Below are revisions to Chapter 745 of the codified ordinances of the City of Whitehall, Ordinance 024-2018. This is Mayor Maggard’s doing, that which I claim are based on nothing more than Facebook hysteria regarding people coming to citizen’s doors. It is officious and an authoritarian overreach I believe was designed to not only pull more money out of people’s wallets but tighten Mayor Maggard’s fear-based authoritarian grip on the tapestry of our society’s liberty and society. It is an offense to both.

When the mayor introduced this at a Council Committee meeting, while there were a couple questions, no one at the table used critical thinking to challenge what can and would be so authoritarian of a law on our community. As a result of their lacks critical thinking exhibited, I myself introduced concerns and questions I had and that anyone might who were to actually play devil’s advocate when the mayor brings forth community-changing legislation. My comments at the following meeting two weeks ago follow the ordinance revisions below. After that, there is more narrative.

Here then are the comments I made at the following Council meeting (two weeks ago):

‘Last week the mayor brought forth a draft piece of legislation amending a codified ordinance regarding Vendors and solicitors. Sitting in the back, I was alarmed at a lack of interest paid it by any of you. Outside of a couple questions by Councilman Bailey, there really wasn’t anyone who used critical thinking skills to play Devil’s Advocate, for the benefit of the people they’re supposed to be representing. As a citizen, I find it frustrating.
So then, let me use this opportunity to play the critical role of devils advocate for you.
Unless there are statistics showing abduction, rape, murder or home invasion against Whitehall citizens by vendors and solicitors I would see no justification for changes to the law. Inconvenience or irritation of personal intrusion is not justification to add more laws, fingerprinting and background checks of people selling products, more paperwork, more government bureaucracy that will complicate things and further strangulate an already overburdened liberty. Bigger government, more employees. More employees, more tax dollars needed, more tax dollars needed, less money in the citizens pockets and for who and for what? I have NEVER heard of this being a problem before in all the years I have lived here. Why now? What has become so alarming now? Its more diminishing and penning in of our society, as well as more illogical, fear-based laws.
As well, you talk about it affecting kids selling candy and cookies and while they also fit the exact definition of a peddler as defined in the legislation, you express a hopeful belief that no one would call the police if kids haven’t the defined requirements to peddle. I’m sorry but this is allowing different treatment for one person or group than another which goes against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. A part of a larger document you swore an oath to support.
There is also a portion which prohibits peddling and soliciting on Sundays and legal holidays, which sounds exactly like the old blue laws based on religion. Our shared society is made up of varying people, as the government which represents all of them, no one day is different than another in regard to selling citizens something. I remind you of the 1st amendment in regard to making any law respecting an establishment of religion.
So too, citizens calling the police department because someone didn’t display a lanyard or disrespected their ‘no-knock’ wishes? A department, I remind you, which is overburdened and already can’t find the time to catch the many speeders who menace our streets, diminishing our quality of life. The mayor and others poo-pooed truck legislation a few years back because the fear was in tying up officers time regarding truck weights but, they have all the time in the world to respond to unregistered salespeople?’

That was where I ended my comments for the prescribed time allotted. As a result, I didn’t finish what I had to say. For this blog though, I include them for your interest:

‘It seems to me then that with this legislation requested and prepared by Mayor Maggard that she seems less interested in personal liberty and supporting our Constitution and more interested in imposing fear-based authoritarianism on our home.
Until you (Council) wrench yourselves from the gravitational pull of Mayor Maggard’s power and campaign finance beneficence you are useless to your constituents, those who elected you and whom you owe the lion’s share of your attention and whatever critical thinking skills you may possess to serve them with. Until then, your unchallenging passivity and kneeling genuflection to a separate branch of government is insulting to the citizens and disgusting to our Republic.’

At the end of the meeting all I heard back from them in reply was one or two, ‘thanks for commenting’ but no one had the courage to reply. It’s really quite disgusting. They have all the time in the world to ask questions and formulate thoughts and opinions on matters that effect the public, but they haven’t anything to say in response to a citizen’s concerns, and in particular, Constitutional concerns?!

As a result of their silence, I then wrote them all a letter via the Council office and Clerk Mary Freimark. I was told that all the council members received it last week but, I still never heard back from any of them. The body of the letter is below:

To: Councilpersons Bailey, Heck, Morrison, Elmore, Conison, Kantor and Rodriguez
Re: Amendments to Chapter 745 of the codified ordinances of the City of Whitehall

March 8, 2018
Dear Representatives,
At this weeks council meeting I spoke about the things I saw as flawed or concerning in regard to Mayor Maggard’s revisions to Chapter 745 of the codified ordinances. I also spoke of my concern with all of you that there wasn’t enough of or a proper stance of, devil’s advocate in response from you regarding the alarming authoritarianism of this ordinance, which included my argument that it is violating our Constitution, specifically the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Unfortunately, but not unexpected, if I got any response from you at all, it was tepid and non-committal with ‘thanks’ for commenting. However, what I spoke of and what my concerns were, are of the highest import and as such beg much more in response from you, that which you owe not only citizens like me whom you represent but also our Constitution, which you swore to support.
As such then, I respectfully request a response from you. I have argued, specifically, how this legislation violates our Constitution, now it is your turn to respond. If you agree with me, I expect a response saying so. If you do not, I expect your learned response arguing how it is that I’m wrong. Silence will not do. The people of Whitehall deserve the fullest measure of your participation as their representatives that you have a responsibility to give. So too, the people deserve to actually hear your takes on this legislation’s heavy-handed officiousness (background checks, fingerprinting, heavy fees, etc.). Before you pass legislation like this with such liberty-strangling directives, I believe I and other citizens deserve to hear your justification for this ordinance’s amending. Perhaps citizens, like me, are paying attention, perhaps not but, the right to hear explanations from their representatives is not beholding to the amount of people inquiring but rather, that they do so in the first place. As such then, I eagerly await each of your replies.

Thank-you,
Gerald Dixon

So then, at tonight’s meeting (3/20) I spoke to them about this concern that I’d received no reply and that it was unacceptable for them to remain silent on legislation and that they owe citizens (not only me) an explanation and that I expected it of them in their opportunity to address the public during ‘Poll Council’. Surely they have assembled feelings and opinions on the matter by now. (This was also the meeting where several people from Woodcliff came in and spoke). At meetings end they all expressed how they ‘couldn’t’ discuss the ‘Woodcliff matter’ because it was in ‘litigation’ (this is ALWAYS their excuse. The citizen’s representative’s tongues and hands are eternally tied by litigation). They addressed that but said nothing on the matter of the revisions to Chapter 745. Nothing. (and there was no litigation with it which would compel their silence) Their silence is complicit of the wrong the Maggard administration is perpetrating on our community and it was with intent that our legislators withheld their thoughts and opinions from me/us.   When the meeting was over I went up to the dais and told them how shameful they all are for not speaking on something they have an obligation to the citizens to.

For fairness’ sake, Councilperson Joanna Heck came up to me and told me that she was going to speak with me the week prior but that she didn’t because I’d cut out early due to dull end-of-meeting discussion about council rules and procedures. She then made the offer to have ‘coffee and a conversation’ but I declined, here’s why: Whether with intent or not, she offered what an otherwise silent council most often offers the public in regard to knowledge; the private conversation in the hallway, in the parking lot afterwards. I told her that I was inquiring for the knowledge of the public, not simply for myself and so, a private conversation would end up being, a) hearsay if they wish to refute anything and b) not knowledge rightly extended to ALL the public this legislation will effect. She essentially refused any public form of explanation regarding Ord. 24-2018 and so that’s where we ended it.

During our talk, Councilman Bailey came up and interjected himself into our conversation, seemingly only to lambast me for this blog and question the ‘facts’ I put into it and I could see it was veering towards shouty anger. I told him he is a mocking authoritarian (which is how I feel) and moved back to my conversation with Councilperson Heck that he interrupted. While I appreciate Ms. Heck’s attempts to answer my letter, this whole ‘private conversation’ business ultimately benefits only them and I’m not gonna have it. This fight I engage in is done for the citizens of Whitehall who deserve better representation than team-playing, rubber-stamping mutes. For the sake of decency, for the sake of ethics and principles and open government and true representation, I demand the answers that we are entitled to. For those reasons, nothing else will do.

So…I am sickened by all of them, my own Ward Councilperson, Chris Rodriguez, the at-larges: Conison, Bailey and Kantor and even the other Wards who also owe the citizens explanations of laws they pass in their names; Elmore, Heck and Morrison. If wrong is being done to our society; democracy, it’s processes, it is their names their silent consent will tattoo upon the record. As a Whitehallian and an American, I say it is unacceptable and deplorable from our elected representatives.

As a postscript: Because the Woodcliff situation was in the spotlight on 10tv News earlier this evening, there was a news camera at the meeting tonight. (News at 11!!) As a result, some on the dais put on their friendlier public faces. Sadly for them, every person who spoke was not one of their cheerleaders. I believe they hoped the damage in front of the camera would be minimal (because it contradicts the peppermint façade they want the public to believe) but, it wasn’t.