Lititz Record Express

              T H E R E S S
S E R t ' IMG T H E U i R U I C K A R E A E O R M E A R I , i t C E M A R Y
lOOth Year ESTABLISHED APRIL. 1877. AS THE SUNBEAM
I CONSOLIDATED WITH THE LITITZ RECORD 19371 Lititz, Lancaster County, PA 17543, Thursday, January 20,1977 15 CENTS A COPY; $5.00 PER YEAR BY MAIL
WITHIN LANCASTER COUNTY 24 PAGES—No. 23
Warwick High School hosted visitors from all
over the world during AFS (American Field Ser­vice)
weekend last Friday and Saturday, sponsored
by Warwick's Student Council and the local AFS
Chapter. The visitors and their hosts, shown at the
home of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson Smith, 506 Robin Rd.,
were (clockwise, beginning with the girl wearing
glasses in left foreground of picture) Pam Smith,
Lorena Loschi from Italy, Shelia Drewen, Lars
Schultz from Sweden, Wendy Krushinski, Bill
Hadded, Keith Buchbaum, Debbie Chappell,
Melana Morant from Bolivia, Steve Palkovic, Wendy
Teaman, Lenise Menezes from Brazil, Tom Gibbet,
Patti Snavely, Ljubica Rajkovic from Yugoslavia,
Jolande Bensink from the Netherlands, Linda
Smith, Gary Derek, and Cari Jo Cavalcante.
See Story on Page 17
Hearing Set Tuesday About Boro Employees Joining Union
An important step in at­tempts
of Lititz’ public
works crew to be
represented in negotiations
by the Teamsters Union will
be taken at a hearing before
the state Labor Relations
Board Tuesday at lb: 30 a.m.
at the Lititz Rec Center,
second floor.
The Labor Board will
determine at the hearing
whether or not a petition
submitted by the Teamsters,
to represent the local
workers, is valid and should
proceed to an election.
If the Board permits an
election, then a majority
vote of the workers involved
will determine whether or
not Local 777 of the Team­sters
will be recognized as
the official bargaining unit
for the borough employees.
Under Act 195 (Public
Employees Bargaining Act),
an election can be held if:
1. Thirty percent of the
employees who want to be
represented have petitioned
the Labor Board, or
2. If the municipality
agrees to recognize the
Teamsters as the bargaining
unit.
So far, the borough shows
no inclination to recognize
the Teamsters in this
capacity, and are, in fact,
opposing the affiliation of its
employees with the
Teamsters Union.
According to Harry
Himelwright, business
representative from Local
777 in Lancaster, some
members of the local works
department have already
joined the union, which is
nearly the largest labor
organization in the country.
He said that the union had
asked the borough to enter a
joint election request with its
works crew, in which the
borough and its employees
would request the Labor
Board to schedule an elec­tion
on whether or not to join
the union, but that the
borough had responded only
“No comment.”
Under these conditions,
Himelwright explained, the
next step is the hearing
before the Labor Board.
A l t h o u g h n e i t h e r
Himelwright nor members
of the works crew will
comment on specific
grievances, the works crew
reportedly has “lost con­fidence”
that the borough’s
personnel policy will grant
them job security.
The controversy involves
only members of the street
department and the sewer
and water department. It
does not involve the police,
the borough manager, or
clerical employees.
There is also a question
about which of the borough
employees are eligible to
belong to the union. “First-l
e v e l s u p e r v i s o r s , ”
described by Himelwright as
■ those with the right to hire or
fire, are not eligible. The
Labor Board is expected to
decide whether assistant
supervisors of the various
departments are eligible for
union membership.
If the Labor Board rules
that an election may be held,
and if 30 percent or more of
the employees vote for union
representation, it would be
the first actual unionization
of municipal employees in
the Warwick area.
THIS WEEKEND - 3 Big Days To Save
DURING LITITZ
RED TAG DAYS
THURS., FRI., SAT. - JAN. 20, 21 & 22
★ SAVINGS THROUGHOUT LITITZ AREA STORES
★ TWO HOUR FREE PARKING ALL THREE DAYS
★ MANY LITITZ STORES OPEN THURSDAY
AND FRIDAY NIGHTS
★ REGISTER FOR '150 GIVEAWAY
RULES FOR REGISTRATION
1. Register your name at any participating merchant listed below. No purchase necessary.
2. Contest open to all ages; persons under 18 must be accompanied by an adult to register.
3. Prizes will be awarded as follows: $100 Lititz Shopping Dollars first prize; 2nd prize: $25 Lititz Shopping
Dollars; 3rd and 4th prizes: $10 Lititz Shopping Dollars; 5th prize: $5 Lititz Shopping Dollars.
4. Contest closes at 5 P.M. Saturday, Jan. 22. Winners will be selected at random from those who register.
R E G I S T E R A T T H E S E
Benner's Pharmacy
Bingeman’s Clothing Store
Bingeman’s Restaurant
Bob’s Save Rite
The Carpet Shop
Chicken Lickin Restaurant
Commonwealth National Bank
The Donut Shop
Dori Mae's Dress Shop
Farmer’s First Bank
First Federal Savings & Loan
D. E. Furlow 5 & 10
Geib’s Stationery
General Sutter Inn
The Gladell Shop
Glassmyer’s
Hess Men’s Wear
Jeanne’s Turquoise Nook
Klotz Kleners
Kreider Hardware Co.
r iN G M E R C H A N T S
Lads & Lassies Children’s
Apparel
Lippart's of Lititz
Lititz Book Store
Lititz Paint Shoppe
Lititz Record Express
Lititz Sewing Center
Lititz Sports Center
Long & Bomberger Home
Center
McElroy Pharmacy
Miller’s Furniture Store
The Pewter Mug
Pots & Knots
Shoes 'n Things
Spacht's Furniture Store
Stauffer's of Kissel Hill
Travis Mills Fabric Outlet
Trudi K Shop
Wilbur Choc. Factory Outlet
Woodstream Factory Outlet
ASSOCIATION
THE LITITZ RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
URGES YOU TO:
• SAVE TIME • SAVE GAS
• SAVE MONEY
SHOP LITITZ FIRST
School Board Axes Winger in
6-3 Vote against Contract
By Peggy Frailey
Warwick School Board
voted 6-3 Tuesday night
against renewing a contract
for Superintendent of
Schools, H. Dale Winger, and
set up a special committee to
select a replacement for this
top job in the school district.
Earlier in the meeting, the
Board had referred to its
attorney a request from Dr.
Winger for a one-year
sabbatical leave of absence
for the 1977-78 school year to
take additional study in
school administration.
Although Dr. Winger made
no public comment when the
vote on his contract was
taken, he told the Record
after the meeting that the
Board’s action “ jeopar­dized”
his request for a
sabbatical, and that he in­tended
to see his lawyer first
thing Wednesday morning to
take legal recourse to get it
(the sabbatical).
He said he would sue the
School Board if he had to to
get the leave.
According to Board
president, Bill Owens,
Winger is probably eligible
for the leave, and probably
will be given it. He said that
the Board had had only one
day to consider Dr. Winger’s
request, and had treated it
strictly as a personnel
matter in referring it to
legal counsel. Earlier in the
meeting, Winger himself had
told the Board he himsélf
had been “sitting on” a
similar request for a sab­batical
from teacher David
Remley since Nov. 9.
Under state law, a
superintendent is eligible for
sabbatical leave after 10
years in the state and five
years in a district. The
superintendent has to agree,
under law, to return to the
district for one year after the
leave, unless the School
Board waives this
requirement.
Complications may arise
from another section of the
school code that says the
Board may waive the
requirement “upon com­pletion
of the sabbatical.”
Winger told the Board
Tuesday that he would be
willing to return to the
district for a year after his
leave, if the Board so
desired.
Winger’s current contract
expires June 30. He is now
completing his eighth year
as superintendent of the
district. His original con­tract
was a five-year one,
which was renewed for three
years in 1974 amidst much
controversy and in the face
of a “vote of no confidence”
by Warwick teachers.
Renewal of the current
contract has also been a
controversial subject for the
past year. While it has not
triggered the publicity of the
1974 renewal, the School
Board has held numerous
S:; ^ ' ✓
Dr. H. Dale Winger
discussions on it among
themselves, with Dr.
Winger, and also with
members of the community.
One of the first duties
assigned to Bill Owens when
he took over as new School
Board president last month
was a directive from the
Board to inform Dr. Winger
that a majority of the Board
was opposed to renewing his
contract.
Owens informed Winger of
this in the' school district
office on Dec. 23, explaining
that the Board wished to give
Winger as much time as
possible to make any per­sonal
decisions before the
actual contract-voting time
arrived.
Winger would have had the
option of resigning before the
vote for renewal came up at
the January meeting.
He did not do this,
however, and his request for
j sabbatical leave came as a
■surprise to many, including
some School Board mem­bers.
According to Owens,
Winger had handed him the
letter requesting the sab­batical
on Monday night
prior to a Board committee
meeting, just one night
before the Board’s official
meeting to vote on Winger’s
qt rac t . Owens said the
letter was dated Jan. 14.
Those members of the Board
who had not attended the
committee meeting did not
know of the letter until
shortly before Tuesday
night’s official meeting.
Some contend that the
request for a sabbatical was
a ploy on the part of the
superintendent to put the
Board in a bind.
State law requires that a
superintendent be given at
least 150 days notice of
whether or not his contract
will be renewed, and that a
vote must be taken at a
public meeting.
If no such action is taken
by a School Board, the
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t i s
automatically given a new
{Continued on Page 14j
Judge Orders Sharron Simpkins to
Stop Writing Newspaper Column
By Peggy Frailey
Judge W. Hensel Brown,
president-judge of Lancaster
County Court, this week
ordered Warwick area’s
District Magistrate, Sharron
Simpkins, to stop writing a
newspaper column that
appeared for the first time in
last week’s issue of the Lititz
Record Express.
The Record first learned of
the order when it received a
letter from Justice Simpkins
stating: “Due to cir­cumstances
beyond the
control of Justice Simpkins
and the publishers of the
Record Express, the article
’From The Magistrate’s
Desk’ will not be published
as intended. We are not at
liberty at this time to divulge
the reason for dropping the
article, but it is by no means
the fault of Justice Simpkins
or this newspaper.”
Contacted by the Record,
Greg Sahd, deputy court
administrator, said that he
had notified Justice Sim­pkins
of the judicial order to
stop writing the column.
He said that Judge
Brown’s reasons were that
Justice Simpkins was sitting
in a judicial capacity and
should refrain from com­menting
on any real or
fictitious judicial matters.
“Any advise she could give
would border on legal advice
and this must come from
attorneys,” Sahd said.
Sahd said that when
district magistrates get any
requests for information,
they should be told to ask an
attorney, and if an individual
cannot do this, he or she
should be referred to the
court administrator’s office.
The newspaper column
was initiated as an
In This Issue
Business Directory 20
Church News 18
Classified Ads 22, 23
Editorial Page 4
Sports Section 6, 7
Women’s 12
educational question and
answer-type article to in­form
the public about ser­vices
available from the
district magistrate’s office,
and to answer questions
from the public on such
things as the motor vehicle
code, how to collect on a bad
check, etc. It was scheduled
to appear every few weeks in
the Record.
Justice Simpkins said that
she and other district
magistrates had been told at
various seminars to try to
educate the public about the
office of district magistrate
by giving talks at club
meetings, schools, etc., and
that she had considered the
newspaper column one way
of doing this.
Sahd, however, said that
he had received no such
instructions when he took a
basic district magistrate’s
course.
The newspaper column
was brought to Judge
Brown’s attention by Court
Administrator Ronald
Reedy, who lives in Lititz,
and who directed his deputy,
Sahd, to show the column to
the judge.
Reedy told the Record that
Justice Simpkins was “not in
the position to discuss rules
and regulations,” that this
was an “ administrative
function.”
He said that it was really a
function of the court ad­ministrator’s
office to an­swer
questions from the
public, but added that rather
than deluge his office with
phone calls, people with
questions about law should
contact their legislators,
who, he said, “make the
laws.”
“A magistrate can give
direction, but not legal ad­vice,”
Reedy said.
Asked to comment on
Judge Brown’s order,
Justice Simpkins replied, “I
feel that the people elected
me, and I’m here to help
them solve problems on a
grassroots level.”
“I think the column is a
good way to answer common
questions of the public,” she
said, adding that she had
stated in her initial column
that she would not comment
an specific cases or answer
Over $10 million worth of
property involved in fire
within the borough was
saved during 1976, Lititz Fire
Company reports, a
staggering increase over the
$407,785 reported saved from
fire damage in 1975.
The high potential fire loss
figure was due primarily to
three factory fires last year,
the largest one at Travis
Mills.
As estimated $10,574,050
worth of property involved in
fire within the borough was
saved during 1976.
Property outside the
borough limits reported
saved from fire damage is
estimated at $62,070, as
compared with $88,050 worth
of property saved outside the
borough in 1975.
However, fire loss in the
district served by Lititz Fire
Company increased in 1976
over the previous year. An
estimated $83,850 worth of
property was lost to fire
damage in the borough
during 1976, as compared
with $5,076 loss reported in
1975. Fire loss outside the
borough limits during 1976 is
estimated at $29,720, as
compared with the $5,730
worth of loss outside the
borough reported in 1975.
This sets the total fire loss
in the district served by the
Lititz Fire Company at
$113,570 during 1976, an in­crease
over the total $10,806
fire damage loss reported for
1975.
questions that should be
taken to an attorney.
“But, according to the
court administrator’s office,
lay judges are not allowed to
answer questions,” she said.
Fire calls answered by
Lititz Fire Company in 1976
totaled 98, 47 of them within
the borough and 51 outside
the borough limits. This was
an increase over the 76 calls
answered in 1975.
The calls responded to
included three factory fires,
one business, five trash fires,
seven grass fires, 10 house
fires involving chimneys,
appliances, and electrical
equipment, 11 calls involving
electrical wires or tran­sformers,
11 washdowns or
standbys at traffic ac­cidents,
13 car or truck fires,
and two bam fires.
They also included a
basement wall cave-in, a
house trailer fire, a call
involving swimming pool
chemicals, a lawn mower
fire, a farm tractor fire, a
trucking terminal fire, and a
fire at the local police
station.
Fourteen of the calls were
either false alarms or
malfunctioning alarm
systems, and six were
standbys for other fire
stations.
In all, firemen logged 71
hours of service, traveled 208
miles, and reported a total of
1,808 men answering calls.
- The fire company used
3,935 feet of booster hose
during 1976,1,900 feet of 24i>-
inch hose, 1175 feet of 24 2 -
inch hose, 6,150 feet of three-inch
hose, 62 pounds of dry
chemicals, and raised 124
feet of ladders.
Over MO Million Potential
Fire Damage Prevented
By Fire Company in 1976