Sign up | Log in | Forgot Password

Faxes Sent to Genece E. Brinkley

Letters

From:	CM
To:	Judge Brinkley
Date:	Tuesday, 05/27/08
Subject:	Robert Buter #880473

Dear Judge Brinkley:

I am writing this messege on behalf of Robert Butler #880473.
As of May 27, 2008 Mr. Butler has completed Options and has
recieved his certificate. It would be greatly appreciated if
you could let us know when he will be able to start his work
release process.

Thank you
Catharine Mooney

To Whom It May Concern:

We pray that by the time this correspondence reaches
your desk, eyes and mind that you are in the best of health and
blessed abundantly.

Upon being sentenced to and/or granted, through
petitioning the Courts, the opportunity to participate in the
Philadelphia Prisons Work Release Program, we become
enthusiastic about being given the opportunity to have a second
chance at becoming a productive, responsible and rehabilitated
individual. We look forward to the opportunity to obtain and
maintain adequate employment which can usher our re-entry into
society. And, we immediately develop our short and long term
goals in an attempt to refrain from becoming part of the
recidivism statistics.

Unfortunately, after being enrolled into the Work
Release Program, our enthusiasm is immediately replaced with
frustration, anxiety and stress. Our ambitions are replaced
with impotence. As this program fails us and fails to keep and
meet its promise, it becomes another hindrance instead of a
platform to succeed, in which it was created to be. There are
individuals who are sentenced to county sentences, county
intermediate punishment and partial confinement, who are being
represented by Mr. Byron Cotter, Esq., Director, Alternative
Sentencing Unit of the Defenders Association of Philadelphia.
Mr. Cotter sends these individuals a correspondence stating
that: "After you have been working for forty-five (45) days,
your social worker will submit your Institution Adjustment
Summary and upon receipt of this report a petition for early
parole will be submitted to your judge for consideration.
Please refrain from incurring any disciplinary infractions."
Unfortunately, due to the lack of compassion of the Social
Services Department of the Philadelphia Prisons Work Release
Program, we can't successfully fulfill this obligation. We are
also obligated to pay court costs, fines, restitution and child
support payments. But without the ability to seek and maintain
employment, we are being forced to violate the orders of the
court.We also feel as though we are forced to serve the maximum
length of our sentences because no matter what we do to show
that we deserve parole (i.e., refrain from incurring
disciplinary infraction, complete programs, etc.), if we are
not given the opportunity to seek and maintain employment for
forty-five (45) days consecutively, the Defenders Association
of Philadelphia will not submit an early parole petition on our
behalf.

Some of our short and long term goals consist of:
a) Saving money to establish a residence upon release;
b) Establishing and rebuilding credit;
c) Obtaining and maintaining employment;
d) Paying court costs, fines, restitution and child support
orders in full;
e) Providing financial support to our families;
f) To obtain parole eligibility;
g) To regain control of your lives.

The Philadelphia Prisons Work Release Program should be
used in such a manner that our re-entry into society is
possible and helps us refrain from criminal thoughts, actions
and patterns.
Unfortunately, the only people who gains from this experience
is the Philadelphia Prison System's staff and administration.

Below, we have complied a list of major problems within
the Work Release Program. We have quoted Federal Case law,
Pennsylvania Statutes, information out of the Philadelphia
Prison System's Inmate Handbook and the Philadelphia Prisons
Work Release Agreement ( a document that every work release
participant is entitled to read and sign upon entering the work
release program, it contains Program Standards and
Regulations.) Please carefully observe the numerous problems
within this program that we endure and help us find a solution.
We are deeply and desperately seeking help to rectify these
problems. And we will forever be grateful.

Thank you for you time and consideration in looking into
this matter.

Sincerely and Humbly Yours,


Camar Oliver
P.P. # 847453
Inst. # 07-09435



Major Problems Within The Philadelphia Prisons Work Release
Program
@ 600 University Avenue

Arbitrary and Capricious Abuse of Discretion- Title 61 Section
2141 of the Pennsylvania Statutes (Penal Institutions-Court
Orders) states: "Whenever any person has been sentenced to
undergo imprisonment in a county jail or work house, hereafter
referred as a jail, for a term of less than five years, the
court, at the time of sentence or anytime thereafter upon
application made therefore, may by order direct the sheriff,
prison keeper, warden or other administrative head of a jail to
permit the prisoner to leave the jail during necessary and
reasonable hours for the purpose of working at his employment,
conducting his own business or other self-employed occupation,
including housekeeping and attending to the needs of family,
seeking employment, attendance at an educational institution,
securing medical treatment or such other lawful purposes. The
order of the court may be rescinded or modified at any time
with or without notice to the prisoner."


Title 61 Section 1052(b) of the Pennsylvania Statutes
(Release plans for prison inmates) states: "Any person
transferred to and confined in a pre-release center may be
released therefrom temporarily with or without direct
supervision at the discretion of the Bureau of Correction in
accordance with rules and regulations as provided in section 3
of this act, for the purposes of gainful employment, vocational
or technical training, academic education and such other lawful
purposes as the bureau shall consider necessary and appropriate
for the furtherance of the inmate's individual pre-release
program subject to compliance with subsection (c) of this
section."

There is a blatant abuse of discretion by the Social
Services Department and Administrative Staff of the
Philadelphia Prison Work Release program. Participants are only
allowed to find employment through the Resource Room at 600
University Avenue. We are not allowed to find employment
opportunities from the classified section of the Philadelphia
Daily News or Philadelphia Inquirer. The potential employment
and interviews have to be approved and set up by the social
workers. We are forced to rely solely on our social workers'
approval and scheduling for interviews. For example, if a
potential employer wants to interview us immediately, this
opportunity passes us by because the social worker may need two
(2) or more days in advance to process our requests for
allowable time out to participate in interviews. In turn, this
becomes a missed opportunity to be employed. And because of
these missed opportunities, eligibility for parole, early
parole and/or re-parole, in some cases, becomes non-existent.

In the case of Bills v. Henderson, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1980,
631 F.2d 1287, it states: "Constitutionally protected liberty
interest may be created in favor of prisoners even when
prerequisite which limits the discretion of prison officials is
a predictive judgment based on guidelines rather than a
specific factual finding; therefore, the fact that prison
officials are required to make a predictive determination does
not preclude the existence of a protected liberty interest even
though the predictive determination inherently involves a large
measure of discretion."

Inability to Leave Building to Search for Employment-
The Philadelphia Prisons Work Release Agreement states: "(D)(1)
The participant agrees to work with the assigned Prison
Employment Counselor in his/her search for employment deemed
suitable by the Program."

This rule requires us to solely depend on the Prison
Employment Counselor regarding our search for employment. There
are participants who have not been given the opportunity to
seek employment due to the Prison Employment Counselor/social
worker's lack of compassion and these participants remain in
this facility for months at a time without ever having the
opportunity to seek and obtain employment.

Lack of Regard to Indigent Participants- The
Philadelphia Prison System Inmate Handbook states: "This
program offers you an opportunity to further your education or
to earn and save income, provide support for your dependents,
and maintain or establish a means of support that you can
continue upon your release." (page 60)

The Philadelphia Prisons Work Release Agreement
states: "(c)(4) The participant agrees to pay all Court-ordered
fines, restitution's and support payment in the amount
determined by the Court or the Probation Department in
conjunction with the Prison System." "(c)(5) The applicant
agrees not to give, send or lend money, clothing or any other
items to any participant, nor to be in possession at any time
of any other participants money, clothing or belongings,
without the express prior to written approval of the Phase
Committee."

There are no provisions or funds in place for
participants who are indigent. Not every participant is lucky
enough to have family or friends to help them with money,
clothes or to obtain that person's identification. Due to the
lack of provisions or funds for indigent participants, this
prevents that individual to properly participate in the Work
Release Program. This also prevents that individual from
obtaining employment and/or make payments to Court-ordered
fines, restitution or child support orders. The participant is
forced to fail to comply with the orders of the Court and can
possibly be held in contempt. This also prevents the
participant from complying to the stipulations of his/her
sentence which makes parole eligibility non-existent. Finally,
the participant is prevented from washing his/her clothes or
contacting their families because of being charged to do so.

Failure to promptly Submit Institutional Adjustment
Summary- The Philadelphia Prison System Inmate handbook
states: "If you are sentenced, you will want to keep track of
your sentence and its effective (starting), minimum and maximum
dates. After these dates have been computed by the PPS
Classification, Movement and Registration office, your assigned
social worker will be able to supply you with this information.
However, you are not required to initiate your own parole
application(s). this is done automatically at the appropriate
time.

County- If you are serving a county sentence, a
petition for parole will be submitted to your sentencing judge
by the Probation Department prior to your minimum date. Several
weeks ahead of that date, your Social Worker will prepare a
progress report that will be forwarded to the Probation
Department and will be attached to the parole petition. The
progress report will cover the entire period of your sentence
and will include a review of your behavior and discipline
record and of your enrollment and progress in work, programs
and activities.

State- If you are serving a state sentence (i.e., a
maximum sentence of two years or more), a parole hearing will
be scheduled for you before a representative(s) of the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. Prior to the
hearing, state parole staff will prepare a petition for parole.
The petition will include a progress report prepared by your
Social Worker with the recommendation of your facility warden
regarding your parole. The progress report will cover the
entire period of your sentence and will include a review of
your behavior and discipline record and of your enrollment and
progress in work, programs and activities.

Earned Time/Good Time- This program allows the
Commissioner of Prisons, with the approval of the sentencing
judge, to credit you with time off your minimum sentence in
exchange for participation in selected programs and/or work
assignments and for behavior consistent with PPS rules and
regulations. The maximum credit allowed is two (2) days off of
each seven(7) days of your minimum sentence. (If you are
serving a sentence with a mandatory minimum, you are not
eligible for early parole.)

The PPS Classification, Movement and Registration office
will compute your earliest possible Earned Time/Good Time date.
Approximately five weeks before this date, your Social Worker
will interview you and will review your record for disciplinary
history and participation in work and other programs. The
Social Worker will forward this information to the
Classification, Movement and Registration office. From there,
it will be forwarded to the Probation Department and attached
to a parole petition, which will be submitted to the sentencing
judge for consideration." (Pages 64-67)

The Philadelphia Prisons Work Release Agreement
states: "(B)(9) The participant understands that report of
his/her adjustment and prepared and forwarded at request of the
Court or as deemed necessary by the Program."

There lies a contradiction between the Philadelphia
Prison System Inmate Handbook and the Philadelphia Prisons Work
Release Agreement regarding how and when our Institutional
Adjustment Summaries are submitted. The handbook states that we
are not required to initiate our own parole applications
because it is done automatically. While, the Work Release
Agreement tells us that it is submitted upon the request of the
court or as deemed necessary by the Program. It makes us feel
as though, when we sign the Work Release Agreement, the
procedures in the Handbook no longer apply and that eligibility
for parole and the submission of our Institutional Adjustment
Summaries are at the discretion of the social worker. For
example, if a participant does not get a long with his/her
social worker, that participant can kiss parole eligibility
good-bye. This type of discretion can and has been abused by
the social workers which can trigger the denial of due process
and equal protection of the law as well as the deprivation of
civil rights.

Consistently Locked Down- We are locked down constantly
and consistently due to the discretion of the correctional
officers. We are not allowed to use the telephones to call
potential employers or to call our employer to tell them if we
are running later, because the house is not opened nor are the
phones turned on until between 10:00am and 11:00am. Most
potential employers are fielding inquiries for open positions
from 9:00am to 11:00am. This gives us a late start when trying
to fill those open positions because we are competing with
other citizens who are not hindered in such a way. This is
another hindrance to our successful completion of this program.
This is supposed to be a community-custody facility but at time
we feel like we are not community-custody work release
participants. This is another prime example of abuse of
discretion by prison officials. At 2:30pm, the afternoon
headcount is conducted and preparation for shift change is
taking place. This usually lasts until 4:00pm because at that
time, the evening meal is in progress but we are still locked
down until 5:00pm, sometimes until 7:30pm because the evening
headcount commences at 6:00pm. So, if we are lucky, we only
have seven and one-half (7 1/2) hours out of two (2) eight-hour
shifts to make phone calls, wash clothes, eat breakfast, lunch
and dinner and have any leisure time to watch T.V., play cards
or chess and/or interact with other participants. At the
facilities of State Road, they are opened for nine (9) hours
and fifteen (15) minutes to conduct the same activities. There
is no reason to consistently be locked down. Especially, since
there are not any emergencies that warrant such an action.

Serving Meals at an Unacceptable Temperature/Being
Served the Same Food as Prisons While Paying Board- The
definition of board is: "To obtain or have meals, or meals and
lodgings, statically for compensation." The definition of
boarder is: "One who has food stately at another's table, or
meals and lodgings in his house, for pay, or compensation of
any kind; one that boards. (As told in the Webster's New
International Dictionary of the English Language Copyright 1909
and 1913, Published 1921)

The meals that are provided and served by Aramark are
served at a very low temperature. This forces us to re-heat our
meals in a microwave. This is unacceptable. Food should always
be served hot to prevent bacteria and food poisoning.
Unfortunately, this is only half of the problems that we have
concerning our meals. We are being served the same type of
meals that are being served at the prisons on State Road. And
the worst part about this is that our board payments to this
facility and program pays for this horrible food.

Being Subjected to Strip Searches and Shackles- We are
being subjected to strip searches upon entering this facility
after being given time out to seek employment, handle personal
business or working. This type of security is unnecessary and
degrading because those of us who are working have nothing to
look forward to than being stripped searched everyday.
We are also subjected to being shackled when going to a
doctor's appointment or sick call. We are classified as
community custody. The definition for community is: "1) A body
of people having common organization or interests, or living in
the same place under the same laws and regulations; 2) Society
at large; a commonwealth or state; a body politic; the public,
or people in general; 5) Common character; likeness; 6) Social
intercourse; society and 7) Commonness; frequency.) (As told in
the Webster's New International Dictionary of the English
Language Copyright 1909 and 1913, Published 1921)

Unfortunately, the word "community" has a different
definition as far as the Philadelphia Prison System is
concerned.

Lack of Compassion- The Philadelphia Prison System
Inmate Handbook states: "Every housing area has an assigned
Social Worker that handles "case management" activities for the
inmates in the unit. This case manager will meet with you to
develop a service plan to help you make constructive use of
your time here. He or she will: a) refer you to activities and
programs; b) monitor your progress; c) follow up, if necessary,
to help solve problems; d) serve as a liaison when necessary
between you and other individuals, programs, or agencies; and
e) give you realistic encouragement and support. (Pages 56-57)

The Social Workers at this facility are quicker to give
us a "write-up" than the correctional officers, even for
approaching them as they are passing by. But when we
submit "Request to Staff "forms, we often fail to receive a
reply. It is the social workers job to help rectify all
problems, concerns and questions that we may have.

Lack of Reply to "Request to Staff" and "Grievance"
Forms- The Philadelphia Prison System Inmate Handbook
states: "The Social Worker will be present on your housing area
several times each week on a scheduled basis. You may speak
with the social worker at that time. You may sign up or request
an appointment, or you may address a "Request to Staff" form to
the social worker and place it in a designated box on or near
your unit. (The boxes are emptied and sorted each weekday.)
(Page 57)

"An inmate may initiate a grievance concerning the
following issues: a) an alleged violation of civil,
constitutional, or statutory rights; b) a condition existing
within the PPS that creates unsafe or unsanitary living
conditions; c) the circumstances or applicatioin of any written
or unwritten policy, regulation, or rule of the PPS, including
its programs; d) the lack of a policy, regulation, or rule; e)
an alleged criminal or prohibited act by a staff member,
contract employee, volunteer, or other inmate(s); f) any
written or unwritten policy, or rule of the PPS, including its
programs; g) accuracy of information in the inmates file,
including the calculation of the inmate's release date; h) the
circumstances or application of any provision of any court
orders under which the PPS must operate; i) medical diagnosis
or treatment, including quality of treatment; and j)
classification and reclassification decisions." (Page 41)

The social workers are required to answer "Request to
Staff" forms within seventy-two (72) hours after the submission
of the request. This is not being practiced in this facility.
We are left in the dark about parole eligibilty, the inability
to seek employment and inmate account balances. We are forced
to depend on our social workers for acquiring much needed
information and are blatantly being ignored.

The "Grievance' forms are not being collected as they
should be, nor are they replied to in a timely manner. This
blatant ignorance is a violation of our right to be heard on
any problems, issues and/or concerns about the Work Release
Program.

Lack of Ability to Subscribe for Newspapers: We are not
allowed to order the Daily News and/or Philadelphia Inquirer
because we are not allowed to search the classified section of
the newspaper for potential employment. In order to stop us
from looking in the classified section, newspapers have been
banned from entering the building. On page 37 of the
Philadelphia Prison System Inmate Handbook, it state that you
can have up to five newspapers at a time. This is another act
of abuse of discretion by the prison officials.

Lack of Access to the Law Library: The Philadelphia
System Inmate Handbook states: "In each facility, a law library
is established where you may do legal research, with the
assistance, if necessary of an assigned inmate law library
aide. Books and reference materials on local, state and federal
law are available. Equipment is provided for note taking and
preparation of documents for submission to the court."
And "Each housing unit is scheduled for law library time."
(Page 18)

Work release participants are not given the opportunity
to utilize the law library facilities at 600 University Avenue
because the computer that is use for legal research is broken
and there isn't any ink cartridges for the printer in this
facility. We have individuals who are appealing their sentences
and are going to court for other reasons. There is a lack of
scheduling and a failure to enforce this right. Even though the
Work Release Program is considered to be a program, it is still
under the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia Prison System. Our
right to access and utilize the Law Library does not cease to
exist because our classification changes from county inmate to
work release participant.

Failure to Provide a Copy of the Philadelphia Prison
System's Policy Concering Inmates Rights: The Philadelphia
Prison System Inmate Handbook states: "As an inmate in the PPS,
you are responsible to know and to abide by all applicable PPS
and facility rules, procedures and schedules. Information is
available through orientation sessions, inmate handbook, town
hall meetings, bulletin boards, law library and direct
insruction from staff." (Page 38)

"You may retain many, but not all; fundamental rights
while you are incarcerated. The PPS has a duty to ensure that
you are not denied any of these fundamental rights, and at the
same time maintains the authority to regulate, through policies
and procedures, your exercise of them. For a more complete
description of PPS policy and procedure regarding inmate
rights, you may refer to the policy themselves. Copies of
Policies 3.F.1 to 3.F.10, Inmate rights, are available for your
review in the facility law library. (Page 39)

We are denied the access to the PPS Policy and
Procedures, 3.F.1 to 3.F.10 concerning Inmate Rights. When we
ask a correctional officer, sergeant or lieutenant for access
to these documents, we are given an excuse why we can not have
it or are blatantly told "NO!" The Inmate Handbook clearly
states that we may refer to the policy document documents
themselves. It makes us wonder, "What are they trying to hide?"
There are a lot of individuals in these Prison facilities who
do not know what rights they may exercise. But if we incur a
disciplinary infraction, then "ignorance is not an excuse."
this is another example of abuse of discretion.

Being Forced to Attend Sick Call and Miss A Day of Work:
There needs to be a revision made to corcerning the Routine
Sick Call Procedures for work release participants who are
employed. If we are called to attend sick call, we do not have
the opportunity to call our employers to call out of work. this
can cause us to be terminated from our jobs. We are forced to
choose between our health and our employment. Most of us do not
even want to submit a sick call slip for fear of losing our
jobs. Unfortunately, sick call is only done Monday thru Friday.

Mediocre Success/Employment Participant Rate: As of
April 28th, 2008, the total census in the Work Release Program
at 600 University is one hundred ninety-three (193)
participants. The total number of employed participants is
ninety-six (96). The total number of unemployed participants is
ninety-seven (97). The percentage of unemployed participants of
the total census is approximately 50.25%. This means that the
previous listed problems mentioned plays a big part in the
success rate of this program. the abuse of discretion by the
prison official is the main reason because in order to seek and
maintain employment, we need the approval of these officials.
the lack of approval by these officials forces us to serve the
maximum length of our sentences and causes a great deal of
anxiety, stress and anger.

In the case of Madyun v. Thompson, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1981,
657 F.2d 868, it clearly states that: "Inmates are entitled to
environment that does not threaten their mental and physical
well-being."

Fear of Retaliation for Exercising First Amendment
Rights: We are constantly threaten with write-up and being
suspended from the Work Release Program for exercising our
First Amendment Rights. When we try to address our problems,
questions and/or concerns, we are being deemed as inciting a
riot when we are simply looking for answers and an opportunity.
I, Camar Oliver, am aware of the fact that I am going to be
retaliated against for addressing these problems outside of the
prison system but, the officials within the prison system are
turning a deaf ear towards our problems, questions and/or
concerns. But, I am willing to go through it, "Success requires
sacrifice." So, I am also willing to file any and all Federal
Lawsuits against these officials for the deprivation of my
civil rights.

In the case of Sullivan v. Schweikhard, S.D.N.Y. 1997,
986 F.Supp. 910, it states that: "Prison officials were not
entitled to qualified immunity in inmate Title 42 USC Section
1983 action based on alleged administrative confinement of
inmate in retaliation for prior complaints he made about prison
conditions, at time of alleged confinement, courts had clearly
established inmate's right to be free from retaliation for
filing grievances."

In the case of Pacheco v. Comisse, N.D.N.Y. 1995, 897
F.Supp. 671, it states that: "Defense for qualified immunity
was not available to prison official for allegedly retaliating
against inmate for exercise of his constitutional right to
petiton government for redress of grievances."

In the case of Abney v. County of Nassau, E.D.N.Y. 2002,
237 F.Supp.2d 278, it states that: "County correctional
facility inmate exhausted his administrative remedies, as under
Prison Litigation Reform Act, before commencing Title 42 USC
Section 1983 action claiming physical mistreatment, when he
submitted grievance to grievance coordinator, and county took
no action.

In the case of Justice v. Coughlin, N.D.N.Y. 1996, 941
F.Supp. 1312, it states that: "Prison grievances are
constitutionally protected conduct for purposes of inmate
retaliation claim under Title 42 USC Section 1983."
So please, I ask that everyone who receives this correspondence
consideres it as a legitimate grievance.

Dear Brinkley,

I'm writing you today concerning Ronald Godwin, whom you had
recently re-sentenced, and in that, allowed him to go to a work
release program at 600 University ave. Since he has been
transferred there, he has been miss informed on different
occasions about how go about getting things done in order to
get to the next step for release. It appears that every time
some on calls on his behalf to try and help facilitate his
situation, he gets threatened by his social workers that it
just makes it harder on him. It is about two months now and he
has only been out on one interview for a work release job. If
his caseworker misses handles paperwork, he his told by the
sergeant that it's to bad, he has to wait until next week
before anything is done. He is told anytime he needs anything
done, he must fill out a D form, and when requesting the form,
he's told they do not have any forms at this time. He was
scheduled for a second job interview today, and the case worker
miss handled the paperwork, so he was not allowed to go on the
interview. How can he do as you asked in order to show that
he's willing to be productive in society when they continue to
miss handle his paperwork and job opportunities which would get
him to the next step? Please let me know what you will do
about this situation at 600 University ave., and what further
can I do to get his direction on the right track.

hi judge brinkley, i can not seem to get any information concerning aarons
sentencing i have tried the public defenders office no answer, what i am confused
about is i thought he was sentence to 2months and 21 days, he did not appeal
because we thought that will be time served. i scheduled my treatments for
radiation and my surgery after october 16, because i thought he would be home to
help me around the house after i have surgery. i don't understand what happened in
your courtroom.if you or someone from your court can clarify i would appreciate it.
i'm not doing to good right now. i came down there today, but it looked like there
was some kind of jury selection going on10-2-07 my church had a just us girls
weekend and we prayed on my situation. i hope you can find the time to look his
case over. thank you, denise pitchford-mother

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:

I will make this short in the hope that you will take a moment to
read it.

As a native Philadelphian I have always regarded the park
system as defining a very special city. As a child, my family
would take Sunday strolls in Fairmount Park; as a Boy Scout, we
would take hikes along the Wissahickon; and where I would, later
as a parent, take my daughters for riding lessons; and where my
aging father would sit on a bench by the stream and adore his
beautiful grandchildren I live on a city block that ends at Morris
Park, where my daughters played when they were very young. And
now my grandchildren have the benefits of the parks.

I strongly urge you to provide the leadership required to
have and grow a healthy park system by supporting our slate of
Fairmount Park Commissioner candidates: ED BRONSTEIN, MICHAEL
DiBERARDINIS, DEBRA WOLF GOLDSTEIN, JOSEPH M MANKO, DAVID D. POPE,
DORIS A. SMITH, AND WILLIAM A. WILSON.

Thank you for your attention.

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:


Philadelphia needs its parks. Its parks need effective
leadership. Tomorrow, you have the opportunity to vote for
effective leadership in the Fairmount Park Commission. As a
citizen and voter of Philadelphia, and an avid user of parks, I
urge you to take that opportunity and vote for the best
candidates for park commission. The Friends of Philadelphia
Parks, backed by a coalition of 30 park friends groups, has
endorsed a slate of candidates, including Ed Bronstein, Michael
DiBerardinis, Debra Wolf Goldstein, Joseph Manko, David Pope,
Doris Smith, and William Wilson. All seven candidates,
particularly DiBerardinis, would serve the park and the city
well. I strongly urge you to support them. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Paul Bonfanti

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:

As a regular park user and a professional engaged in improving
Philadelphia's greeen places, the need for a vigorous and
healthy Fairmount Park is a deeply held belief. Please support
the Friends of Philadelphia Park's carefully chosen slate of
quality people who can lead the Commission into a new era of
valuing our parks and open spaces. The resulting improvement in
quality of life will resonate in ecomonic development.

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:

In your selection of new members to the Fairmount Park
Commission, I urge you to strongly consider the Coalition Slate
of Candidates. Any one of the coalition, Ed Bronstein, Michael
DeBerardinis, Debra Wolf Goldstein, Joseph M. Manko, David P.
Pope, Doris A. Smith, or William A. Wilson, would be an excellent
choice for the existing vacancies.
As a member of the Wissahickon Restoration Volunteers, I have
seen first hand how the Wissahickon Park area has been allowed to
suffer from neglect and misuse. I have also seen the need for a
strong and visionary leadership to bring guidance and support for
the many grass roots organizations, such as the WRV, which are
trying to restore the Park to its former splendor.
Furthermore, it is equally vital to select a commission which
will find creative ways to manage the "confusing overlap of
mission between the Park Commission and the city's Recreation
Department" (Phil. Inquirer 5/14/02)

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:

Please select the Coalition Slate for Philadelphia Parks. They
are Ed Bronstein, Michael DiBerardinis, Debra Wolf Goldstein,
Joseph M. Manko, David P. Pope, Doris A. Smith, William A.
Wilson. As I am sure you are aware,The Coalition Slate has been
endorsed by Friends of Philadelphia Parks and twenty-one
organizations and park groups. Each candidate is well-qualified
to work constructively to preserve and improve of our beautiful
Fairmount Park. Because of their diverse backgrounds and skills,
they represent the broad constituency of park users and lovers.
Fairmount Park is a unique treasure that makes Philadelphia a
beautiful place to live and to visit. Its oversight needs the
most dedicated, qualified leadership available. Please appoint
The Coalition Slate!

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:

As a supporter of the coalition slate candidates (Ed Bronstein,
Michael DiBerardinis, Debra Wolf Goldstein, Joseph M. Manko,
David P. Pope, Doris A. Smith, William A. Wilson)which have
also been endorced by Friends of Philadelphia Parks as well as
twenty-one organizations and park groups, I strongly advocate
for Park Leadership that supports green spaces for the
Philadelphia community.

It is my opinion that the above named candidates represent a
broad constituency of people with varying backgrounds and
skills, any one of whom could serve the whole very well.

Please consider this need for park maintenance and development
as an integral "quality of life" issue for those of us
committed to living and working in the city.
Thank you.

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:
Please support the following candidates for Fairmount Park
Commision: Ed Bronstein, Micheal D. Berardines, Debra Wolf
Goldstein, Joseph M. Manko, David P. Pope, Doris A. Smith, and
William A. Wilson.
This coalition slate has been endorsed by Friends of
Philadelphia Parks and 21 other organizations and park groups.
Each of these individuals represents a brosd constituency and
any one could serve the whole well.
The parks in Philadelphia are very important to the quality of
city life. I live in Roxborouogh and have utilized the park
throughout my childhood and adult life. This asset is one of
the reasons I have remained a city resident-tax payer.
A strong vision is necessare to maintain the quality park
system that has been such a great part of my life. These
candidates can fufill that vision.
Thank You,
Elizabeth Scache

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:
Please support the following candidates for Fairmount Park
Commision: Ed Bronstein, Micheal D. Berardines, Debra Wolf
Goldstein, Joseph M. Manko, David P. Pope, Doris A. Smith, and
William A. Wilson.'

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:

I strongly urge Philadelphia's judges to consider the Coalition
Slate for Philadelphia Parks when voting on May 16 for Fairmount
Park Commissioners. Our parks need stronger leadership and these
persons have the background to make good commissioners.

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:
I endorse the slate coalition of Ed Bronstein, Michael Di
Berardinis, Debra Wolf Goldstein, Joseph Manko, David Pope,
Doris Smith and William Wilson. They represent a broad
constituency of people with varing backgrounds and skills, any
one of whom could serve the whole well. Friends of philadelphia
parks also feel this is the best slection of people for the job,
too.
The parks are very important to me. I grew up in the city my
whole life, and as a child spent many summers playing in the
parks. I can't imagine living in a big city like Philadelphia
and not having the parks. As a late middle-age adult, I still
spend many evenings and Sunday afternoons strolling through the
parks. Forbidden Drive is such a treasure!! We need strong good
leadership tho maintain and preserve the lovely parks for future
generations. They are as important of an infrastructure to the
city as the big sky scrapers in center city. They need the same
attention!
Sincerly, a concren citizen,
Dorothy Bellows

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia's Parks:

The condition and quality of the park system - particularly our
'natural' park environments of Pennypack and Wissahickon - are
very important to me. They are, perhaps, the most compelling
reason for me to stay, and pay taxes, in Philadelphia.

It is evident that insufficient budgets, languishing stewardship
and etraordinary popularity have taken their toll on all our
parks over the past decade or so. We need to act quickly to
restore a balance, even if it means sacrificing some of our
accustomed freedoms of access and use.

Only a dedicated, educated board of conservators can successfully
manage the difficult task of healing these precious resources,
perhaps the best examples of urban parkland in the US.

I believe the Coalition slate of candidates, specifically:

Michael DiBerardinis
Doris A. Smith
Ed Bronstein
David P. Pope
Debra Wolf Goldstein
William A. Wilson
Joseph M. Manko

have both the qualifications and the vision equal to this task.
Please show that you care by doing all you can to ensure that the
best possible appointments are made. It will be a decision that
accrues benefits across the generations.

Thank you.
glg

Gary L. Gehman
32 E. Coulter St.
Philadelphia, PA 19144

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:
This letter is in support of the "Philadelphia Park Coalition
Slate of Candidates": Ed Bronstein, Michael DiBerardinis, Debra
Wolf Goldstein, Joseph M. Manko, David P. Pope, Doris A. Smith,
William A. Wilson.
This slate has been endorsed by Friends of Philadelphia Parks
and twenty-one organizations and park groups.
The candidates represent a broad constituency of people with
varying backgrounds and skills, any one of whom could and would
serve the whole very well.
Parks are essential to maintaining and imkproving the quality of
life in Philadelphia and mak8ing this a better place to live,
work and do business.Visionary leadership is essential for the
future of our parks and our city.

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:

I regularly use the parks and I am a committeeperson in a ward
and division that is very near the park.

I know of many of the people on the slate being promoted by the
Friends of Philadelphia Parks and I highly support this slate.

I ask that you support and vote for the people on this slate.

Thank you,
Michael Parente

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:

I am writing to express my support for the slate of seven
candidates for Fairmount Park Commission recommended by Friends
of Philadelphia Parks. These seven people,Ed Bronstein, Michael
DiBerardinis, Debra Wolf Goldstein, Joseph M. Manko, David P.
Pope, Doris A. Smith, and William A. Wilson, are highly
qualified. Together they represent the whole of our community and
each individual will bring excellent and needed skills to the
commission.

Fairmount Park is a treasure to be shared by the entire city. No
other resource is so widely utilized and enjoyed. I work at the
University of Pennsylvania with many students and fellows who
arrive in Philadelphia from other places around the world and the
many branches of the park continue to be the attraction that I
describe enthusiastically to everyone, regardless of the kind of
recreation they desire. Hiking trails along the Wissahickon
Gorge, festivals on Eakins Oval, fireworks at the art museum,
beautiful public art, historic mansions, roller blading, horse
riding...the list extends seemingly infinitely. The people on
this slate will serve with insight, sensitivity and dedication to
help us preserve this gem of a park system.

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:

I am urging you to support the slate of candidates for the
Fairmont Park Commission endorsed by the Friends of Philadelphia
Parks, they are:
Ed Bronstein, Michael DiBerardinis, Debra Wolf Goldstein, Joseph
M. Manko, David P. Pope, Doris A. Smith, and William A. Wilson.
It is time the parks got the support they need.
I'm a 50 year user of the parks and have volunteered in clean-
ups and park reforestation. I know the parks need all the help
they can get. Please consider these candidates when you make
your selections.

Sincerely,

James Shuster

Dear Guardian of Philadelphia Parks:

My husband and I choose to live in Philadelphia for many
reasons, but one of the most important is the city's magnificent
park system. Philadelphia's parks are one of its most valuable
resources, and they must be maintained and improved. Quality
parks attract and retain tax-paying citizens, and also better
the quality of life of those not fortunate enough to earn a
salary that merits taxation.

I urge you to support the slate of candidates approved by the
Friends of Philadelphia Parks as well as twenty-one park and
neighborhood organizations:

Ed Bronstein
Michael DiBeradinis
Debra Wolf Goldstein
Joseph M. Manko
David P. Pope
Doris A. Smith
William A. Wilson

All of these individuals possess the visionary leadership skills
necessary to serve the broad base of Philadelphia's citizenry.
Safe, beautiful parks benefit ALL Philadelphians in ALL our
neighborhoods - they are too great a resource to be squandered
by indifferent officials. Please help these men and women help
make a difference; appoint them to the Fairmount Parks
Commission.

Yours truly,
Anne Hilton

(Next 20 results)