Mr. Chet Harhut
Commissioner, Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation
210 N. Office Building
Harrisburg, Pa.17120
May 27,
2009
Dear Mr. Harhut:
I am writing regarding previously submitted Danaher
Re-Examination, per Citizen Petition Request which included specific criteria.
I am following up on your phone conversation last
month with Mary Ann Gould. Mary Ann has been ill and is presently going through
surgical procedures during the next several weeks. Further, her computer crashed and she is waiting delivery and set up of
a new system, thus is not able to either email or prepare her letter. I too signed the petition and am writing on behalf of
Mary Ann and the other petitioners.
I understand that the April phone conference between
Mary Ann, yourself, Harry Van Sickle plus state lawyers was productive.
Key issue is that the Re-Examination NOT be the
same as previously and instead reflects the criteria in our Petition and the items outlined in the April phone conference. If this cannot be done, then please accept this letter with my signature as cancellation
of the Petition to Re-examine the Danaher. Hopefully though, we can proceed with a good Examination.
We have been waiting to receive the following
requested information and would like to know the status of the items on the following list:
:
- Written
Process currently planned for the Re-Examination of the Danaher.
- Written
explanation of how the above process differs from prior Examinations.
- Written
explanation of how currently planned process meets the criteria noted in our Petition.
- Suggestions
on how we can make use of Pennsylvania Professors to assist in the process and the actual Examination Mary Ann had recommended
in the phone conversation the use of such Professors who were involved in the California
top-to-bottom study/examination and the Ohio Everest examination.
- Plan
on how we, the Petitioners (plus recommended experts) can meet with the State to discuss suggestions to improve the Examination
process and meet our criteria.
Due to Mary Ann’s illness, we ask that the
Examination be deferred to the Fall rather than the Summer. This of course includes a 30 day written and confirmed notice
of Examination.
We very much look forward to Pennsylvania
employing a process of Examination that matches the best in the United States
and preferably sets higher new standards. Working together: Citizens, independent
University experts plus State Representatives, we can make it so.
We also look forward to receiving the information
outlined in this letter ASAP. This Examination process is critical and needs to be different than in the past in order to
meet the Petition criteria.
Again we prefer no Examination if it were to be
basically the same as in the past and if it is not to reflect the criteria of the Petition using the latest techniques used
in other states.
We believe a true quality process can be employed
and very much want to have the opportunity to discuss as well as review it before any scheduled Examination is set. Otherwise,
we withdraw the Petition. Hopefully this will not be necessary and instead will have an Examination process that is exemplary.
Very truly yours,
Ruth E. Matheny
Mary Ann Gould
cc. Mr. Harry Van Sickle
Deputy Secretary for Administration
North
Office Building
Harrisburg, Pa
17120
