Last time the Charter Review Commission convened (2013), like now (2018), I wasn’t aware of it happening then either. I had been going to the council meetings and yet, again, like now, I never heard word one about it, not until they talked about the Charter Review Commission coming to council with their recommendations. The scarce or no public communication about the process of, or the convening of the Commission, by anyone in power at City Hall, lent it an air of secrecy and so, it just smacked of political sneakiness (which wouldn’t surprise me in the least). Open governments keep the citizens fully and broadly informed of important considerations which effect their lives. Frank L. Stanton, the first poet laureate of Georgia, said, “The closed door and the sealed lips are prerequisites to tyranny.”

***(they don’t believe in you…they don’t trust in you)***

So, as I recall seeing, some in the commission came into a council committee meeting and talked about what they had arrived at and how. In that talk I learned that the Mayor, among others, had talked with them about things they felt important; taking the influence and gravitas of their positions with them into the meetings to let them know about the things they felt important for the Commission to take into consideration in their review process. Don’t get me wrong, I understand their right to do this, just as they’ll have that same right to do it yet again with this 2018 commission. Rather, my concern with this begs the question; who, if anyone, will be wielding influence on the Charter Review Commission this time, as well, regarding what and why? As illustrated by past actions, as analyzed below, they certainly conjure (and should) some legitimate concerns from citizens, like myself.

Last time, one of the things that came from the commission was the 3rd time term limits were questioned at the ballot. The committee decided that term limits should be ended only for Council. Mayor Maggard, at their June 26, 2013 meeting, questioned why that wasn’t extended to other elected officials (which included herself).
From the meeting’s minutes Mayor Maggard asked why term limits should be ended for some without ending them for others too: ‘Mayor Maggard asked why, or what the reason was for removing term limits for council and not for any other elected officials’. She then went on to argue why term limits were a bad thing. She essentially argued that you couldn’t attract bright, young people who wanted a career in public service if they knew they could only serve 8 years (note the term ‘career’). She is quoted as saying of term limits that they are ‘a detriment to attracting good people to run for office’ (While that is her arguable position, mine is that term limits are, in actuality, a detriment to bad people/career politicians whose position of power and influence, once obtained, can create a self-serving juggernaut of political funding and influence whose grip on power can’t be stopped and which, in all seriousness, can incrementally destroy societies, communities and our democracy itself).
From the Council Committee meeting from July 9, 2013: “Mayor Maggard asked that elimination of term limits be applied to all elected officials.” (Since, by the time of this Council meeting, the Charter Review Commission had not) What influence the mayor’s request had on council or what other influences there were, the council decided to put the commissions recommendation for term limits on the ballot and now include the Mayor, Auditor, City Attorney and Treasurer too. This is how the council themselves amended the committee’s recommendations:

The legislation was then brought forth and voted down. After consideration though (and discussion amongst who knows who), the no votes were later changed to yesses and the ordinance was voted in on Aug. 6th. to put the issue on the November 2013 ballot. Soon after this legislation was passed, an election committee was formed called ‘Your Right To Vote’ which supported the end of term limits. To that committee (no surprise), both Mayor Maggard and then-City Attorney Mike Shannon each donated $300 (Those whose future ‘careers’ in Whitehall elected office would be effected by term limits). Thankfully, the effort to end term limits was, again, defeated by the citizens. (Will the politicians ever listen to the will of the people?)                                                                                                           (Not that it matters, Chris Rodriguez, like too many of them, simply disrespect the voter’s wishes and ignore the spirit and intent of the law. He himself just got reelected (with only 8% of registered voters) to serve his 17th thru 20th years on Council!)

My question then is this; of the things that elected officials bring in to the Charter Review Commission for their consideration, who and what are they truly serving most and best; the citizens of Whitehall and our community itself or, the benefit of the elected officials themselves? Given behavior in the past, which includes the self-serving donations to end term limits and the endless cross-bolstering and financial promulgation* of ‘The Team’ (aka, ‘The Family’), I can’t but feel that it’s the second part of my question and not the first. My opinion? I think, in an overall sense, some officials are parlaying Whitehall’s socio-economic woes for their own benefit (power, influence, glory) and in so doing playing the citizen’s of my hometown for a bunch of suckers because the citizens are too trusting and therefore not paying close enough attention to either realize the depths of these official’s actions or what, if anything, they can do about it**. As an example, even former Mayor John Wolfe decried a Charter Review decision that involved input sold to them by Mayor Maggard at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

During the 2013 Charter Review process, one of the things discussed by both Mayor Maggard and City Auditor Dan Miller were cases made regarding the Parks and Recreation changing into something other than what it had been. All told, Miller made two appearances at Commission meetings, Mayor Maggard, four (One of hers was by proxy)                                                                                                                                                        From the June 5, 2013 Charter Review meeting minutes: ‘Auditor Miller said it becomes a major problem in that there are two different visions and it should be one vision directed by the mayor and focused on what is best for the entire city’. (Why is this so crucial to the city auditor that he feels the need to sell it to the Charter Review Commission for the mayor’s benefit?)                                                                                               Mayor Maggard, in the same meeting’s minutes: ‘All departments need to be accountable and get on board with what we are trying to do’ (What if they feel that what she’s doing is wrong or they disagree and/or don’t like what she’s doing? She wants to force them?). As well in the meetings minutes: ‘Mayor Maggard said she doesn’t necessarily want to take over the running of the parks, but would like to be part of that decision making body to move our vision along’. ( Note she’s not quoted unequivocally as saying, ‘doesn’t want to take over the running of the parks’ but rather, ‘doesn’t necessarily‘. I feel it says everything.  It seems by the measure of these sorts of statements, one can’t help but feel that Mayor Maggard wants everything done in the city to be adherent to her ‘vision’ and that there can be no other way, no other consideration, but hers. Mayor Maggard as the supreme leader (in a democratic plurality with separate branches of power!).

The Charter Review commission then made this recommendation in regard to a change to our charter (bold type and underlining added by me):
(a) There is hereby established a Department of Parks and Recreation to be headed by a Director of Parks and Recreation. The Mayor shall appoint the Director based upon recommendations to be submitted by the Parks and Recreation Commission which shall conduct a search and interview process and forward their top three candidates to the Mayor. The Mayor’s appointment shall be subject to the approval of the Council by a majority vote of its members. The person serving as Director at the time of enactment of this section shall continue to serve under this provision. The Director shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and may be removed by the Mayor without cause. During a vacancy in the office of, or the temporary absence or disability of the Director of Parks and Recreation, the Mayor shall appoint an Acting Director of Parks and Recreation to exercise the powers, duties and functions of the Director.

(b) The Director of Parks and Recreation shall operate and maintain all parks and recreational programs and facilities and shall direct, control and supervise employees of the Department. The Director shall attend meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission, shall keep the Commission fully advised concerning the operation and maintenance of the City’s parks and recreational programs, and shall receive and consider the comments and recommendations of the Commission concerning the City’s parks and recreation programs. The Director of Parks and Recreation shall perform such other powers, duties and functions as required by this Charter, the City’s ordinances and resolution, and as directed by the Mayor.                                                          (In other words, as already pointed out above, the ‘my way or the highway’ approach. The through-line then which can’t help but be taken is more and more power to Kim Maggard, her power and influence exponentially increasing, not by a natural order of things but rather, by the self-exertion of her extending her reach into more and more of the city’s pies)

This all then showed up as the Ordinance you see above; 054-2013. To that then, former Mayor John Wolfe showed up at the special council meeting on July 30th and said this:

While I have never been a fan of John Wolfe’s, in this area, I am in total agreement. Certain things deserve their own autonomy and not everything needs to be controlled under the umbrella of one person’s dictate. Whitehall elected a mayor, not a potentate (nor a C.E.O.) and it is endlessly galling her efforts to eradicate the built-in autonomy of differing entities within the city, and for what, her ‘vision’?                                                        It is my belief then that Mayor Maggard seeks absolute control, as well as the allegiance to her of those surrounding her which will help ensure that control. It is damning (and grotesque) that she has been able to find so many who are so uncritically seduced by her as to jettison their honor and principles (and duty to citizens) for supplicating compliance. Thankfully, the entire council at the time (pre-‘Team’ building) showed sense and restraint and defeated the ordinance unanimously. ( I believe these efforts, made in the early days of her first term, showed her how much she needed others to go to bat for her. By the next election, 2015, she’d started this ‘team’ mentality as seen below, in her election literature from the time.)                                                                             As for 2013 though, it was: Separate powers of government-1, Authoritarianism-0.

So, these are examples of people trying to wield power in the decision-making process that effects the entire community of Whitehall and how that could be a bad thing. Thankfully, more reasoned heads at the time prevailed and attempts to gain greater power were thwarted. But, are we done yet?

Prediction: I believe that Mayor Maggard wants to see the Mayor’s position change to a city manager-run form of government. It is in the grapevine and given past exertions, there is nothing to make me feel it is out of the realm of possibility. If such a thing were floated by the 2018 Charter Review Commission, then recommended by them and put into an ordinance by council to place it on the ballot and passed by the citizens, it would ultimately be in Council’s hands to ‘hire’ the city manager position…see?

If this scenario were to become a reality, my worry would be this: with Kim Maggard being in the top position now for a few years (with many people’s help, btw, thank-you Zach Woodruff, among others), it would stand to reason then that it would be easy for council to simply hire her over others, right? With open interviews for the part (as it should be done) what odds do others who aren’t Kim Maggard (but yet who are eminently qualified) have at that slot who don’t have a grip of influence on the people who can hire or fire them?  Given that too many elected officials are either joined at the hip with the Mayor by campaign contributions and endorsements that were given or taken*** and the recent sidling up to the Mayor to be on her ‘team’, its not such a stretch of the imagination to believe that, in this scenario, these ‘team mates’ could be swayed to choose what is beneficial for her (convenient, see: hands in pies). Soooo then…were this to happen, this change would give her the opportunity she seemed to desire in which to side-step those career-killing term limits that might prematurely end her ‘career’ (those limits she put in so much effort to end) and allow her to remain in power to exert her command and influence ‘running’ the city, never giving up her control of the power and influence her actions produce, nor the glory she receives in her position. This scenario then would make all these things which she’s exerted so much effort to make realities, (having this ‘team’ in a separate branch of government, an iron grip on power so important to her) seem downright advantageously coincidental, wouldn’t you say?

We shall see in the next few weeks if this prediction comes true or not. Keep your eyes open to see if she (or a political surrogate or proxy) comes to the Charter Review meetings and brings this up. If so, mark my words here as developments arise. (Depending on what happens, I will speak on the pros and cons of such a thing at a later date.)

Apropos of nothing in particular, as an FYI, it is rumored through the grapevine that Councilpersons Bob Bailey and Karen Conison are mulling mayoral runs, so too perhaps, Whitehall’s Auditor Dan Miller. Bailey and Conison will term out at the end of ’19 so one has to ask if they’re finished or have other things in mind. All would have repercussions of varying importance and, based on the city-manager possibility, interesting dynamics, so, stay tuned.

A last point is this: while city officials can offer thoughts on things they deem important (and why), while Charter Review members can elect to utterly ignore what officials bring to them (as they have), those officials opinions and appearances have the strength to effect their influence (undoubtedly), that which can be daunting and hard to ignore or bypass. As such then, I reiterate how important it is you go and watch the proceedings, don’t allow it to quietly pass by without any monitoring or think that this sort of boring governmental workings don’t matter. What transpires, what is recommended and what (and whose) influence is exerted is too important to ignore.

Monday, Feb. 26th at 6:30 pm in the Council Committee room at City Hall

*https://votedixon.com/2015/10/09/why-whitehalls-governance-is-so-awful/

**https://votedixon.com/2017/11/06/the-politics-of-perception-the-underlying-truth-whitehalls-leaders-dont-see-understand-or-choose-to-ignore

***Everyone she endorsed and/or supported financially won their council seat in 2017. The goliath of her power here in Whitehall (and her money) is what helps get her ‘team’ elected and re-elected. (The more ‘team’ members she creates and keeps, the stronger her power and the more bedrock hold she keeps on her power). Patterns matter and tell a story.

Ward 1 Council Chris Rodriguez:   Mayor Kim Maggard $250                                                      Ward 2 Council JoAnna Heck:         Mayor Kim Maggard $250                                                     Ward 4 Council Lori Elmore:           Mayor Kim Maggard $250

Leslie LaCorte, Lee Stahley, Larry Morrison and myself are the only candidates who didn’t take any money from government insiders. (Outside of Larry and Lee being government insiders)