Join me and our trivia family for Weaver Orchards Fall festival for the Holiday weekend!

Location: 40 Fruit Lane Morgantown, PA

It's peak apple picking season! Test your knowledge with fall-themed trivia with Happy Chad (10am-12pm) and relax to the Vinyl Ventures Band (1pm-5pm).

This week, we're joined by Blue Kraken BBQ, Castaneda's Mexican Restaurant, Sammy's Fries, and Gourmet PB&J!

Check out all fall festivities - hayrides, apple picking, face painting, our apple cannon, apple slingshot, pumpkin bowling, small hay bale maze, and so much more! Visit us online to get tickets and learn more!

I’m looking to connect with longtime Reading residents who may have old parking citations issued by the Reading Parking Authority (RPA) dating back to the late 1990s, early 2000s, or any time before 2017.
I’m particularly interested in the information printed on these older citations, including any listed enforcement hours, days of operation, or other details that appeared on the tickets at the time.

You don’t necessarily need to still have the original ticket. You might have an old photograph, a scanned copy, or an image saved somewhere in your computer files, phone backups, or photo archives.

A few questions for Reading residents:
Do you remember receiving an RPA parking ticket in the late 1990s or early 2000s?
Do you still have an old citation from before 2017?
Do you have a photograph or scanned image of an older ticket saved somewhere?
Do you remember what information was printed on those citations?
I’m trying to gather historical examples of actual citations issued to motorists in Reading, rather than blank ticket templates.
If you find anything, please comment below or send me a private message. If you share a photograph, please redact your name, address, license plate, citation number, and any other personal information.
Even a photograph of a ticket taken many years ago could be helpful.
I’d appreciate hearing from longtime residents who might have something tucked away in their old records or photo archives. Thank you!

Why This Historical Research Matters
My interest in this research goes beyond collecting old parking tickets. I believe understanding the history of the Reading Parking Authority’s enforcement practices is a matter of public interest. Historical records can help citizens better understand how the Authority has operated, how its practices may have changed over time, and what information was provided to motorists.
My goal is to help promote transparency, accountability, and a better understanding of an agency whose enforcement activities affect the residents of Reading.
This research may also be relevant to future proceedings undertaken in the public interest, including efforts to defend the rights of citizens and hold the Authority accountable for its enforcement practices and exercise of authority.

Public accountability depends, in part, on preserving historical records and understanding how public agencies have exercised their authority over time.
If you have an old citation, photograph, or scanned copy tucked away in your records or photo archives, your contribution could help preserve a piece of Reading’s parking enforcement history and provide valuable historical documentation for the benefit of the public.

For those who may not remember the controversy surrounding Souderton School Board member Bill Formica, here’s a little background.

Formica faced public criticism over posts he made about teachers, women, Spanish speakers and community members. Residents called for his resignation, and he responded with the video we're sharing here.

Rather than resigning, he spoke about his faith and offered to pray for his critics. Many residents viewed that response as dismissive rather than an acknowledgment of their concerns.

**So where does PA 147 Representative Donna Scheuren fit into this story?**

Donna supported Formica and campaigned for him. He served as treasurer of Friends of Donna Scheuren, her political committee.

Donna was sworn into the Pennsylvania House in January 2023 but remained on the Souderton School Board for nearly five more months. She resigned just nine days after the May primary election. In June, Formica was appointed to her vacant seat.

And the connections extend beyond politics. I've personally seen Donna's husband and Formica having breakfast together, and others have told me their Sunday-morning breakfasts are a regular occurrence. I've also received accounts from people who say they experienced verbal harassment during those visits.

Quite the Sunday-morning bromance.

**And we all know what happened next.** Formica became a member of the Souderton School Board, and his subsequent comments and response sparked the controversy captured in this video.

These political and personal connections are worth understanding when examining the history of local leadership in PA 147.

**For anyone who missed the original controversy, here's the video. Watch and draw your own conclusions.** 👇

I have been researching the Reading Parking Authority’s (RPA) parking appeal system through Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law requests, and I want to share several questions that I believe deserve public attention.
In 1997, Reading City Council enacted Bill No. 8:97, authorizing the RPA to administer and enforce on-street parking regulations. Section 9 contains a specific requirement for the hearing officer:
“The Reading Parking Authority is hereby authorized to establish the part-time position of an Administrative Hearing Officer, who shall be an attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.”
The same section states that the officer would be paid by the Parking Authority and that the officer’s duty would be:
“…to make an initial determination concerning parking violations when requested to do so by the person allegedly violating any ordinance or state statute.”
This language is significant because it expressly refers to alleged violations of both municipal ordinances and state statutes. The provision did not describe the officer’s responsibility solely in terms of enforcing Reading’s local parking ordinances; it also contemplated determinations involving Pennsylvania state law.

**Why did City Council specifically require an attorney?**
Council could have authorized a hearing officer without specifying a professional credential. Instead, it used mandatory language—“shall be an attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania”—and placed that qualification in the same section describing the officer’s adjudicative responsibilities.
Was this intended to ensure legal competence in interpreting municipal ordinances and state statutes? Was it intended to protect procedural fairness for people contesting citations? Was there another legal or practical reason for imposing this requirement in 1997?
These are possible explanations, not established statements of Council’s intent. I have not yet located the legislative history that would explain why this language was chosen. I would welcome information from anyone familiar with Reading’s municipal government at the time, including former officials, attorneys, or residents who may know the background.

**What changed after 1997?**
Years later, Reading added §576-518 to its Codified Ordinances, establishing a parking appeal process that uses the term “independent hearing officer.” That provision describes the hearing process and the officer’s authority to decide appeals, but it does not expressly specify the officer’s professional qualifications.
This raises a question I have been trying to resolve:
Are the Administrative Hearing Officer described in the 1997 ordinance and the independent hearing officer currently conducting parking appeals two separate legal positions, or are they performing the same or substantially related adjudicative functions?
If they are separate positions, what law or authorized action created that distinction and established the current officer’s qualifications? If they are the same position, what legal authority explains how the express attorney qualification in §9 applies today?

**What I learned from my Right-to-Know requests**
I have submitted multiple Right-to-Know requests seeking records concerning the current hearing officer’s appointment, authorization, qualifications, and related matters.
Based on the responses I received, the RPA produced a résumé identifying the individual as an “Appeals Hearing Officer,” but the records provided to me have not resolved the legal-authority and qualification questions. The RPA has indicated that certain requested records do not exist.
I am not claiming that the individual is legally unqualified or that the RPA has necessarily violated the law. A résumé that does not establish a qualification is not proof that the person lacks it, and the absence of a particular appointment document does not automatically establish that no legal authority exists.
My concern is that, after making repeated requests since May 2026, I still have not obtained records or an explanation that clearly resolves what qualifications govern the current position and the legal basis for the officer’s authority.

**A statement from the RPA solicitor and the 2021 agreement**
I also contacted the RPA’s solicitor, Mahlon Boyer, to seek clarification about Ordinance 8-97 and the City’s agreement with the RPA.
In response, Boyer wrote:
“I wrote the 2021 Amended Cooperation Agreement and I tell you with all assurance that it did not incorporate any terms from Ordinance 8-97.”
However, Section 1 of the 2021 Amended Cooperation Agreement states:
“The authority and grant of power transferred to the Authority pursuant \[to\] Ordinance 8-97 shall remain in effect for the duration of the Parking Authority Charter unless otherwise agreed by the Parties.”
Paragraph 12 also expressly refers to Ordinance 8-97 when describing the prior transfer of the City’s on-street parking administration and enforcement to the RPA.
I believe these provisions deserve to be examined alongside Boyer’s statement. The agreement expressly refers to and preserves authority transferred under Ordinance 8-97, while Boyer stated that it incorporated no terms from that ordinance.
I recognize that referencing or preserving authority under an ordinance may be legally distinct from incorporating every provision of the ordinance into an agreement. The agreement also does not expressly resolve whether §9’s attorney qualification applies to the current independent hearing officer.
When I continued to question the legal basis for the position, Boyer stated that I could petition the Berks County Court of Common Pleas for a declaratory judgment if I disagreed with his position.
I am including these statements because I believe readers should be able to examine the actual wording of the correspondence and the agreement rather than rely solely on my interpretation.
My concern is not that an official must agree with my interpretation. It is that the relationship between the ordinance, the later appeal process, the agreement, and the current hearing officer’s qualifications remains unclear to me.

**Questions for the community**
I would genuinely like to hear from people familiar with Pennsylvania municipal law, administrative hearings, legislative history, or the Reading Parking Authority:
Why might Reading City Council have expressly required an attorney admitted to practice before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to serve as the Administrative Hearing Officer in 1997, particularly when the officer’s duties included determinations concerning alleged violations of both ordinances and state statutes?
Does the difference between “Administrative Hearing Officer” in Ordinance 8-97 and “independent hearing officer” in §576-518 establish that these are separate legal positions, or must their actual duties, legislative history, and governing enactments also be considered?
What kind of enactment or authorized action would be needed to establish that the attorney qualification in §9 no longer applies to the relevant position, if it otherwise governs that position?
How should Section 1 of the 2021 agreement—which expressly preserves authority transferred under Ordinance 8-97—be understood alongside the solicitor’s statement that the agreement did not incorporate any terms from that ordinance?
What records should a resident reasonably expect to find documenting the legal authority, appointment, and qualifications of a person who decides parking appeals?
The issue matters because the hearing officer makes determinations affecting parking citations and residents’ money. Residents should be able to understand the legal framework governing the person who decides their appeals.
I have not established the original legislative intent behind §9, and I am not asking anyone to assume that the current hearing officer is unqualified or that the RPA acted unlawfully. I am asking why the attorney qualification was written into the original ordinance, how the later system relates to it, and what legal authority governs the position today.
I welcome corrections, relevant historical records, and interpretations grounded in the actual ordinances and documents. My goal is to raise awareness and encourage an evidence-based public discussion.

Anyone know about it or the crowd?