Jeff Hamilton Poetry

Despite admitting he was ‘man in white van’, suspect in alleged Solebury child luring not charged by Bucks County DA

Solebury Township Police circulated this photo of a van similar to that of the suspect during their May manhunt

By Charlie Sahner

A Perkasie man who confessed to Solebury Township Police that he was the operator of a white van involved in an alleged child luring attempt, and who was also questioned on a similar purported incident by a Pennridge Regional Police officer, will not be prosecuted by the Bucks County DA’s Office.

The decision appears to be based on a legal technicality and the results of a polygraph test, according to interviews with law enforcement officials and publicly available information.

On May 13, Solebury Township Police said they received a report of an incident during which a white male in a white van allegedly attempted to convince three boys in the North Pointe development to approach his vehicle so he could “give them a basketball.”

The three boys, aged approximately 10-11, had been playing in a residential driveway when approached, were immediately suspicious, and told their parents.

Four days later, Solebury Township police say they were alerted to a purportedly similar incident that was investigated by a Pennridge Regional Police officer. In that incident, three boys of similar age to the three involved in Solebury were also offered a basketball by the alleged suspect in his van while playing outside their home. The Pennridge officer apparently did not make an arrest, and the Pennridge Regional Police Department did not return a call from the Free Press seeking comment.

Subsequently, one of the boys involved in the Solebury incident was able to identify the alleged suspect in a photo lineup. At that point, according to Detective/Corporal Roy Ferrari of the Solebury Township Police, “The suspect confessed, and said he was a ‘scrapper’, and that he picks through garbage and finds sporting goods, which he offers to children.” He also indicated that “in Philadelphia, his gifts are appreciated,” said Ferrari.

Ferrari told the suspect, “I find your behavior in Solebury to be suspicious and alarming.” Solebury Police requested a charge of misdemeanor in the first degree for attempting to lure a child into a vehicle, they say.

But the Bucks County DA said the suspect’s actions were “not substantial” and that he would not prosecute, said Ferrari, “because when the [Solebury] kids ran away, he threw the basketball after them, although he originally said ‘come and get it’.” Additionally, said Ferrari, the suspect passed a polygraph test ordered by the DA’s office. The usefulness of polygraphs is the subject of some controversy among scientists.

Solebury Police Chief Dominick P. Bellizzie said he requested an explanation of the decision, and in a May 29 letter, the DA said that “he felt that the suspect’s actions didn’t warrant criminal prosecution because he never invited them into the car, and he left the ball behind when the children ran away.”

While Solebury Police were quick to underscore their respect for Bucks County DA David W. Heckler's decision, their frustration level is clearly running high. After an all-out manhunt by veteran Detective Ferrari quickly netted a suspect, the technicality of whether the suspect allegedly said “come over here” or “come inside” seems to have played a large role in the DA’s decision not to pursue charges.

The Bucks County DA’s office did not return phone calls seeking comment.

New Hope Borough Council president risks appearance of conflict of interest by not recusing herself from review of project next door

Proposed project site (foreground) and Claire Shaw’s property (background, fenced)

New Hope Borough Council President Claire Shaw would be well-advised to create some distance between herself and the borough’s review of the proposed four-story boutique conference center that investors want to build next to her property to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, say ethical experts.

Shaw disagrees: “I have no intention of recusing myself from the decisions on this project. The location of my property to the proposed site is not a conflict of interest and I find your suggestion that it may be, offensive.”

As previously reported, members of New Hope’s Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) were shocked at their June 3 meeting by Borough Council President Claire Shaw’s pronouncement that not only had their request to retain a structural engineer to assess the feasibility of preserving the former Odette’s restaurant been overruled, but also that “Council decided to handle this from this point forward.”

Getting a structural engineer to assess the cost of preserving the remaining portions of the historic 1784 structure is vital to HARB members because it lets them assess practicality of preservation efforts and their financial burden on the project applicant.

In response to questions by HARB members, Shaw asserted at the June HARB meeting that, ”We are not really getting a study, we’re having an open house…council will then decide if we want to request a formal structural report. Based on what we see and hear, the seven of us will decide what to do next.” Council and HARB members attended a tour of Odette’s last week organized by the applicants although HARB members had asked to delay the tour until they first reviewed a valid structural engineer’s report.

Under further questioning on June 3, Shaw explained, “I think this was sort of taken out of your hands because they [the applicants] were not treated very fairly at the first go around with this board.”
HARB member Dee Dee Bowman responded, “We simply stated that we did not think their report was adequate.”

“Because of what transpired, right or wrong, Council decided to handle this from this point forward,” said Shaw.

But what Shaw did not mention was that she had already received a verdict by an outside structural engineering consultant indicating that the two previous structural reports contained “insufficient information to make an opinion” according to minutes of a May 13 meeting of Borough Council. At that meeting, Shaw mentioned she had received a decision from the engineering consultant that showed structural reports submitted by the applicant to be inadequate, and then initiated discussion of the planned tour or “walk-through” of the Odette’s property.

It is not clear whether HARB members were informed about the result of Shaw’s study, despite their continuing requests for a valid structural report. One HARB member who spoke on condition of anonymity because of their fear of retaliation indicated that they had never heard of it.

“What was taken out of ‘HARB’s hands’ was their request for an independent structural study. No advisory board has the authority to obligate or expend Borough funds. Only Council has that authority,” said Shaw.

“As I stated in a communication to Ian [Haight-Ashton] on April 25, 2014, ‘although I have been told HARB would like to ask questions of the engineer performing the analysis and offer direction on the structural study, this will now fall within Council’s jurisdiction. Of course, Council will share the structural study at the appropriate time.’ In my opinion, HARB was inappropriate in stating a demand for an independent study when, at that time, the previous studies completed by the applicant had not been provided to our engineer.”

But, of the three Borough Council members who responded to questions by the Free Press, all indicated they were not involved in any decision to take the review of the Odette’s proposal out of HARB’s hands. When queried whether he was asked about taking the Odette’s proposal away from HARB, Council Member Cliff Montgomery said, “I was never asked.” Montgomery also indicated he was not aware of any meeting or vote on the matter, and that he doesn’t think this matter should be taken out of HARB’s hands because they were “unfair” to the applicants.

Said Council Member Nick Gialias of the purported council decision to take over responsibility for Odette’s review from HARB mentioned by Shaw on June 3, “There was no meeting, no vote, and I wasn’t involved.”

 

Council Member Geri Delevich said, “I never agreed privately to anything in this regard. The question of an independent structural engineer was brought up at the May council meeting. I thought it was not an unreasonable request by HARB and it made sense to me.

“I think the more informed we can be, the better we can make a fair decision,” added Delevich. And despite Shaw’s assertion on June 3 that “council decided to handle this from this point forward,” Delevich said, “I am not aware that council has taken this over.”

 

Several colleges and universities with faculty specializing in political, philosophical, and organizational ethics were contacted to find out if they thought it’s a good idea for a public official to recuse themselves from consideration of project next door to their property to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

Mark Cobb, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Humanities at Bucks County Community College, said, “I do think it would be wise to recuse themselves, generally speaking.”

 

Bill Pezza teaches at Bucks County Community College’s Social & Behavioral Science Department, and his academic credentials include a fellowship at the Robert A. Taft Institute of Government. He said, “Generally, and without wishing to comment on the specifics of this situation, elected officials have no more or fewer rights than any other citizen and individual, and they’re elected to exercise judgment. Generally, there may be a legal reason not to recuse, however, the optics of it may dictate something different, and that’s ultimately up to the elected official and the judgment of taxpayers. The most important thing is that all of this is brought to the light of day, and that people can exercise their judgement with full exposure to the facts.”

 

James Abruzzo, Co-Director, Institute for Ethical Leadership at Rutgers Business School, said, “Public officials have a responsibility to every citizen to act in a disinterested manner. Inevitably,  a governing body must decide on a situation that could benefit one of its members.  In that case, there could be the appearance of a conflict of interest. I am not qualified to decide if something is illegal, but it could be construed as unethical.  The best solution is for the person involved to declare his conflict; to provide input into the situation if asked; but to then remove himself from the voting process. This not only removes the conflict, it removes the perception of a conflict.”

 

Linda K. Treviño is Distinguished Professor of Organizational Behavior and Ethics, and Director of the Shoemaker Program in Business Ethics in the Smeal College of Business at Penn State where she has been on the faculty since 1987. Her research and writing on the management of ethical conduct in organizations is widely published and recognized internationally.

 

She also agreed that not recusing oneself from consideration of a project next door to one’s property could prove problematic for a public official. “Generally speaking, at minimum, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

11-year-old boy allegedly shot with pellet gun by clerk at Guy Stuff store in New Hope

The 11-year-old son a New Hope restaurant owner alleges he was shot in the back by a counter clerk at Guy Stuff in the Four Seasons Mall, 32 S. Main St., at approximately 6:30 p.m. as he attempted to depart the store after being asked to leave.

According to the alleged victim, the purported assailant then stated, “Well, I told you to leave” in response to his scream of pain. The gun appeared to be a spring piston type BB or pellet pistol said the youngster, who also said he was shot at a distance of five feet.

New Hope Police questioned the boy extensively after he fled to his father’s restaurant on South Main Street, then left, saying they were going to pay the store in question a visit. They did not return during the time this reporter was on scene and no arrest was apparent. Police were not able to be reached for comment as of press time.

A Guy Stuff counter person confronted with the allegation refused to comment. Another sharpened a hatchet while making eye contact with this reporter. The store manager, who claimed not to be present during the incident, said of the wounded child, “He is known to be a very big liar.” Store owner Jason Glazier was not immediately available for comment.

HARB meeting shocker: New Hope Borough Council takes Odette’s proposal out of historic review board’s hands

New Hope Borough Council President Claire Shaw (file photo)

 By Charlie Sahner

 

Several members of New Hope’s Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) appeared shocked and dismayed Tuesday night as it was revealed by Borough Council President Claire Shaw that their request during a prior meeting to retain an independent structural engineer to assess the practicality of preserving the former Odette’s restaurant had not only been overruled, but that “Council decided to handle this from this point forward.”

New Hope’s Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) considered a conceptual plan April 1 that would see the remains of the famed but flood-ravaged Odette’s cabaret club torn down and replaced with a four-level “boutique” hotel/banquet hall designed to look like a 19th century paper mill. Shaw lives in a home once occupied by the original “Odette” next door to the site.

During that previous meeting, HARB questioned the assertion of the applicant — investment group Gateway to New Hope, LLC — that restoring the original Odette’s wasn’t possible, and that “the only way to go” was to level the existing site dating back to 1794, and attempt to utilize some original fragments of wood and stone in a massive new construction.

HARB also decided to appoint a new structural engineer in conjunction with Gateway to New Hope to assess whether the original building could be salvaged prior to touring the site and reviewing the historical appropriateness of the proposed plan.

HARB Chairperson Iain Haight-Ashton punched a hole in that concept early in Tuesday night’s meeting, saying “Everything right now is in the hands of Borough Council” while introducing an agenda item requested by HARB member Jeff Frydman of South Main Street.

Frydman raised a concern that the informational tour of the Odette’s building by members of HARB would apparently be conducted prior to receipt of the report from the structural engineer.

“The decision has already been made and we have to stand behind it,” replied Haight-Ashton.

“I don’t understand why we don’t have a structural engineers report when we go into the building,” said Fydman.

Said Haight-Ashton, “It’s important to have this information in front of us…but, that being said, I respect what Council has done.”

“Why can we just advise Council to get the [structural] report and take a look?”  asked Frydman.
“Because Council made that decision and, you know, when the air is all you’ve got to breathe, I’m sorry,” replied Haight-Ashton, shrugging his shoulders.

Shaw, who was present in the audience, said in response to questions by HARB members,”We are not really getting a study, we’re having an open house…Council will then decide if we want to request a formal structural report. Based on what we see and hear, the seven of us will decide what to do next.”
“So, what is our role now?” asked Frydman.

“Your role?” responded Shaw. “To be HARB. I think this was sort of taken out of your hands because they [the applicants] were not treated very fairly at the first go around with this board.”

“We were very fair, and we were honest, and we were going according to guidelines, Claire. We did not do anything unfair,” shot back HARB member Dee Dee Bowman. “We simply stated that we did not think their report was adequate.”

“I wasn’t there, I can only speak to what I heard,” retorted Shaw.
“Did you ask any of us?” queried Bowman.

“Because of what transpired, right or wrong, Council decided to handle this from this point forward,” said Shaw.

“So, we’ve been fired,” responded Frydman.

“No, bypassed,” asserted another HARB member.

“The president of council believes we bullied applicants, which is patently false,” asserted Bowman. “If you had interviewed any one of us prior to accepting that statement then you would have known what actually happened.”

In fact, in a document obtained by the Free Press entitled “Harb Update,” Haight-Ashton refers to a meeting that occurred around May 11 with Shaw and Council Vice-President Rey Velasco that was held “to discuss concerns regarding the current historical structures report from the Gateway Group on the Odette’s property.

“Claire and I are on the same page,” continued Haight-Ashton. “No matter what was said at the last HARB meeting regarding this report, the final outcome is that Claire announced at Tuesday’s council meeting that she will be giving the contract out to Cook & Brown Associates to do a new report.”
Haight-Ashton went on to state, “I would have liked to see the structures report completed and used as a guide during the open house, but the decision on the order was out of my jurisdiction. We are all passionate volunteers with a great respect for history. Regretfully, we sometimes have to put aside our passions for the sake of solutions.”

Addressing Shaw near the end of Tuesday’s meeting, Frydman said, “I just want to be clear that I think we all agree there has to be a [structural] report.”

“Well, we don’t know that there’s going to be one, Jeffrey, at this point” said Shaw. “And that’s where it sits.”