At last weeks Council Meeting, at-Large Councilor Bob Bailey briefly addressed my poll council comments asking for concrete answers regarding the issues surrounding the juveniles selling water on our streets:
That committee Councilor Bailey speaks of is the one formed with Mayor Maggard, Ward 4 Councilor Lori Elmore, City Attorney Michael Bivens, Police Chief Crispen, Council President Tom Potter and at-Large Councilor Karen Conison (who I was told had scheduling conflicts).
While its admirable they would gather to find solutions for the issues surrounding juveniles selling wares on our streets, due to various vested interests, prejudices and fears amongst those in this committee, it gives rise to serious doubts they can perform the task before them with as thorough a consideration as possible towards justice and right for the community’s benefit. Here is what lies underneath those concerns and doubt:
Mayor Kim Maggard: The Mayor has spent several years and bet her entire political career on, not only her ‘vision’ of largely changing the dynamic of Whitehall but, in my opinion, riding out her 3rd term on the community’s shoulders to shouted glory. There has been a great deal of time and energy and planning and money that has went into all this change. I can assure you, she is NOT going to allow it all to get destroyed in a firestorm of racial misperceptions as created by the unsubstantiated, misplaced accusations of Councilor Lori Elmore. No amount of justice or community right is worth all her efforts being dashed. Therefore, the Mayor has a HUGE vested interest in seeing this issue ignored or swept under the rug, despite the harm it continues to bring to the community. Note then, her complete silence on this matter.
Chief Mike Crispen: A month or so ago, the Chief came to Council after it had passed Ordinance 049-2020:
While Chief Crispen spoke on the matter of Ordinance 049 and issues within the police force in relation to racial unrest in the country, morale of the department, etc., the core of his message, to me, was this:
It is a striking and heartfelt explanation as to the rightful and alarming concerns of the Whitehall PD right now. However, in this speech, (the full video is available on Youtube and is worth the full viewing):
https://youtu.be/iTt3yLxpWEQ
while the Chief speaks to the department’s hesitancy to pro-actively do their job due to troubles rightly perceived to be a threat to the officers, I believe that same heightened threat and concern can also lie underneath the proactivity of police action when it comes to juveniles behavior and actions while selling things on streets and corners. That threat which stems from unsubstantiated cries of racism being irresponsibly bandied about along with this kind of threatening hyperbole from the City Attorney, as seen here:
Given the current explosive climate between the Black Lives Matter movement and Police across the nation, it is no stretch of the imagination to believe then that the Police are perhaps a bit skittish when it comes to doing their job in relation to anyone whose skin color isn’t white, as is the case with several selling water or, as Councilor Elmore called them, “little black kids”. This is due to worry that public misperceptions (as Attorney Bivens clearly illustrates with his story) may erupt into unjust, out of control actions upon Whitehall itself. It is a very short distance then from that, to gather that the Chief and Police department saying this isn’t a safety issue and downplaying its effects upon the community (as communicated by Attorney Bivens) might not be related so much to the truth as it is the chilling effect Councilor Elmore and Attorney Bivens wrongly exerted assertion and hyperbole have infused into this legitimate community concern, as Chief Crispen alludes to in the video. Those chilling effects which may have a part to play in Police (and Administration and Council’s) minimization or inaction regarding behavior and actions of some water sellers.
As such, I believe his vested interests prevent impartiality on his part in regard to the decision-making processes with regard to the issues at hand, which include protecting and watching out for the Police Department and Mayor’s interests (see: her vested interests above). His words could say one thing but because of the inherent conflicts-of-interest he brings to this process, it casts doubt on the end decision’s veracity. As such, his inclusion in this particular committee lacks impartiality for the most just outcome for the community.*
City Attorney Michael Bivens: I think Attorney Bivens has made his positions pretty clear, those which show his prejudices as he participates in a committee which should have (and demand) his impartiality in any decisions made:
Ward 4 Councilor Lori Elmore: Councilor Elmore’s positions have been made inordinately clear: because she believes that some of the complaints being made about juveniles selling water are racially-based (unsubstantiated), why would she ever do anything tangible to solve and regulate the situation on issues otherwise when color seems to be so all-encompassing for her? I have not heard her address the specific complaints relating to the core issue of behavior and actions but rather only: their skin color, racism, and solutions to make them adhere to safety issues but, no acknowledgment or counsel or repudiation of the bad behavior itself. Therefore, she has obvious and clear prejudices when making decisions regarding regulation of sales to offset bad behavior and actions (the core issue at hand). As such, it impedes her ability to make clear-headed and just decisions regarding the legitimate concerns and complaints which arose in the first place.
Council-President Tom Potter: President Potter has a close association with Mayor Maggard. He was the President of the Whitehall Community Improvement Corp. which bought up properties, that which helped to see Mayor Maggard’s vision of eliminating ‘blight’ a reality. So too, he was the leader of the ‘Yes on 37’ campaign to open up a 3rd term for Whitehall politicians (which raised nearly $40,000), that which ultimately benefited Mayor Maggard and her ‘Team’. As she wants is as he wants. If not, he wouldn’t have shown so much support of her and her ‘vision’. As such, his prejudices are clear: if its not in HER interests (see: her vested interests above) its not going to be in his. His vested interests then prevent him from offering up the clearest, most just decision in regard to the community.
at-Large Councilor Karen Conison: I was told she had a time conflict with the meeting and so wasn’t able to be a part of it.
Given all the allegations towards some of the juveniles selling things on our streets and the resultant rightful outrage by those community members, they expect, not undue or harsh or unjust decisions regarding the juveniles but rather, merely, right and just action and regulation to prevent these same things from happening in the future. That which the citizens deserve the clearest, least prejudiced response to by those elected to serve them and not those official’s own self-serving interests. This entire group, in my opinion and analysis, does not represent that obligation nor show, in all their clear conflicts of interest through their vested interests, that ability to serve up that clear and just decision the community expects from them.
We shall see…we shall see.
*Given Mayor Maggard’s disrespect to the Public Trust and complete aversion to heeding the wrong of conflicts of interest, it is no surprise that she continues to do so. As she has shown time and again in her past, heeding conflicts of interest in order to gain your trust in her would be foolish (as you give it to her regardless). Besides, they really only just get in the way of what’s best for her and, because you allow this from her, she does it time after time. As for this situation, those ignored conflicts of interest threaten impartial decision-making and are done so to clearly shoo away fiery conflict, that which threatens to bring great harm to her years of work (as well as to, as usual, shut up her fiercest critic). That is why this committee is brimming with conflicts of interest and zero citizens who can offer non-political input.
Whitehall Watchblog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.