Allentown Mayor Matt Tuerk released next year's proposed spending plan at a much ballyhooed news conference yesterday. As important as it is to herald a no-tax-increase budget, that pales when compared to the lives of 32 people who were hospitalized on October 11 as the result of a carbon monoxide leak at the Happy Smiles Learning Center. City mouthpiece Genesis Ortega made sure that the press knew that the day care center's license was suspended. But she failed to disclose that this whole incident would never have happened but for her boss's failure to implement a law requiring carbon monoxide detectors at all daycares. In fact, she misled them to believe this law would only take effect on October 27. I'm here to give you the facts.
On February 16, all seven members of Allentown City Council voted to adopt Amendments to the existing Child Care Facility Ordinance. These changes were proposed by the City's Health Department to "provide safer, improved services for Allentown families relying on daycare." Its priority status was "ASAP." The Ordinance specifically provides that "[s]moke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors shall be present and functioning in accordance with City of Allentown Fire Codes." It also provides for inspections at least once a year." It finally provides that it is to "take effect 10 days after final passage."
If Mayor Tuerk had any reservations about this Ordinance, he could have vetoed it. But he signed it into law on February 21 according to the Certification of City Council Clerk Mike Hanlon. So this Ordinance became effective on February 26, well before the near fatal tragedy at Happy Smiles.
After this ordinance was signed into law and became effective, the City actually inspected Happy Smiles in July. Instead of requiring that carbon monoxide detectors be installed immediately, it did nothing. This is because Mayor Matt Tuerk took it upon himself to decide that, in defiance of an unanimously adopted Ordinance that he himself signed into law, he would arbitrarily change its effective date from 10 days to October 27.
Any act that amends an Ordinance requires an act of equal dignity. To change the effective date of a city law, City Council would have to adopt a new ordinance. Tuerk never made the request. He instead just waved his magic wand.
His refusal to follow the plain letter of the law could have killed 32 people.
From local to federal, this is yet another instance of an Executive branch claiming authority it lacks.
I've heard rumors that some members of City Council are mulling over a voter of no confidence in Tuerk. I'd think that needlessly endangering the lives of 32 people qualifies.
When he waved his magic wand, why didn't Council act accordingly to nullify his illegal change? The Mayor overstepped, but nobody on Council stepped up. Checks and balances only work if they are enforced.
ReplyDeleteCO and smoke detectors can be purchased and installed in a couple of hours. 10 days is more than enough time to do something that should have been in place already. Giving anyone eight months when kids' lives are in danger is unfathomable. Does Tuerk have children? The carelessness is stunning. If Allentown kids could vote, they'd bend over and punch twerpy Tuerk in the face for not caring.
ReplyDeleteTuerk is doing a fine job for Allentown.
ReplyDeleteI believe the parents should ask to have the co monitors tested in from of themselves, there is nothing better than seeing it done correctly before your eyes.
Setup a simple testing date, the first day of the month and the first 2 parents test the monitors and they sign and date the paper to record the event and place it next to the monitor.
If the monitor fails, the daycare center will be closed until a new monitor is installed and tested.
End of problem. These steps should be used in all Allentown apartments, except hold the landlords responsible.
Did the fire inspector not there were deficiencies and provided a timeliness line of replacement. Was an official document provided telling them they can wait until October. Carbon monoxide detectors are a small proce tag item. If a daycare or any other business cannot afford basic safety equipment such as a carbon monoxide detector, should they even be in business. I will wait for the freedom folks to come out about government strong arm regulation.
ReplyDeleteSenator Browne authored Act 121 of 2013, which expanded upon existing Carbon Monoxide Detector mandates in the Pennsylvania Building Codes.
ReplyDeleteIn 2019, the city issued free carbonmonoxide detectors.
This was a terrible thing to happen. While I can't understand why the owner did not have them installed the mayor's actions are deplorable. This owner needs to move on and get a job handling non animate objects. She made inquiries to have them installed for this supposed ordinance date? Cut me a break. I can take her to her local big box store, and she can get cheap easily installed alarms. Even kennels for pets have smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. While this owner claims she was waiting for a system to be installed, all these children and staff were in danger. Sad, we need a law to act responsibly. Like I would send my kid back there! Wonder how many of these kids were there using government subsidies?
ReplyDeleteDecline is a choice.
ReplyDelete"When he waved his magic wand, why didn't Council act accordingly to nullify his illegal change? The Mayor overstepped, but nobody on Council stepped up. Checks and balances only work if they are enforced."
ReplyDeleteI doubt anyone on City Council was made aware that Tuerk had arbitrarily decided to wait until October 27 to enforce the ordinance.
" These steps should be used in all Allentown apartments, except hold the landlords responsible."
ReplyDeleteCO monitors have been required in A-town apartments for several years.
Senator Browne authored Act 121 of 2013, which expanded upon existing Carbon Monoxide Detector mandates in the Pennsylvania Building Codes."
And that applies only to rental residential properties.
"Wonder how many of these kids were there using government subsidies?"
Yeah, poor people, eh? This is why, despite all the flaws in my party, I remain a Democrat. Unlike my Republican friends, I believe government exists to help people. Had the law been followed, there never would have been a problem.
"While I can't understand why the owner did not have them installed the mayor's actions are deplorable."
ReplyDeleteI don't fault the owner for abiding by what city inspectors told her. I doubt she was sitting in Council chambers the night that the law requiring CO monitors was passed. She went thru an inspection in July. At that time, the violation should have been noted and she should have been given a reasonable amount of time to come up to code, followed by another inspection. I could see 30 days, not October 27. I fault the city for failing to enforce the law.
Bernie I do fault the owner as well. She did was was "legal" instead of what was right. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that set by lawyers and bureaucrats.
ReplyDeleteNow if this were a expensive upgrade thrust on her, I'm on the side of more time. But CO2 detectors are not expensive, installed in minutes, and protect lives.
Tuerk is at fault, but she is too.
There has been legislation sitting for years at the state level in the house sponsored by a Democrat requiring these detectors but the Republican chair of the committee, Rapp of Warren and Forrest counties has ignored it. From Lehigh Valley Live 7 days ago: "For years, a Pennsylvania state senator has sought to require carbon monoxide detectors in buildings across the state, day cares, dorm rooms, hotels, and more.
ReplyDeleteEach time, state Sen. Wayne Fontana’s bills (D-Allegheny) have stalled. The most recent proposal, SB 129, covers day cares. It passed the state senate 50-0 in September, and was sent to the house health committee.
Fontana has sought to add the carbon monoxide detector requirements for various buildings since 2014"
I understand that state legislation is stalled ... as usual. Frankly, the failure of the state to address this issue is no excuse for the Mayor's failure to implement an ordinance enacted by City Council on February 16 and that became effective 10 days later. He had no right to take it upon himself to delay enforcement.
ReplyDelete"This is because Mayor Matt Tuerk took it upon himself to decide that, in defiance of an unanimously adopted Ordinance that he himself signed into law, he would arbitrarily change its effective date from 10 days to October 27."
ReplyDeleteWhy would Tuerk do this??? Are the owners of the daycare Spanish speaking minorities and he felt bad for them having to comply with a health and safety regulation? I'm puzzled by his motivation to help the daycare owners avoid complying when the necessary repairs could be done quickly and inexpensively according to a post above. I hope the City doesn't get sued over this by any of the daycare customers.
This does seem like bad government and abuse of power.
Instructions for Carbon Monoxide detector installation:
ReplyDelete1. Buy ($12 on Amazon)
2. Plug in
Honestly, if a daycare has to be told by a mayor to take care of this, we have bigger problems.
You do have bigger problems. You have a Mayor who thinks he can pick and choose what parts of a city law he chooses to follow.
ReplyDelete9:57, Actually, English-speaking whites are now the minority in A-town. I frankly neither know nor care whether Happy Smiles is Spanish-owned. From what I've learned upon further research, the Tuerk admin decided to delay this ordinance until Oct 27 bc it was waiting for the state to require it. That was the explanation DCED gave to City Council on 10/12.
ReplyDelete"I've heard rumors that some members of City Council are mulling over a voter of no confidence in Tuerk."
ReplyDeleteYeah, right.
I suspect that we're reading this in your blog because someone in City Hall leaked the story to you. Nobody in any position of power - including members of council - will rock the boat by making an issue of the mayor putting off enforcement of the ordinance.
And of course the Morning Call won't even cover that aspect of the story, which means that most city residents will never know.
Anon 9:39 said "There has been legislation sitting for years at the state level in the house sponsored by a Democrat requiring these detectors but the Republican chair of the committee, Rapp of Warren and Forrest counties has ignored it."
ReplyDeleteAnd this has nothing to do with anything. Not everything has to be a state law. Laws have to be enforced, and some things are fine as local laws, where local government has the ability to enforce it.
Even if it was as state law, what difference would it make if local government chooses to ignore it? Here you have a democrat mayor in a democrat-controlled city ignoring an ordinance that he himself signed.
That's not the fault of some republican in another part of the state.
Bull S Bernie,
ReplyDeleteWhat about last year or the year before that?
The facts are that poor people pay the price of ignorance. NO CHILD DAY CARE SITE SHOULD BE OPENED WITHOUT GAVE THE MONITORS INSTALLED AND WORKING. The fact of the issues is that daycare in America is utterly disgusting, and I blame Republicans because they fought hard and long to brainwash the public that they do not need Government. There needs to be free childcare for everyone where the child’s safety is not in peril, ever.Let’s tax the rich and use the money for free childcare and free lunches, that would be the civilized method.
"I suspect that we're reading this in your blog because someone in City Hall leaked the story to you. "
ReplyDeleteWhat piqued my interest was a WFMZ story claiming the City had adopted such an ordinance earlier in the year, but had delayed implementation. Finding it was relatively easy. It was the sixth bill passed. Then I looked to see if it was subsequently amended. It was not. Hence my story. This AM I saw the latest DCED hearing in which the city told Council that it had decided to delay implementation bc it was waiting for a state enactment. The problem with this is that the law went into effect 10 days after final passage in Feb. The City admin had no authority to ignore or delay a duly enacted ordinance.
I have no idea about the daycare where the incident happened, but a far larger issue than this one is the large number of unlicensed daycare facilities operating in residential neighborhoods throughout the city.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that there are more kids exposed to a variety of different hazards in such facilities, but nobody will ever know because City Hall won't crack down on them.
Not only does the operation of unlicensed daycares put children at risk, but it also degrades the quality of life of those living nearby.
So, is it surprising that the mayor is ignoring carbon monoxide detectors when City Hall is ignoring entire facilities? Not really.
Tuerk wins a Tuerky Award for this fowl-up!
ReplyDelete"I have no idea about the daycare where the incident happened, but a far larger issue than this one is the large number of unlicensed daycare facilities operating in residential neighborhoods throughout the city."
ReplyDeleteI believe you are probably referring to home babysitters. A person can care for up to three children, including own children, without being certified. If certified, can care for up to six children. https://bizfluent.com/how-12030978-certified-home-babysitting-pennsylvania.html
Bernie, I completely understand and agree with you position as to how any delay in implementation could be be done with out an Ordinance being enacted. But what I am really confused about is why DCED would have any say in the matter.
ReplyDeleteThe inspection of operating daycares for purpose of continued operation has fallen on the FD as part of the Fire Code. This is not a housing code or a construction code unless alterations to the building were taking place. Neither the housing nor building inspectors (which are under DCED's umbrella) would be doing these inspections.
The Pa UCC allows for Single Family Dwellings to be used as daycares under specific conditions as set forth in Section 403.23 of the regulations, that's when these inspections would fall under the building inspectors, but only to the extent that there is a change in the in the use, once CO'd, the continuing operation inspections fall under the FD. If this building is a SFRD (which there a many in Allentown), CM detectors are not required (hence the Ord. being passed, not a bad idea).
My Friends,
ReplyDeleteIt isn't as easy as going to Amazon or the local hardware store and installing the units yourselves. These have to be hardwired and installed professionally with around the clock monitoring. Contracts between the daycare and the monitoring agencies have to be initiated. This is quite an expense to spring on a business, especially if it is a financially struggling business. Just another point of view. Peace !
"I completely understand and agree with you position as to how any delay in implementation could be be done with out an Ordinance being enacted. But what I am really confused about is why DCED would have any say in the matter."
ReplyDeleteIt does not have any saY. City Council had a previously scheduled hearing with DCED the day after this near tragedy, and the subject came up. DCED in fact acknowledged this does fall under the purview of the fire dept. when inspections are conducted.
I am surprised that anyone would think of this as a simple issue. If you pass an ordinance, there is code to follow suit. You just don't stick a detector up on a wall and consider it done. There are more than 150 daycare that would require inspection and require guidance about the number needed in a facility and where they need to be installed. That takes time people. That means if the ordinance takes effect October 28th, all daycare would need to be in compliance as of that date. Think first before knee jerk responses.
ReplyDelete"His refusal to follow the plain letter of the law could have killed 32 people."
ReplyDeleteTrue.
1017 the states failure to act on this is troubling as well.
ReplyDeleteDid council order order an inspection of each daycare? Was each daycare notified in writing? Was this an arbitrary date that would really require a full year to implement? What orders were imposed by the fire inspector?
ReplyDelete