Records available through July 31, 2026, show that Commissioner Eric Fairchild initiated Upper Allen Township’s land-preservation referendum effort. Preliminary work began privately in April, the full Board became involved in May, and the Board officially authorized the consultants at its May 20 public meeting.

• · Dec 17, 2025: Commissioner Fairchild proposes prioritizing land preservation and including it in the 2027 budget at the Board of Commissioners (BOC) meeting.

• · Feb 5, 2026: Ryan Szuch (Grow Conservation) emails Commissioner Fairchild noting prior discussions with Commissioner Fairchild about using his organization for the effort.

• · Apr 6, 2026: Commissioner Fairchild directs the Township Manager to schedule a multi-party Zoom meeting with staff, Commissioners, Grow Conservation, and Natural Lands.

• · May 11–12, 2026: All five Commissioners meet with the Township Solicitor, Grow Conservation, and Kyle Rose (principal at Natural Lands). Commissioner Fairchild forwards nine critical questions raised by the Solicitor for the consultants.

• · May 20, 2026: The Board votes 5-0 to hire both entities. Natural Lands ($15,000) is named primary consultant to handle public education, FAQ drafting, referendum language, mapping, and four public meetings. Grow Conservation ($5,000) is engaged for focus groups and outreach.

• · May 22 – Jun 2, 2026: Commissioner Fairchild sends multiple direct emails to staff and consultants without copying the rest of the Board.

• · Jun 4, 2026: Natural Lands requests $2,000 for an additional meeting. The Township Manager clarifies that staff did not request it—assuming it came directly from Commissioner Fairchild—and emphasizes that staff must serve as the sole point of contact to avoid confusion.

• · Jun 9–10, 2026: Natural Lands abruptly pulls back from the project. Kyle Rose submits a formal letter to the Township Manager (withheld under the RTK request). The Manager responds expressing understanding, noting that Natural Lands had always preferred a longer, more measured timeline.

• · Jun 11, 2026: Szuch emails staff regarding the shifting timeline, noting Commissioner Fairchild left a voicemail suggesting Grow Conservation "take over"—a role Szuch notes he has not contracted for.

• · Jun 16, 2026: Commissioner Fairchild promotes a front-page Carlisle Sentinel article on the referendum, calls an executive session on the Natural Lands "situation," and brings in Silver Spring Township representatives to discuss running a referendum without consultants.

• · Jun 18, 2026: The Township Solicitor sends a "Confidential Settlement Correspondence" (heavily redacted) to Kyle Rose. Rose acknowledges receipt and agrees to present work-to-date at the June 22 meeting.

The Structural Problem

• We now find our Board of Commissioners rushing toward a referendum vote that their primary expert consultant was not comfortable pursuing on this accelerated timeline.

• This paper trail demonstrates a fundamental breakdown in local governance. Commissioners are elected to establish policy; professional township staff are hired to execute that policy free from political bias or arbitrary deadlines. When individual elected officials bypass staff, dictate operational details, and drive out hired experts, the public interest suffers. Much like the handling of the Bishop Bridge project, this situation highlights the predictable chaos that ensues when Commissioners step out of their policy-making role and try to run the day-to-day operations themselves.

A review of Upper Allen Township’s Right-to-Know records found repeated acknowledgments that the proposed open-space referendum process was operating under significant time pressure.

The records do not state that placing the referendum on the ballot was legally impossible. They do, however, show that the compressed schedule affected several important parts of the process:

• Township officials said late-arriving tax information left officials and the public with “no time to review it.”

• The consultant warned that the timetable might be too short to obtain additional review of the public survey.

• Survey finalization was described as requiring a “quick review,” with delaying its release presented as the alternative to rushing it.

• Commissioners were given very little time to provide feedback on survey questions.

• Focus groups were organized under acknowledged “time constraints,” on a “very accelerated timeline,” and with “very short notice.”

• A meeting request could not be fully accommodated because of the limited notice.

• Supporting materials including a preferred map, printed presentation, and other information—might not be completed before the scheduled meetings.

The records also contain concerns from a Planning Commission member and Township residents that the referendum was moving too quickly to allow proper transparency, public awareness, research, development, and consideration of its potential effects.

Taken together, these records show that the ballot deadline did more than establish a target date. It compressed public outreach, document preparation, data review, survey development, and opportunities for meaningful public and official evaluation.