It was just two years ago that turmoil over possible cuts in the Upper Perk Police District created quite a disturbance around here.

                Back then, in this space and after nearly 100 visitors attended a Pennsburg Borough Council meeting in support of the laid-off officers, I wrote of the importance of open communications.  That communications extend not only between elected officials, but must be clear and open and made to the people they serve.

                To summarize the events of 2012, in August officials feared they couldn't finance the department as it existed.  In September the police officers offered concessions for 2013 and the police commission promised no layoffs in return for those concessions. 

                When Pennsburg officials were presented with the agreement change late in October, they approved it, tentative to a legal review by their solicitor to make sure that all of the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed.  At the solicitor's recommendation, council requested language to be inserted on the municipalities' side of the agreement to ensure that everything agreed to would expire with the existing contract on Dec. 31, 2013.

                On Nov. 8 that request was forwarded to Ryan Sloyer, then chairman of the Upper Perk Police Commission, who forwarded it to the officers and police commission solicitor.  On Nov. 20, 2012 East Greenville officials attended the Pennsburg borough council meeting to inform them that the officers turned down the agreement.  On Nov. 26, the Upper Perk Police Commission voted for a reduction in the police force.

                Contrary to the belief of many who spoke at the large, public gathering in Pennsburg, borough council didn't lay anyone off.  That's the job of the Upper Perk Police Commission.  At the time the agreement provided for a 90-day notice of the intent to layoff.  The layoff was at the recommendation of the chief of police, who had valid reasons for his recommendation.  Being an administrator means you sometimes have to make tough, unpopular recommendations.

                Pennsburg officials came well prepared to the large meeting and opted to fund their entire budget commitment to the police commission with cuts elsewhere and a tax increase.  With everything put back, East Greenville officials adjusted their budgets as well and included a tax increase to help fund the budget.

                I opined that officials from both boroughs need to learn from this event and then put it behind them, remembering that they must work together for the good of all of the people and that timely communications were the key to any successful working relationship.

                Now the people of East Greenville and Pennsburg are faced with another controversy.  This time, reportedly, involving the proposed contract for the chief of police.  We don't know their objection to the contract because only Pennsburg officials have offered their perception of the reason.  The public is left to assume the reasons and react as they perceive them to be.

                The end result, as of today, is that the budgets of both boroughs will be affected unless a budget is agreed upon for the Upper Perk Police Commission.  That won't happen until there is resolution to the contract for the police chief.

                It would be good for East Greenville officials to clearly and publically state their opposition to the proposed chief's contract along with the financial implications to the budget, and solicit input from their constituents.  They may find that the taxpayers support their position.  They may even find that some Pennsburg taxpayers support their position.

                If they find out otherwise, there is still time to adjust the budget accordingly.

                It's much better than having 100 or more people show up at a public meeting armed with only assumptions and misinformation.