundaries to accommodate a ward system. Questions arise as to whether West Chester University students living in the borough should be considered transients or residents.
• April 30 -- Stively hears closing arguments.
• Sept. 9 -- Stively rules the at-large system is unconstitutional and should be replaced with a ward system.

Democracy is a system that enables people to pool their individual power to accomplish great things, and the history of the United States shows how great those things can be. But to be effective, democracy requires two things: 1) the belief that losers can become winners next time and 2) confidence that the results of elections are fair. Without those two things, people will seek other ways to decide who has power, and as history has shown, alternative ways can be bloody and lead to governments that increase human misery.
Our federal and state governments are working to eliminate the certainty that elections are fair, in the name of granting disabled people the ability to vote unassisted and of eliminating "confusion" like that which occurred in Florida in the 2000 election. No matter that the "confusion" could be rectified by simply looking at a punch card to make sure all of the holes were clear, or that the voting systems in place in 2000 had maintained voter confidence for decades -- the federal government passed the 2002 "Help America to Vote Act" (HAVA) and state governments quickly followed suit. Even worse, HAVA requires the use of voting machines that have not yet been invented and which many authorities, including the General Accounting Office and numerous computer experts, say cannot be made tamper-proof. Yet federal and state legislature have refused all efforts to alter HAVA or even to extend the deadline of this year to give more time to come up with a dependable voting machine. Instead, to quell debate, the federal government has promised millions of dollars for what promises to be a multi-million dollar retooling as a way to convince local election boards to go along.	While the goal of granting disabled people the ability to vote unassisted is noble, the need to maintain voter confidence is imperative.
Based on the public hearing held on December 21, the Chester County Commissioners (who also serve as our election board), understand that they are being offered both carrots and sticks. What is not clear is whether they are willing to challenge the game itself. The first cause of concern was the identity of the man who represented the Commissioners at the hearing. Special counsel Lawrence Tabas is a lawyer from Philadelphia who specializes in medical issues. More to the point, the Philadelphia Inquirer identified him as the legal director for the Bush campaign in the event of a statewide recount in 2004. Not surprisingly, he recommended that the County switch to an electronic voting system that many critics say are unverifiable.
At the hearing, in response to numerous calls to retain the punch card system (which is legal under HAVA) and add devices at each polling place to aid the disabled, Tabas responded that Voter Services would not be able to handle two different voting systems at the same time, and punch cards may not be available in the future. Members of the audience pointed out that election officials already handle two voting systems -- the punch cards and absentee ballots -- and offered to start a company to produce punch cards if that's what it took to keep the current system. [NOTE: Any printshop can produce punch cards right now -- they are no more complicated that the doorhangers used by politicians to get elected.]	But if we won't pay to preserve our democracy, then how can we ask anyone to die for it?
Tabas' arguments are part of a bigger problem. HAVA was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress which has already gone to extreme lengths to stifle dissent and whose members have been caught in a number of acts of fraud. The results of the 2004 election in Ohio, where HAVA-inspired electronic machines were in use in a large number of voting precincts, have been challenged, with the result that the Republican-controlled legislature in the state, instead of examining the challenges, is about to pass a law that will make it nearly impossible to challenge any election in the future. Voters will be forced to depend on the integrity of the machine manufacturer not to tamper with the software that counts the votes. In Ohio's case, the manufacturer is Diebold Election Systems, Inc., whose machines gave Al Gore a minus 16,022 votes in Volusia County, Florida, in 2000 [Source: Philadelphia Inquirer (Oct. 13, 2004)] and whose CEO, Walden O'Dell, wrote a fundraising letter to Ohio Republicans in which he said he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" [Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer (August 28, 2003)]. While the goal of granting disabled people the ability to vote unassisted is noble, the need to maintain voter confidence is imperative. To that end, WCJIM proposes that the Chester County Commissioners either retain the current punch card system and purchase a machine to accommodate disabled voters in each of the county's 220 precincts, or else they join dozens of counties around the country and reject the HAVA mandate altogether. Yes, the second course may lead to a federal lawsuit that will cost money and may even require a tax increase. But if we won't pay to preserve our democracy, then how can we ask anyone to die for it? To contact the Chester County Commissioners, use these links to email them: Donald Mancini, Chair   -   Carol Aichele, Vice Chair   -   Andrew Dinniman   -   all three Commissioners You may also write to the Commissioners at: 2 N. High Street, Suite 512 Box 2748 West Chester, Pa. 19380-0991