There is currently a war being ramped up behind the scenes in Whitehall, within City Hall and without. It is a war for power and ethics being waged on the battlefield of high expectations using words as artillery. The forces of that war are amassing as of this writing, with the Davids on one side and the Goliaths on the other. The ‘Goliaths’ in eager  anticipation of a commission’s recommendation that has the possibility of allowing them even more time in power: to keep it, amass more, etc. The ‘Davids’, in edge of your seat dread, hoping that all the conflicts present, now and in the future of such decisions, will not allow the disrespect of our laws, yet again, to further allow for the blackening of our government’s character.

As I have noted on this blog, there has been a vote to consider upping elected leaders term ‘limits’ from two to three. Arguments made have been that there has been ‘progress in the last 3-4 years’, newly felt pride in the city from this ‘progress’ and ‘immense turnaround’. They then also argue that ‘8 years is not enough’ and ‘can’t accomplish everything in two terms’. May I say that changing the Charter should never be done as a means of reward, as these statements make it sound.

As well, while this body talks so much about term limits, the elected officials who stand to gain if these considerations are turned into actual recommendations, are sitting right there watching and listening. So…if indeed these considerations do turn into recommendations made to Council, it will then be their job to decide if any recommendations then make it to the ballot. On council there are five members who could directly benefit from their vote to send it to the ballot, they are

at Large Councilpersons Bailey, Conison and Kantor

Ward Councilpersons Rodriguez and Morrison

Add to that all their buddies in the system that would benefit and you also have:

Mayor Kim Maggard, Council President Jim Graham and Auditor Dan Miller. That’s eight out of ten of the elected positions available in Whitehall government. Having watched them now for 9 years, this is how I believe it will all play out:

If the recommendation that all term ‘limits’ be raised from two to three (this is a ‘compromise’ between ending term limits or just prolonging them to ‘three’). The decision, of course, will be put in the hands of the council, some of whose hands are filthy with conflict of interest. They will pretend that they’ve been put into a difficult situation rife with conflicts of interest but, the only way to do it right is not to let it drop but to ‘let the citizens decide’ (After all, they’re just the go-between of the commission and the voters, they’re really innocents in the matter just tryin’ to do the right thing…yea, right. Convenient outcome benefitting themselves; the enterprising, morally repugnant power-grabbers some of them are. It’s really amazing how all these things come together which will ultimately benefit people who certainly don’t deserve this ‘benefit’). If the recommendation goes to council and the council takes it to the ballot, a committee will be formed and purse strings will burst open to help influence the election for their own benefit. Mark my words. It happened when they wanted Jacquelyn Thompson out and convinced you it was a ‘people’s revolt’ yet, it was nearly entirely financed by the government insiders themselves who wanted her out. Convenient. And don’t underestimate the power of influence, that of the ‘leaders’ and that of the money used to create signage and materials all designed to sell you on ‘three’ terms.

So, given this scenario, the council and the President of Council (1st in line to the mayor) and the Mayor herself, want to make certain the image given off of them is nothing but positive and glowing: Kudos and huzzahs from council to mayor after her ‘state of the City’ speech (really a political program, the production level heightened for maximum Maggard-shining) lots of buffing by government insiders and sycophants in general. This praise everyone is more than willing to vocalize and shout but who won’t truck criticism of elected leaders nor speak publicly about public legislation the mayor creates! They’re super vocal about their love of each other but silent towards a ‘David’ who dares to criticize them or ask questions regarding rights and the Constitution. That’s where I, and others, come in.

After they ignored my concerns (several times) over legislation, I felt it was time to take my rightful anger over their ignoring obligations to constituents and let the citizens know who these people are. It started with this meme I created…

One councilperson vented their feelings with me over it and while the others were silent, you could tell they had feelings about it that they wouldn’t express. Silent indeed.

This meme then, while true based on their public silence regarding questions and concerns over public legislation, makes them look (rightly) bad. That can’t be good for a possible ‘third term’ situation. I then released the same meme again but saying it with words I’d used in a video on this very topic…

Again, while true, this certainly does nothing to burnish the image of a third-term candidate. Their unwillingness to adhere to the obligations of their positions as elected public officials with the public (even when its one of their most dogged critics!) is a sign of their character alone. 

So, tensions are escalating. There is the possibility that they could all be eligible for more terms so they must look good in the public’s eye. That awful Gerald Dixon is a meany raking them across the coals with his memes and his constant vocalizing ( From Facebook: “My recommendation for you is a social group of some sort, involving an interest you share with other participants”), and of course, they can’t have that. Its spoiling their party. So, on Facebook, the mayor’s couple of most ardent supporters spent their time countering these memes and blog posts by degrading me, calling me ‘rude’, ‘obnoxious’, ‘toxic mouth’, ‘bully’, ‘asshole’ and instead of engaging in adult argument, called my writings nothing more than a  ‘manifesto’ full of ‘big fancy words’. All of this is, normally, fine by the way. This citizen criticizes elected officials, some feel that its tit for tat to criticize me. What bothers me most (and should you too) is that too many don’t make arguments or debate merits, but simply resort to name calling and belittling, no doubt to counter my efforts to expose them and to satisfy some revenge for my having went after those they celebrate and cheerlead. One even called the mayor, ‘my mayor’. (You mean ‘our’ Mayor, right? If I can’t criticize ‘your’ mayor, when is she ‘my’ mayor and I can criticize her?)

So, while this war for ‘their’ third term possibilities heats up, you’re gonna see a lot of back and forth. From my standpoint, I’ve been alerting you to their wrongful behavior now for 9 years. I’m not new to this, nor are their lack of ethics. However, the stakes have the ability to really ‘up’ now (we’re talking legacies here) and so the tolerance for my criticism and the blowback of it is really gonna intensify if all these considerations come to fruition this year, make no mistake. I may simply be, as one Facebook wag called me: a ‘looser’, but I’m just as pissed off with my elected officials as ever before because they think they can ignore and disrespect one citizen (as vocal as he is) because the rest of the citizens do little to nothing to call them out as well. Accountability folks. If you can’t spend just a little time rightfully holding your elected officials accountable, what exactly are you doing?

Unfortunately, our Republic wasn’t just founded on sunshine and cheer squads, there was some actual blood and criticism and stuff. Just because we won independence over 200 years ago, doesn’t mean there’s not still things that need our attention. Authoritarianism never sleeps folks, nor corrupt people. It is our job, as observant and caring citizens to always monitor that which has the ability to waylay our country/state/city. That is my sole intent these last 9 years. Accomplishments aren’t simply what ‘things’ you’ve done but are based on how you did them too. Its not enough that some at city hall ‘did things’ but that, when given the opportunity to do it right and well and with ethical principles, they chose to disrespect their positions, our government and the citizens themselves with immoral, underhanded, authoritarian corruption. Its as simple as that and when they are judged, the entirety of their performance must be considered, not just the gold brick they dropped at your doorstep. That is what my scrutiny has offered for 9 years; the entirety of their performances as elected leaders, not simply what the great and powerful Oz served up for your simple consumption.