First rule of Charter Review should be:

The first meeting of the Whitehall Charter Review Commission gathered the previous Monday evening, the 26th of February. Along with the members sat Council President Jim Graham to help them settle into their roles and answer questions they may have. So too the Clerk of Council was on hand to record the proceedings. In the audience were myself, my pen and legal pad, and Councilman Larry Morrison with a copy of the charter taking notes.

My first impression was one of awe as the members were sworn in. Regular citizens doing their civic duty (with no pay), helping to advance our democratic Republic. A lot of people fought and died for this form of government to take place and here it was, in the smallest example of it, playing out before me. Really nice to see.

As a preface to my writing on the meeting itself, I have this to say: I don’t feel right about speaking about specific members. They are currently undertaking the discussing, disseminating and debating of what to do about various things in the city charter. I feel that by tying specific things said to specific people, it would only serve to put a chilling effect on this body’s important work. I don’t want any one person to feel shy in speaking freely because they’re afraid how their individual comments will be received by the public (Although it is an open meeting and part of the public record. That record any citizen may request a written or audio transcript of). So, what you’ll read here are just the notes of what was said but not pertaining to any specific member.                                    As well, I understand, for the most part, how these are a group of citizens tasked with undertaking a civic responsibility that, mostly, haven’t done this sort of thing before. While I may have opinions, criticism and concerns regarding their decisions and opinions, it is my right to those things and all done in the spirit of argument, that which is utilized for best possible outcomes. My understanding and empathy for them and the job they have to do is utter and complete.

♦ So then, after swearing in the Chairman, co-Chair and Secretary, they started to discuss things. A couple of the members, in regard to visitors speaking to the commission, expressed how they didn’t want this process to ‘keep them here all night’. The last time I heard this lament was from detractors of former councilperson Jacquelyn Thompson asking questions and making arguments for and against legislation, as if she didn’t have a right to ask things and actually argue points in regard to legislation, that which will effect residents and their lives. I’m sorry, my feeling is; if doing this job and offering a full measure of your commitment to this civic duty is a burden then you shouldn’t have agreed to it in the first place. It shows a lack of respect and commitment towards the process no one forced anyone to undertake. If citizens and others need to speak, you have a full obligation to listen to what they have to say. Lord knows so few participate, I don’t think spectators speaking is what is gonna keep them there interminably. As well, if other members need to make their cases for or against an argument, they have that full right to be heard and not worry if their meritorious discussion is keeping everyone there ‘all night’.

♦ Another question asked was whether or not city officials have any ‘roadblocks’ regarding the charter. (Utter freedom for elected officials?!) This concerned me because the charter is for the people, not the city officials. The question should be whether it makes it harder for officials to do harm to citizens. The ‘roadblocks’ that exist now are called due process and the U.S. Constitution. The charter isn’t there to make things easier for officials, it is there to have rules and regulations for the interests of the citizens.

♦ One member said it would be good to have the mayor in attendance. (I’ll just leave that one alone, for now)

♦ One of the members enthused about term limits, a city manager position (!!) and the ‘progress’ made in the last 3-4 years. I’m sorry but, as an independent, autonomous body tasked with making changes to our city’s charter, it does not bode well to hear one of them talk glowingly about any leaders ‘job’. It shows a bias, that which suggests elected leaders being thrown a bone because they’ve done pleasing things. That possible bias which threatens to taint the decision making process, calling into question then the validity of its being. This begs the question then: are they making their decisions for the people or are they making it for government insiders? That whiff of conflict of interest is concerning.

♦ So, Sections 1 and 2 they found nothing to change. Section 3: Elections/Qualifications, there it all began; what I worried about.  It didn’t take long to hear the phrase, ‘term limits’ brought up. Some arguments made were that perhaps the ballot language the last time it appeared was faulty and so they asked who was responsible for the language. (Per the city charter, Section 17, its the City Attorney who would’ve written the ballot language. The last time it was put on the ballot it was Mike Shannon. Questioning the verbiage of a guy like Mike Shannon is silly, it impugns his ethic and suggests he either manipulated ballot language in a way which kept term limits in place or did so out of incompetence, neither of which is believable in the slightest. If they’re simply trying to unearth any excuse to question the validity of the term limits outcome, this avenue is certainly not it).                                                                                                                                                       This ‘concern’ then that the language used was faulty, I believe, is really moot and seemingly grasping at straws (why is it important they find some reason, any reason really, to point the finger at it to say, ‘there, that’s the reason its success was flawed and we have to put it on the ballot again!’ rather than a mere acceptance that it passed because that’s what the citizens wanted? How about that for a reason?! Why are they trying to find any reason to recommend it being put back on the ballot?)

Other arguments made were: why should we have term limits, perhaps making it three terms instead of only two would be a remedy (a remedy for who and for what?!) Why do any of them have issues with term limits in the first place and why? It has been brought forth three times to the ballot, once to approve it, two other times it was reaffirmed by the voting public. What about it, after three times, does it need to be revisited, particularly by every Charter Review committee?! It’s making me feel that my concerns about the appointing process have some validity.

After a bit of back and forth, it was decided that instead of ending term limits, they should just increase terms to three. Now…let me see, I wonder who is slated to be termed out with two terms coming up….hmmm….oh…that’s right…Mayor Maggard?! Bob Bailey?! Karen Conison?! Jim Graham?! For the love of God! Given the surreptitious way in which this group was assembled by Council President Jim Graham/one of them tied to Jim Graham with campaign finance/ and several being Facebook friends with Mayor Maggard and council members, (these interconnections which show conflicts of interest) is it any wonder there is room for alarm? Again, a possible bias which raises concerns of political manipulation. That sort of bias which might be good for public officials interests but not necessarily that of the citizens themselves or beleaguered ethics in public office. Again, I am reminded of this essential blogpost:

https://votedixon.com/2015/07/04/why-ethics-in-public-office-matter/                                                                                                                                                                                                         As a sidenote: It’s interesting, I, who ran for office twice within the last two years, took no money from any government insiders, have no sort of connections to government insiders (clearly free of conflicts of interest) and match the qualifications to sit on this commission, was not picked for this process and yet, I am inordinately capable in the execution of the task. (Even one of the members told me how he/she felt I should be at that table!) Coincidence? I think not. Why do you suppose that is? Is it simply due to bitterness on the part of elected leaders who feel burned by how I’ve written about the litany of their immoral service over the years, or, was I not going to be amenable to the elected officials and/or malleable enough to their influence? Were they worried I was gonna (justifiably) assail every assailable argument brought forth that they liked/wanted? Absolutely. I believe its the latter argument and that is why I have such great concern. As I stated in the last post on the Charter Review, I have grave concerns of the influence elected officials have on this decision-making body. Coupled with the conflicts of interest ignored, elected officials who are being termed out, (some of whom have been arguing for and financing the end of term limits before) it leads to cynicism of leaders and purpose and makes worrisome this stew of situations and associations, that worry which I find meritorious. The conflicts of interest alone, which are a tiresome through line for years in Whitehall City Hall, are themselves, too evident to ignore but, they were anyway. (Was this sloppy work or with intent?)

As far as their arguments go: I kept hearing how it keeps people from serving in a city without a lot of qualified applicants, how the law is ignored anyway because the council just hops from seat to seat…

As an example, here is an argument against term limits Council President Jim Graham himself made to the Whitehall News in 2013, as quoted by the website Ohio Watchdog; “The size of the pool of voters could limit the amount of people who could run for office,” Graham added. “So in a small community there might not be enough qualified candidates or enough people who feel they should step up to run.”

He also took exception to the four-year hiatus before seeking the same office again.
“If you could run for another seat, then what’s the purpose?” Graham asked.
“If you want to limit someone from running for office, OK. But this doesn’t prevent someone from running from office to office. If the intent is to limit someone holding public office, then why should that person then be allowed to run for a different public office?” (Excellent point Mr. Graham)
“It doesn’t make sense,” he said. “Either you want term limits or you don’t want term limits. You can serve then you have to sit out before you run again for anything. You can’t have both.” (See my solution below…)

So, essentially, Jim Graham said that there aren’t enough citizens qualified to run for office here in Whitehall (the inference being, a) not enough people smart enough and b) you’ve got ‘qualified’ ones now, why get rid of them?) As well, that term limits don’t stop people from jumping from one seat to another. Perhaps so but, here are the holes in his arguments:

Firstly: He was quoted as saying this in 2013, since then there have been a slew of candidates who’ve run for the various seats, including Michael Bivens for city attorney, opposition in the Mayoral election, more candidates than seats available for at-Large in 2015 and every single Ward in 2017 having two or more candidates running. The fact is, Whitehall will live or die by its ‘talent pool’, if one feels the ‘talent pool’ is lacking then what is being done to uplift that pool? As well, this notion that now when you’re in office everyone else is ‘lesser’ talent is not only shown to be erroneous but rooted only in ego-driven worry and foolishness.

Secondly: The notion that its the law that’s flawed and not the elected officials hopping from seat to seat is ridiculous. The law was put into place, that which must be respected and adhered to, not only the letter of the law but also, importantly, its spirit. They have had numerous opportunities to change a law they feel wrong and each time the voters have kept it in place, therefore, the elected officials who disrespect the spirit of the law voters approved are the problem, not the law itself. This is obviously a loophole power-hungry fevered-egos take advantage of for their own self-interest. It is an utter smack in the face to voters, some of whom (ironically) vote these people back in office despite the law or its spirit being in place. It’s madness. I remind you then of this quote;                                                                      From a Dispatch article in 2013: “This is the third time it’s gone down. The people want them kept in place, and we have to respect that,” said Councilman Chris Rodriguez, who was re-elected to his fourth term. “We had three races go unopposed, mine being one of them.” (Mr. Rodriguez was just reelected to serve on Council, his 17th through 20th years there, with the help of an endorsement from the term-limits opposing Mayor Maggard)

So, no one else is good enough to run for office, and the law should be thrown out because loopholes allow officials to disrespect the spirit of the law mandated by citizens and jump from seat to seat? Got it.

Here’s what is possible then in a voter-respectful fashion: because it is more than apparent that citizens want term limits, they should be kept. Instead of bemoaning these pesky loopholes officials keep bounding through, close them up!! Close up the loopholes!!!  (Funny that not ANY of the brain trust available at city hall all these years has seen or done anything about this or made the connection as it being the true source of the problem. Their only argument/solution, coincidentally, is the one which most benefits themselves? I mentioned this loophole years ago but, as one might expect down at City Hall, it’s never really been well received.)                                                                            As well, in light of officials concerns that the pool of qualified candidates is so lacking, what has the city itself done all these years to educate and promote and encourage citizens to not only vote but be a participant in the civic duty of their government’s processes? Instead of concentrating on why term limits are bad and why (self-centeredly) they should be eradicated, get people involved (like City Attorney Michael Bivens with Moot Court) to secure the health and vitality of our processes for the next generation leading our city. (So too, stop being so damned underhanded and corrupt for God’s sake!) But, of course, in what I have seen from too many elected officials here in Whitehall, these alternate courses don’t behoove their self-interests so, let’s just have all these people, too many of whom have questionable ethics and moral principles serving in office, more and more and more goddamned time. Its really quite shameful and is being abetted not only by those selected to be on the Charter Review commission (time and again) but also by citizens themselves who turn a blind or self-interested eye to all the wrong being done, that which I’ve pursued and exhaustively detailed in various forms, for their benefit, over the last 9 years.

♦ Lastly, outside of concern shown that council members should get a ‘cost of living’ increase, there really wasn’t anything else and so they voted nothing else for consideration for the rest of the meeting. (sidenote: salaries for council amount to a little over $100 per meeting, it is not intended as a means to make a living, therefore, ‘cost of living’ increases are moot. If anyone is relying on being a councilperson to make a living, they’ve got bigger problems than their council salary)

Next meeting:

Monday March 12th 6:30 pm

Council Committee room (behind Council Chambers)

Whitehall City Hall

Alright…FINE!