The Free Press has a policy of permitting only one letter to the editor from any individual in a thirty-day period. So, when Quakertown Councilman Dave Wilsey followed up his long letter of July 20 with an additional rant of July 31, he was originally advised that it could not run at that time.
But after further review, management decided that it was important to allow readers to see exactly what Councilman Wilsey wrote, and Wilsey agreed to have it published. They printed the letter last week. In case you missed it, here are some of the highlights:
"A public servant who is preoccupied with being popular on election day is often preoccupied. I am not running for council. If I run for council I will do so during the election year." Someone needs to tell Dave that a public servant is "running" every day. A candidate is judged on his actions during his entire term, not the few months before the election, when he can say and do anything. Does he really think that we will forget all of his illegal and improper activities by next year?
"Next year my turn is up and if I am retained it will indicate that I should serve again. If not, let a better person do it. There are many out there better than me." Amen.
"I and many of my colleagues have repeatedly urged our employees to contact a councilman with any concern they have. I have been on council for over two and a half years and have never had a phone call initiated by a borough employee." Wilsey conveniently "forgot" the strict borough policy against employees contacting council members personally. Everything must go through manager Dave Woglom. Violation means firing. And, could any of those employees actually trust a council which threatened to outsource their jobs?
"Just because a thing is said over and over doesn't make it a truth." Yes, but when the truth is discovered - or uncovered - it is worth repeating over and over. Even when it is embarrassing to Councilman Dave Wilsey.
"I serve on council with 6 others whom I respect. I enjoy working with each and every one of them. I also respect and appreciate Dave Woglom." I couldn't have revealed this better myself. The very definition of the old-boy network. A Democrat so cozy with six Republicans, and an ethically-challenged manager, that he refused to publicly campaign for fellow Dem David Zaiser last year. And Woglom's borough purchases from his business didn't hurt either.
"I am not a formally educated man with an impressive resume like Richard Woldow's, but I usually know the difference between truth, half truth, innuendo and hogwash." Perhaps Wilsey can explain to everyone exactly what "half-truth, innuendo, and hogwash" he is referring to. For three years I have challenged council to meet me in public and show how I am wrong. They have never responded. Et tu, Dave?
"Letters to the editor are subject to editing and are often edited." Maybe, Dave, but despite the fact that yours was 616 words long, far more than the usual 400-word limit, TFP printed every syllable. No matter how low you sunk...
You apparently did not take kindly to employee Brian Weaver's July 27 letter to the editor, which basically accused you of abandoning the town's workers, who you claimed to support. In retaliation, it appears that you went through Weaver's borough personnel and medical files - which by law are supposed to be private - and shared part of them with the entire public (no, Brian is not contagious or dangerous. The issue is financial, but nonetheless protected).
This attempted intimidation is a new low, even for Quakertown. When the workers were considering joining a union, council threatened them with outsourcing all of their jobs. Then, President Dennis Hallman called supervisor Joe Murgia while Joe was vacationing with his family in Hawaii, apparently to muzzle Joe from telling the press about Woglom's shenanigans.
This might have even succeeded if a columnist had not "reminded" council that such threats violate state law. Now a councilman is sinking to the depths of revealing private information about an 18-year veteran employee, an obvious warning to others not to oppose him. This was my answer to Councilman Wilsey:
"Mr. Wilsey - your most recent letter to the editor attempted to reveal to the public certain details of the health insurance of Mr. Brian Weaver, a borough employee. This information is not public record, and is, indeed, part of his personnel file. The only way you could have obtained such information is to have accessed his file. The only reason you would have done so was to attempt to discredit or embarrass him.
This behavior by an elected official may violate state law, and certainly violates any standard of ethics and decency. I have advised Mr. Weaver, and his union attorney, to seek legal counsel to clarify his rights against you personally, council as a whole, and the keeper of the personnel file who allowed you access knowing what you would be doing with the information.
This is typical of council members who constantly fail to observe either the law, or a code of ethics. Please be assured that I will be revealing your contemptuous actions to the citizens you purport to serve".
Weaver himself responded, "It is a sad world when your employer gives out personal information to be printed in the paper. I want the firm which is investigating the borough to be aware of what the manager and Councilman Wilsey did."
What could possibly make an elected official (even one not "formally educated") feel so above the law that he would actually go through private files, and publicize his employee's protected information? It just plain stinks.