Over the past few days, my fellow Commissioners and I have received numerous emails, telephone calls and other inquiries concerning the decision by the Reapportionment Commission to split Haverford Township into two legislative districts. State Representative Greg Vitali has also circulated an email that has caused some confusion. I hope that this email clarifies the process and where it stands.

At the outset, I must note that the reapportionment process has raised significant and legitimate concerns, and the dialogue has been quite healthy. As a Commissioner, I believe that it is my obligation to consider not only the perspective of my constituents (who have voiced opinions on both sides of the issue), but also the other factors enumerated by Rep. Vitali, including the fact that the "Commissioners need to weigh the importance of keeping Haverford Township in one legislative district against the cost of appeal and chance of success." I will do so when the matter is presented to the Board.

As you may know, as a result of the 2010 census, Pennsylvania is required to reapportion every state House and Senate district; in addition, our Congressional district must be reapportioned. Eventually, the boundaries of all of the Wards in Haverford Township will also be modified. In layman's terms, this means that the boundaries of each "district" must be revised to assure that all districts are essentially equal in population and that, to accomplish this result, the persons who represent some citizens must change.

With regard to the current situation, the Commission appointed to reapportion the Pennsylvania legislative districts redrew the boundaries for our State House district. This means that Haverford Township Wards 1 and 9 are now part of the legislative district currently represented by Nicholas Micozzie. The remainder of the Township will continue to be part of the district represented by Greg Vitali.

When the draft reappointment plan was announced, many people, including me, opposed the plan because it appeared to some to be politically motivated. As a practical matter, reapportionment is almost always motivated in some part by politics, and it is because of this that the process is generally known as "gerrymandering."

The Township Board of Commissioners opposed the division of the State House district, and we voted unanimously to register our Objection to the plan. This was all we could do at that time. Since we voted to oppose the plan, the Final Plan was announced and adopted by the Commission at a meeting on December 12, 2011. I oppose the Final Plan as approved.

Any party that desires to further object to the Final Plan must now file an Objection with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; the deadline to do so is January 11, 2012. Although the Township itself may file an Objection, so may any citizen, elected official or any other person impacted by the decision. The Supreme Court will then rule upon any Objections after it receives Briefs and hears argument from all interested parties.

In some communications, it has been stated that the Final Plan as it applies to Haverford Township violates the Pennsylvania State Constitution, which prohibits splitting municipalities into multiple legislative districts unless absolutely necessary. While this Constitutional provision seems absolute, Court decisions approving divisions of districts such as Haverford Township have been upheld in the past.

State Rep. Vitali and others have requested that the Township file an appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and pay the legal costs of objecting to the Reapportionment Plan. Rep. Vitali has stated that "Because the House Democratic Caucus representative on the reapportionment commission regrettably voted in favor of this final plan [his] caucus would not be providing any funding for an appeal."

Any decision by the Township to appeal must, by law, be approved by a majority of the Board of Commissioners at a public meeting. In reaching a decision, the Board must consider the cost to the Township and the likelihood of success.

There have also been questions raised about why the Board has not yet acted. Because the Final Plan was not announced until December 12, 2011, the earliest the Board could have convened a public meeting was December 27, 2011. Our next scheduled meeting is our Annual Reorganization Meeting on January 3, 2012, and our next Regular Meeting is January 9, 2012.

Thus, the Board must evaluate all of the factors involved in further challenging the reapportionment in Court, including the likelihood of success. We must be mindful, therefore, that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed every challenge to the 2001 reapportionment plan.

In conclusion, assuming the matter is presented to the Board, I will consider the perspective of all of my constituents (who have both supported and opposed filing an appeal), as well as the other factors enumerated by Rep. Vitali, including the fact that the "Commissioners need to weigh the importance of keeping Haverford Township in one legislative district against the cost of appeal and chance of success."