Too often I have heard  that my posts are ‘too lengthy’, ‘long-winded’ and full of ‘big words’. What these criticisms don’t take into account is that, all along, my belief has been that people are smart and can grasp the nuance of arguments presented. That is why I take so much time to present as much evidence as I have along with the reasoned arguments that bring about the logical conclusions that connect to, and therefore bolster, the evidence I’ve provided. (I was also taught that language and grammar matter) I owe it to my argument’s defense and I owe it, respectfully, to the citizens and neighbors of Whitehall.

Despite this then, this time, I’m gonna take their criticisms as the lead, and so, I wanted to leave these things with you to make your decisions, trusting in your ability to do so. So, as the kids say: ‘ima just leave this here’ and let you make up your own conclusions based on the evidence presented. This time I’ll leave it to your own powers of logic and reason and allow you to meet your own conclusions. Watch the short video of our city attorney and then look at the city records, those which were drawn up for the city nearly ten years ago.

Here, Whitehall City Attorney Michael Bivens talks during ‘Officials Reports’ about the Roses parking lot adjacent to Krogers (on the old Big Bear Plus site).

I put in the red check marks to illustrate that which they’ve attended to.

Whitehall Land Use and Re-Development

This page is an overview of the Strategic Land Use & Economic Re/Development Plan. It lays out why the plan is being implemented.

Here, the ‘Strategic Sites’ prospectus lays out the pros and cons, for city leaders, about the former Big Bear site. Land, btw, which is not theirs. Imagine finding city plans drawn up for re-development of YOUR property unbeknownst to you.

Strategic Site Economic Impacts

Glorious Design Plans

From 9 years ago

City Attorney Bivens mentioned both ‘code enforcement’ and ‘parking lot’ in his comments.

As a side note, in case no one has considered this aspect of the Roses’ parking lot situation, here it is: everyone and their brother races across the Roses parking lot in order to get to Kroger’s. No one has paid attention to proper routes to Kroger since it was Big Bear and had its striping in the lot. If there are potholes and damage to the lot, I would posit that it has been made primarily by folks using it to go back and forth either to Kroger’s or to cut across and avoid traffic at Hamilton and Main. So, primarily blaming Roses for the parking lot damage doesn’t really address the full story of the wrong.

But what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?  Matthew 16:26

At the council meeting on Tuesday, August 21st, during the ‘Officials Reports’, City Attorney Michael Bivens spoke about the Woodcliff situation. He opined about his coming into an already drawn out situation after he took office from his predecessor Michael Shannon, who brought him up to speed. He also took time to praise the Mayor and Council and read from Judge Hawkin’s order. Here then are his comments on Woodcliffe in their entirety.

In his speech, I noted how he spoke of the judge’s assessment that Woodcliffe was not an eminent domain action but a nuisance abatement case.

During Council President Jim Graham’s reading of the various draft legislation I took notice of this piece regarding Woodcliffe:

In the piece of ordinance referring to the $9,000,000 of taxpayer money going to buy the property, it mentions ‘support of economic development and job creation’. This caught my eye, in particular after the City Attorney’s speech mentioning nuisance abatement. As such then, I spoke a second time that evening, that which was never my original intent.

Without aid of my usual notes, I spoke off the cuff. Nuisance Abatement, nuisance abatement, nuisance abatement, and yet…

At Council’s end three councilperson’s chose to praise, variously, Mr. Bivens/the administration, etc. as well as two of them wanted to remind listeners that there are ‘rumors’ out there, as opposed to ‘facts’, which I assumed was in reference to Woodcliff. (It has been edited by me to show only that which I’ve mentioned in this paragraph). Here is that piece of video:

Following this, Council President Jim Graham decided to take a crack at opining about the Woodcliff situation, ostensibly for my benefit, after my second ‘poll public’. Here is the verbatim transcript of what he said: “I do wanna say one thing regarding Woodcliffe. You know, when we started out it was about nuisance abatement, there was nothing in what we did originally that had anything to do with economic development but, over a period of time one thing can lead to another…and, that’s not saying it will be economically developed but, you know, that certainly was not an intention and, you know, sometimes there’re by-products of things that you do. And so, having said that I just wanted to comment cause I know you would like some little explanation, and being one of the people who was here originally, that is, what I just said, it started off trying to take care of some problems that were, people living over there were having, that we were having, that the police were having, the health department was having and that was, we couldn’t do it on our own so we had to take…ask for the help of the courts.”

There is important stuff in what he stammered out, so, here is the video of his comments where I have zeroed in on the City Attorney’s reactions as he spoke. I included a minute or so of Mr. Graham’s comments before his Woodcliff commentary so you could see the difference in the city attorney wrapping things up and his alertness and interest in Mr. Graham’s comments once he starts talking about Woodcliff. Listen to what Mr. Graham says while watching Mr. Bivens:

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

While anyone with a modicum of sense would applaud and feel righteous about one’s city taking on, not just blight but, ‘slum’ conditions where owners/landlords are failing to keep their properties up to livable standards where their tenants live and pay rent, I also believe there is more to the story than what Whitehall city leaders present (that which I’ve outlined previously here on this blog).

When there is question in regard to other motives behind actions (development) and some players ethical reputations have been called into question, it taints the entire process and rightly makes suspicious their actions and motives. Such is the case here and why, as I have touted all these years, elected officials with strong ethical principles and keeping sacrosanct the public trust are vital to the dealings one undertakes in executing the citizen’s business. Without respecting and adhering to the principles of the public trust, they themselves engender this rightful suspicion. Got it? THEY THEMSELVES.

I believe some do it because they believe they can due to a notion some have that either, a) citizens aren’t paying attention (which they generally aren’t) and therefore unacquainted with the complexity of their actions or b) citizens aren’t bright enough to know what the truth is. Citizens in the dark is good for those at City Hall. Citizens being apprised of goings on at City Hall, ala this blog, is good for citizens. When a group is infuriated by information being shared, you know something is wrong. (See photo below)

Council President Jim Graham standing over me, a citizen, berating me for calling him out for not respecting the public trust in adhering to conflicts of interest.

So it is then that I have issues with what our government is doing to abuse the processes we have entrusted them with. It’s my belief, given all that I’ve seen and witnessed first hand, that what they say, what they present to you as the ‘City of Whitehall’, is not the whole story. This counter-argument is being presented then as a look at that other viewpoint which doesn’t behoove the nicely wrapped package they’re all trying to smooth into your hands and hearts. That ultimately disrespectful package which, I’ve long-maintained, contain razor-wire and shards of glass. So then…

Counter-argument #1: The trustworthiness of elected officials as messengers.

City Attorney Bivens, Mayor Maggard, Whitehall Council, among so many, have touted this Woodcliff deal for sometime now. They are its cheerleaders, always touting what I feel is really the subterfuge; fighting blight in this land-locked town. I feel certain that Mr. Bivens and others at City Hall and across Whitehall truly feel that awful living conditions are deplorable and that it is a city’s duty, when certain conditions are not being met, to step in and take action, absolutely. However, I maintain, given the time, energy, massive cost to taxpayer dollars, alternate plans for the sight commissioned by Whitehall itself and certain leaders intensive focus on redevelopment and arms-length relationship with ethical principles, that what they’re saying and what is being done otherwise can be two different things. That the things they sometimes tout can be influenced by other considerations. Take, for instance, the cheerleading.

In Mr. Biven’s speech the Mayor and Council are heralded for their ‘courage and foresight” in continuing the litigation for as long as they did. They are angels of justice for the poor and downtrodden ‘residents’ in Whitehall in how they were “forced to live”. Their actions, and they themselves, are exalted in a public realm, giving them a golden burnishing for what will ultimately be, public admiration.

While I believe Mr. Bivens to be as decent and honest and trustworthy a man as there is, given this piece of campaign literature to the left, one then has to question Mr. Biven’s motives for this public heralding of elected leaders. Being that Mr. Bivens is, per this piece of campaign literature, a part of ‘Team Maggard’, it engenders distrust over whether we can we honestly believe in the truth of Mr. Biven’s statements when he praises the ‘team leader’ or other ‘team members’ and/or their initiatives? As well, given that there are several at City Hall that could really use a third term boost through this November’s ballot initiative, who’s to say that this public burnishing isn’t politically designed to carry that ball over the line for the team, or any of them in City Hall who mutually-congratulate themselves at every opportunity? Mr. Bivens may be playing politics participating in this sort of literature but in doing so he’s also hollowing out the public trust in himself. So, given this, I simply can’t know if his statements are earnest or have underlying political motives and as such, even were he to emphatically deny my points, I simply can’t, whole cloth, believe him.

Side note: Keeping my admiration for and with all due respect to Mr. Bivens though, I must say, this is why this piece was so odious in the first place. All of these people gave up the independence of their voices in government for the citizens and their credibility in public service when they wed their allegiance, not to citizens or Whitehall itself but, instead, to this political ‘team’. ‘Team’ first? As such they can never be fully trusted. The corrosive effect these kind of acts engender is mistrust, that which then leaves it up to the citizens, like me and you, to play devil’s advocate in gathering information, witnessing behavior, etc., in order to do what’s truly right for the citizens and therefore, our community. Like the Woodcliff situation.

Counter-argument #2: What are we to believe when one thing is said but another appears to contradict the narrative sold.

Whereas on one hand, everyone is on board with their sympathies and concerns for living conditions for what amount to poor or lower middle class citizens, the plans, as presented in various forms, ironically seem to exclude those very strata of social statuses who are the victims of these ‘nuisance abatements’ and this ‘blight’.

http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/whitehall/news/2016/12/05/norton-crossing-a-breath-of-fresh-air.html

So, while this ‘fighting blight’ and ‘abating nuisances’ are made to appear to be in concern for, and the benefit of, the poor and lower middle class, it actually seems to, post sale (or in anticipation of either eminent domain or nuisance abatement success), benefit upscale development. So, is it against blight for the benefit of the poor or is it the city taking advantage of this ‘blight-opportunity’: fighting blight for upscale development? Until they replace what is bought out with something of equal value to the citizens of our society, you’ll never convince me that its anything other than manipulation of situations for their ‘land-locked’, ‘economic-development’ gain and a disrespect to Whitehall’s historical, regular working-class base. They aren’t helping others, they’re helping themselves!

Counter-argument #3: The magnitude of the city’s fight when measured against the threat of ‘blight’.

What exactly is the price to ‘fight blight’? What measures, what expenses can/will/should be leveled at blight to ‘tackle it’? Is it for a moral standard, as City Attorney Bivens spoke of it?

“No person should live the way that a lot of the people that live in the Woodcliff condominiums have been forced to live.”

If so, how far is a city willing to go and how much would it spend against a purported immorality against the citizens/human beings in their community? Is it the stain such an area leaves on a community that makes it so worthy of such an arduous, lengthy and tremendous fight? Our reputation, our image in our own community or the surrounding communities? Are these, or other reasons given or considered, worthy of an 11 year battle and a nearly $12,000,000 investment* of the citizen’s money, mostly put on credit to pay on for years to come?** Is $12,000,000 a lot to ask of a poorer than average city? Is ‘fighting blight’ worth that big of a chunk of change or is our working class community being peddled and sold down the river to designing firms with tons of money for their benefit ? It ultimately seems like a greater effort for the cause than it is ‘worth’ and that to put so much time, energy and money into that cause seems imbalanced, unless there was something which would make it worth all of that. Right? Otherwise it seems crazy to spend all that because of ‘blight’ and ‘nuisance abatement’.

Alternately, what if it were for ultimate development plans that brought in more tax dollars which then benefitted the city? Would adoption of that scenario’s benefit outweigh our own immorality and hypocrisy: screwing over people while purportedly fighting against people being screwed over? When is forfeiting our individual and collective morality acceptable in the pursuit of monetary gain? In today’s society it seems, more often than not. Screwing over good and decent people because others wouldn’t or didn’t take care of their property? How is fighting blight justification for what they’re doing? Since when is a purportedly moral stance used in bringing about an immoral action, particularly given the citizen’s financing of this venture, in our names? Why must all the properties go because of the lacks ownership of some? Why are conditions which exist at Woodcliff due to its age and which are no doubt the same in other older parcels in the city a problem there, but not elsewhere (or is this just the beginning for city leader’s ‘visions’ for private property in Whitehall?)? If you’re fighting blight, why bulldoze the entirety of the parcel because of some that were problems? It would be like pulling all your teeth out because some were irretrievably rotten.

In essence, while they will more than capitalize on Judge Hawkins order to justify and point to for legitimacy in their actions and as a further selling point to the public, there are nevertheless discrepancies in what has been sold to the public and what lies underneath. These discrepancies and the inherent questions they beg which are not part of that package the city is busy selling.

Counter-argument #4: What are we to believe when the city says one thing but does another?  

In these blogposts:

WOODCLIFF v WHITEHALL (PART TWO) THE PIRATES OF WHITEHALL

WOODCLIFF V WHITEHALL: THE CITY OF WHITEHALL’S EXTREMELY PREMATURE PLANS FOR LAND THEY DIDN’T OWN.

I showed plans that were drawn up were the Woodcliff area ever to come up for re-development, commissioned by the city (in hindsight, rather premature), only a year or so after their battle to ‘abate nuisances’ began with Woodcliff. So, when City Attorney Bivens affirms Judge Hawkins assessment of Woodcliff being about nuisance abatement and yet, Whitehall already seemed to be stoked about re-development designs enough to shop them for the area, it makes it reeaaally hard to believe this nuisance abatement narrative as the true reason for their actions and our money being spent, wouldn’t you say? Add to that the current (2018) ordinance to pay out the $9,000,000 for the acquisition of the property (072-2018) states, as its reason for existing, that it is ‘in support of economic development and job creation’ instead of bending it to the narrative it was sold to us as: ‘fighting blight’ or ‘fighting for the health and welfare of residents’ or something which fits that 11-year struggle’s purported motivations.

You see? One and one don’t make two here. Suspicions exist for a reason. When facts surface that produce counter-narratives which are then coupled with other considerations like character assessments, historical lack of trustworthiness, etc., they then create a more vivid (and telling) picture than the soft-focus one being polished for  citizens simple consumption by some who may have hidden motives and/or vested, self-interests, political or otherwise.

Counter-argument #5: Rumor versus facts”

Two different councilpersons in this meeting referenced ‘rumors and facts’: Larry Morrison and Lori Elmore. Thinking then of what ‘rumors’ are out there regarding Woodcliff and considering what venues and forums Woodcliff and its dealings would be/or have been discussed, my own blog is what I couldn’t help but return to as the probable source of their characterization of ‘rumors’ (after all, I’ve written 12 posts on Woodcliff alone. Side note: Ask yourself, could I really write that much on one topic if there weren’t plenty of grist for the mill?). So too, Mr. Morrison once said to me outside the Council committee room that my blog was nothing but ‘opinion’ (regardless of the many facts cited). As such, I couldn’t help but think it was this blog that they might’ve considered as a source of rumor regarding Woodcliff. That led me then to question whether what I have written has been ‘rumor’ ( I knew it had not) and so, I couldn’t then help but wonder about ‘facts and rumors’.

Here is what I concluded: A rumor would be to spread information out of innuendo, gossip or ill-will with no basis in truth, in other words; out of thin air. What I have presented in these posts is not rumor but rather, conclusions. Conclusions arrived at based on evidence presented using my own senses as witness. My claims are not baseless, they are based on a host of occurrences, incidences, witnessing, patterns, interviews, testimonials, discussions and facts which are then gathered and, with informed intelligence, presented using sense, reason and logic. So it is then, using fully the brain God put in my skull, that I find both the peddling of a notion of rumors by elected leaders and any possible self-interested motivations behind them, equally suspect.

Counter-argument #6: Council President Jim Graham’s oopsy-daisy about Woodcliff

I have written many times on City Hall’s unwillingness to talk about matters important to citizens in a public realm. Their silence to the citizens is often frustrating. I have sometimes believed it to be because of so much business that is discussed in private in ‘Executive Sessions’ or because, with a slip of the tongue, they’ll say something which may cause litigation against the city. And yet, they’re your representatives in government, they’re supposed to be there for you. I believe the specter of causing litigation for the city and all this insider knowledge of legal-doings puts a chilling effect on our representatives (I have heard little to nothing from Woodcliff’s Ward 1 councilman, Chris Rodriguez, regarding the citizens he represents nor the owners of property over there. Seems like he’s not there for them at all). That’s why, when Mr. Graham decided to say a little something about Woodcliff, we could only hold our breath and see what came out. I don’t believe we were disappointed. Let’s break it down.

Of course, the city attorney has a firm handle on what can or shouldn’t be said in public, he’s the professional in matters like these. The others who don’t retain the same level of acumen or restraint with litigious language like he, are no doubt less scrupulous. While I’m certain it is the job of the city attorney to advise members of council and elected officials, I’m not certain what the protocol is for the city attorney when the elected official is in mid-sentence. It was clear, even to a high school graduate like myself, that Mr. Graham was entering territory (which I believe he did) that was not ‘safe’ for Whitehall itself. That is why I centered the video on Mr. Bivens as I did. His reactions are clear as Mr. Graham wanders into language that might prove at a disadvantage to Whitehall’s coffers. When he does wander into that language, I heard Mr. Biven’s voice speak while Mr. Graham was speaking (I was present and heard it). You can see his mouth move almost imperceptibly in the fuzzy-focused close-up video while he makes a movement with his hands and moves his head, as if to say, ‘Jim, we goin’ there? Should you really keep heading in this direction? Is this the best way to proceed?’ ‘Really Jim?’ The moment he does this, Jim Graham’s train is led onto another track. Below is the beginning of the transcript, again…right where I put the ellipsis between ‘another’ and ‘and’ is where Mr. Bivens made the hand gesture and moved his head. You notice then that whereas Mr. Graham seemed to have a clear direction he was headed, when Mr. Bivens made the actions, his train then stammered and posed ‘corrective’ wording or, to put it another way, truth went to bullshit. He was caught and reeled in so as not to cause irreparable harm, if it hadn’t already been done.

“I do wanna say one thing regarding Woodcliff. You know, when we started out it was about nuisance abatement, there was nothing in what we did originally that had anything to do with economic development but, over a period of time one thing can lead to another…and, that’s not saying it will be economically developed but, you know, that certainly was not an intention and, you know, sometimes there’re by-products of things that you do.

The ‘was’, the ‘originally’ and the ‘but’: Here is the crux of Mr. Graham’s revealing comments: When Mr. Graham says, “when we started out it was about nuisance abatement (the inflection on ‘was’ is his), there was nothing in what we did originally that had anything to do with economic development but, over a period of time one thing can lead to another”, the underlying message in ‘was’ is that it connotes past tense; in the past, about nuisance abatement (which contradicts Judge Hawkin’s assessment that it ‘is’ and the City of Whitehall’s assertions themselves) and that what they did ‘originally’ had nothing to do with development, that which suggests then that the current situation, being no longer what it was to begin with (“originally”) has changed to development being a part of it. That we’re not doing just the nuisance abatement anymore, adding a ‘but’ to all this. That ‘but’ says, Sure, we started out with nuisance abatement but…(here is his reasoning for this, this elected city leader) ‘over a period of time one thing can lead to another’ aaannd…see evidence compiled above.

So too, ‘one thing leads to another’ also can perhaps say; while our intentions were right and pure to begin with, when we realized what that land is worth to the city we then decided we would take advantage of a situation, ironically, we ourselves were helping to create and capitalize on it for our own ultimate benefit (doesn’t sound like pure justice to me). It’s simply taking advantage of people’s bad situations for their own gain. In the Dixon home, as kids, we were taught this kind of behavior was morally wrong, really wrong. That its beyond immoral. It’s like coming upon a murder victim and taking his wallet. Can you find a way to morally justify it? I can’t.

Ultimately, what this all really says: the plans and prospectuses drawn up only a year after the fight began, City Hall’s public demonstration about ‘blight’ and ‘nuisance abatement’, framing the narrative about concerns for the welfare of helpless citizens and bringing down crime, the political burnishing of each others images through persistent mutual public praising, the unjust payouts to some of the property owners… is that the earnestness of their ‘fight’ (if it ever was really a true one) became overshadowed by the cupidity of their egos, using the power and processes at their will to legally go after private property for the city’s (and their ego’s) ultimate benefit instead. Property, by the way, that just happens to be a developmentally valuable corner that acts as an important gateway to an otherwise landlocked, fully-built city.                                                                                          If you think I’m wrong, consider this; among all the players in this situation: the helpless poor people, owners (not all of whom were bad owners or landlords. Side note: Are the decent owners simply victims of the bad owners or are they victims of the city’s monolithic, persistent and ultimately self-serving legal processes?), the City of Whitehall, who exactly was helped the greatest? Who stands to be the biggest winner, in all ways, in the outcome? Is there justice and renewal for poor people who were victims of bad landlords or are they just shuffled on down the road to be some other community’s problem? Was every single owner of properties properly and thoroughly appraised and then promised their just amount? If Mayor Maggard sold the land at Commons at Royal Landing to Continental Realty for $1, those who’re slated to spend $50,000,000 on a large-scale development***, it then goes to say that the Woodcliff corner must be worth, if not an equal amount, then a much larger one, right?

I think its clear who the ‘winner’ is in this situation. The entity with all the power of the citizen’s government and their tax dollars behind it who can wield that power to harm citizens and human beings lives. Whitehall is being run by a bunch of amoral fevered-egos who give more of a damn about their legacies as saviors and ‘visionaries’ and their mania for economic development at any cost . Even if, in our name as they do this sort of business, our reputations as a community of decent, fair, caring souls is trampled on and lost in the process. As a Whitehall native, born and bred, I am pissed off and sickened! These people don’t deserve their positions, unless… I have been wrong to believe in the decency, sense of fair play, morality and justice of the Whitehall community. Maybe in the end run, as the citizens allow this kind of action and behavior in their name and with their money, its actually my ethical stance which is out of place and these people fit perfectly within Whitehall. A community where distraction and lack of courage allows this sort of business to go on right under their noses. What else could it be?

*

$173,000 for Strategic Comprehensive Land Use Plan…

**It’s funny, people complain bitterly about an increase in taxes for a school levy but don’t realize that when their city puts such a massive sum into bonds which the citizens will pay on for years that that then takes money away for other things that may be needed, meaning; the city has to tighten its belt more when things come up because we’re promising more and more of our city’s budget to credit in the form of bond payments. The citizens may not feel the strain like they do in higher mortgage/rent payments with levy’s but they can feel it in that budget belt-tightening.

***http://www.thisweeknews.com/news/20170307/now-barren-complex-on-verge-of-rebirth

Was at the Whitehall City Council meeting last night (8/7/18) and saw these two pieces of legislation in regard to the acquisition of the Woodcliffe property. I don’t remember being asked if I wanted my tax dollars to go into the real estate business, but, that’s what we are now: Whitehall Realty (at the expense of people’s lives, their real estate losses and our hard-earned money).

Was at the sparsely attended Whitehall City Council meeting last night, July 10th (just me and Ward 3 candidate Paul Werther in attendance), and the only thing of interest were the three ordinances regarding Charter Review recommendations that the council passed* to send along to the ballot in November ‘for the citizens themselves to decide’. I’m including them in this blog for your scrutiny.

First off: gender neutrality in the Charter language.

Pretty straight forward. One or two people in the Charter Review commission felt this was important. If the entirety of the Charter used ‘she’ to connote a person/official I, as a man, wouldn’t have a problem with it. Is it an important enough issue to go through all this business for: putting it on the ballot, changing all the records, etc.? The question is really moot at this point as its going to the ballot in November.

Here is the ordinance passed tonight in regard to who succeeds the Mayor if the President of Council passes on it with only a year left in the term.

This one actually makes sense to do because this scenario wasn’t considered and its simply putting a button on something that needs it.

Finally, the most important one ( in terms of foolishness, disrespect to the electorate, conflicts of interest, giving people with power even more power in a city where the majority of voters mostly don’t pay attention or vote and, most suspicious in its ‘need’ to be on the ballot) of the three: term limits. Apparently, after the last two times this was affirmed by the citizens (after they initially mandated it at the ballot) asking people to fully end term limits seemed to be too much for them to ask. Perhaps ‘compromising’ (a term which council members used) to only allow them three terms instead of unending terms might be something the voters would allow…

This essentially says that if passed, every elected office would ultimately be able to serve for three consecutive terms. One must assume then that the language in the ordinance precludes them from serving more than three based on the amount of time they’re already in there, ala Bailey and Conison who, in a year and a half would term out of their two terms.

Of course, no where to be seen, is the loophole which allows them to jump from at-Large to Ward and back again, utterly disrespecting the spirit of the citizens law, such as Rodriguez and Bailey and Kantor  have done. That has needed closing now for several years and it has been brought to Council’s attention on several occasions but…they can’t seem to respect the citizens mandate, do the right thing and close it. No, not them. That loophole has allowed Councilman Rodriguez to completely disrespect the spirit of the citizens intent and be in office for 16 and a half years (with his friends on council also losing track of the spirit of those they’re supposed to be serving and considering when they appointed him back to his old Ward 1 seat after he lost his bid as Auditor, and the Ward councilperson ran for at-Large).

On the second page of the legislation it gives two examples of ballot language. This is given for the Board of Elections to pick the less confusing of the two. The underlining is just to separate the two wordings. In highlighter, I’ve shown my pick.

Finally, the last paragraph of the last page is highlighted merely to show you how officious your government has gotten…’emergency measure immediately necessary for the preservation of the public health(!), peace, safety and welfare(!)…oy vey! In essence to say that this ordinance is VITAL for Whitehall to continue on as a community and anything less is unacceptable and will cause grievous harm to our municipality. Their increasing officiousness is strangulating.

On a personal note and apropos of nothing other than my being an aficionado of words, and with all due respect to City Attorney Bivens, who I think well of, I have never seen the word heretofore used as heretobefore in any previous writings I’ve come across in my 56 years. Nor could I find it in a computer search, it kept coming up heretofore. Even WordPress won’t rid the word of its red underlining. I know its silly nitpicking but these things stand out to me.

*It was the two newest members of Council, Elmore and Heck, who made a motion and seconded it to vote on the term limits legislation (Councilman Morrison was absent). It felt apparent to me that they took the motion so it wouldn’t be one of the more senior citizen-spirit-disrespecting scalawags who would make the motion for the ordinance in order to save themselves from the mere proximity to the appearance of pushing the term limits ballot issue. With Elmore and Heck doing it, the rest were spared the dirty smudge of perception that is, in actuality, rightfully theirs to wear.

Well, here it is.

The decision of which specific term limits recommendation the Charter Review Commission would make was ultimately left by them in the hands of the Council to decide on what gets sent to the ballot in November: end term limits all together, extend them for everyone from two terms to three or, do nothing (Of course, the third option wasn’t ever really going to be up for deep consideration, was it? This blog’s POV could predict that). That action then which has led the council to this quandary*. Will one be voted in by Council but not another? Will both be voted down by Council or will both be voted in and the Mayor will have to make a veto decision? Which decision with regard to the hen house will the foxes make? As one of them said at last night’s Committee meeting, the decision should be in the voters hands. I’ve predicted they were gonna say this and indeed they keep doing so:

As has happened before, a Charter Review proffers a recommendation to Council which happens to contain a conflict of interest for Council who, not wishing to appear biased, decides to send it through to the electorate, throwing their hands up in the air as if to say, ‘We can’t decide on this, we’re just gonna HAVE to send it to the people. Who are we to stand in the way of their right to make a decision on this matter?’ And why does this matter KEEP coming back after the citizens have definitively settled the matter, three times!! Then, like last time, I predict a committee will be formed and interested parties will finance a campaign to end term limits.** 

So as not to irritate some critics of me who complain bitterly about my ‘big words’ and my ‘stupid big word phrases’ I thought this simple GIF offered as concise a picture of my reaction than a thousand ‘big’ words could.

* From the blog post ‘Whitehall Charter Review Meeting April 23rd: Discussion Time; ‘At one point, they decided they could simply send all three options to council ( extending to 3 terms, ending them completely or leaving them alone). This option (of sending things to council to decide) was invoked too many times, in my opinion. They’re there to make decisions, it is for them to decide what they want but too often they said things like, ‘Let council have it’…’Give it to Council’…’Let council make the decision’. They were tasked with a job, while they can certainly make one or more recommendations to council, it really felt as though they were giving up the responsibility they were tasked with up to another entity, that entity I remind you, who are not known for their impartial, citizen-centric decision-making abilities. With actual discussion to flesh out feelings and thoughts, these decisions might have been made but, for whatever reasons, they didn’t.’

** Citizens for Kim Maggard donated $300 to ‘Your Right to Vote                                                    Committee to Elect Mike Shannon also donated $300 to ‘Your Right to Vote’

• I wish…the Whitehall Development Director hadn’t disrespectfully tossed back at me the gift I brought to my hometown in the form of the seminal book on city planning, ‘Death and Life of Great American Cities’ by Jane Jacobs.

• I wish…newly appointed Councilman Bailey had been more respectful of his elected peer on council, Jacquelyn Thompson, and not dogged her to me, a stranger and constituent, within minutes of our meeting.

• I wish…the city would’ve been more respectful and appreciative of a native son’s return in 2008 to improve and restore the house he grew up in, particularly in light of the city’s own diminished status at the time.

• I wish…my city had been more considerate of its citizens in the deepest part of the economic downturn when, in the depth of Winter, January of 2009, they demanded I paint my entire three-story house in 3 1/2 months.

• I wish…Councilman Bailey focused more on the humane and just and respectful thing than simply the authoritarian thing.

• I wish…elected leaders were more citizen-centric than government-centric.

• I wish…Mayor Maggard cared more about ethical principles than she does herself.

• I wish…Whitehall citizens kept themselves informed of their government more and came out to vote in larger numbers.

•I wish…elected leaders and more of those running for office respected the citizens more by giving them lots of information to make fair and informed decisions.

• I wish…my city had understood Vietnam veteran Dave Deluca better but it was easier for them to only see the surface and cast him aside based on that simplistic view (when you’re running a citizens government, who has time for citizen consideration?).

• I wish…my city’s government had a deeper understanding and appreciation of Whitehall’s residents than they do code and legislation and authoritarianism.

• I wish…my city’s government respected not just the law but its spirit and intent too.

• I wish…one didn’t seemingly have to suspend one’s principles when elected to office and have to choose between morality and governing.

• I wish…people would have the courage of their convictions and lead instead of being part of a pack.

• I wish…Councilman Chris Rodriguez cared more about the spirit and intent of the law and the community he serves (Ward One) than he does his own self-interests.

• I wish…citizens weren’t so afraid of their government so as to speak out when wrong is being done.

• I wish… elected leaders chose to heed conflicts of interest over their own self-interests.

• I wish…people read more books and understood a wider array of subjects, particularly in those who ask to lead our community.

• I wish…government officials adhered to principles of trustworthiness over self-interests.

• I wish…Whitehall’s government had a deeper understanding for and appreciation for the economic strata of all the citizens, not just those like them.

• I wish…my elected officials, when they say, ‘…and justice for all’ actually took that to heart and ensured it for all whom they serve, lest they appear hypocritical.

• I wish…that when my city’s government sells the citizens on something the city wants to do, that the citizens would see through their sell job and take it with more critical analysis.

• I wish…the leader of our city cared more about scruples and ethical principles than she does about business and development.

• I wish…people would stop dogging poor black people.

• I wish…people would improve their minds and deepen their sense of empathy and love for their fellow man.

• I wish…people cared more for fellow human beings and citizens in their community than they do greed.

•I wish…Mayor Maggard respected the U.S. Constitution all the time.

• I wish Mayor Maggard was a leader of people and not business.

•I wish…people gave half the damn they should.

• I wish…leaders understood that the gold in Whitehall resides in their community’s people and not the surface things they think are so important.

• I wish…critical thinking was valued as highly as television programs or egos.

Well, here we go, yet again. Below, you’ll find the Whitehall City Council making arguments against term limits. (Notice that no one defended keeping them intact, as is.) What I couldn’t help but feel as I watched them was that I felt like the foxes were making arguments to the hens as to why they should be in charge of the henhouse.

I will show the video first and make points or counterarguments after.

Alright…their arguments:

1. Argument: Term limits, particularly for the Mayor, limits the momentum they may have when either a) doing a good job or b) that two terms isn’t enough to really get the job done.

Counterargument One: I agree that running a city is a lot of work. The intricate business of it takes a lot of time. One of my favorite mayoral figures was Fiorello LaGuardia, he helped to shape NYC for generations (with the help of a lot of very talented and tireless people) and he really loved the city and its people, all of them. However, Ronald Reagan made a lot of progress in this country in 8 years (on a much larger scale), as did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. To suggest that a mayor of a tiny municipality in a Midwestern city needs more time is a bit much to swallow.                                                        Counterargument Two: Shaping our city’s charter simply to reward someone for a perceived good job is wrong. It can also backfire because someone can get in there and do either a middlin’ job or have a political juggernaut behind them and keep a stranglehold on the position. As Councilperson Lori Elmore pointed out, there can be favoritism and nepotism. Why could that be a concern with endless terms but not for three? This is the very reason term limits were voted on in the first place.

2. Argument: Enticing good and qualified people to fill these higher positions(Mayor/Attorney/Auditor) requires someone to make a four to eight year commitment that they would have to pull themselves away from the private sector in order to make. That risk might be more palatable if they knew they might be in the job longer as it might be harder for them to reenter the private sector when done. To work in the private sector and give that up to run for office is a heavy risk for someone both monetarily and whom has the brain and skills to run a city well.

Counterargument One: City Manager. If the city manager does well, they keep their job. If they do poorly, they’re out. Its incentive to do a good job, one doesn’t have to worry about leaving private sector work as one is doing what they have the qualified education and skills to do. I suppose this could also be done for City Attorney and Auditor as well. This was not brought up by the Charter Review committee.

3. Argument: The ability to reward or punish elected officials is already in place, its called voting.

Counterargument One: While this is a well-worn bromide and should be true, sadly, there are many reasons it doesn’t and should be improved upon. Voting in this city and this country is disgraceful. In country’s that can’t vote, the opportunity is seen as an awesome responsibility. Americans, too often, take that right too lightly. As a result, people get into office with such small percentages of the overall voters. That is not a true mandate of the people. Councilman Rodriguez only won in 2017 by 2 percentage points with overall voting in Ward 1 at a sliver of 16% of overall voters. If people aren’t paying attention, as is too often the case here and elsewhere, it is very easy for someone who has political power to use that influence to sway voters in the favor of the status quo. If the choice is made purely from influence and not the building blocks of close observation due to everything from insightful literature to candidates forums to personal interactions on doorsteps as well as using critical thinking skills aligned with deep personal philosophies, then anyone can get in there and stay in, as we have seen.                                                                                                                                                             Councilman Morrison uses the recall of Councilperson Thompson as a means to illustrate that people will use their power to rid the city of someone, quote, “if somebody stopped doing their job”. Mr. Morrison is utterly incorrect in this tired falsehood. First of all, words matter; Ms Thompson never ‘stopped doing’ her job. Ms. Thompson was, ostensibly, recalled because of allegations she’d gotten someone fired from their job. I believe the truth is that this was not a citizen’s revolt but rather a political coup. 78% of the funding to oust an elected official could be viewed as political, largely coming from elected officials and unions themselves. This was a concerted effort by politicians to rid themselves of someone they didn’t like nor wanted around, regardless of her actions or behavior.
It was only a very small group of regular citizens who donated and worked to oust her, heavily abetted by the pocketbooks of the government officials and unions whose vested interests financed the show (the fliers, the car magnets, the yard signs, the hyperbolic literature). Due to this patronage, this small group of citizens was able to convince a large group of people how they felt and what they and (more importantly) some officials of Whitehall government financing the effort, wanted to convince them of. Given this then, I believe the people, without aid of complete information nor use of critical analysis based on self-investigation of the matter for themselves, voted with their passion, which the program of information fliers distributed incited in them, all without ever knowing the truth of the conflicts inherent and exactly who financed the fliers distributed. I believe it was a bloodless coup engendered by some largely self-interested, rotten government officials and unions whose vested interests were threatened by Councilperson Thompson’s presence, despite the hyperbolic surface allegations they used to convince them otherwise. The tale is in their inappropriate patronage of a purported citizen’s revolt.

4. Argument: The council themselves shouldn’t be the ones to determine the question of term limits by way of Charter Review recommendations, they should let it go to the voters for them to decide.

Counterargument One: Very generous of them to think of us. It HAS went to the voters! Three times!! The only reason it keeps coming back is because Charter Review Commissions, appointed by personal recommendations and not vetted for conflicts of interest present, keep suggesting that term limits are a problem. Now, I’ve stated many times why conflicts of interest must be heeded but, naturally, no one at City Hall listens. Why? Because its not in their interests to do so. Plain and simply. The conflicts, as I stated in a letter to the editor of the Whitehall News; ‘throws into question the fairness and integrity of decisions made due to bias the conflict’s presence engenders’. I claim some elected leaders are untrustworthy. Given that, why should we then put our trust in them when they say that the choices in whom they’ve made to recommend changes to our city’s Charter, are? Because of the conflicts present, I say we can’t (but of course, ‘can’t’ isn’t expeditious of our time). It is no stretch of the imagination, at least then, that corrupt elected leaders keep appointing people to this position that recommend things amenable to those elected officials themselves. Given all the circumstances, what other considerations are we to reasonably conclude?

So too, I mentioned this in other blogposts; where the council doesn’t heed the conflicts, the Charter Review makes recommendations that are amenable to the elected officials themselves, then the council innocently throw their hands in the air and say, ‘Well, we’re just innocents caught between the Commission and the voters, its really not our place to make such decisions. Who are WE to keep that decision from the voters?’ (Where they’ll then gather all their supporters and their money, their purse strings will burst open (likely keeping their own names out of the pre-election campaign finance report but showing up in the one post-election, where those insiders who helped finance the campaign will no longer matter in voter outrage) and influences will be exerted to persuade largely uninformed voters as to why its in their best interests to get rid of term limits/change it to 3 terms. The fix is in Whitehall, these people currently in (most, not all) is exactly why term limits were put into place. They don’t respect you, the citizens. Rather, they respect their own power and their own positions (and their egos and vanity…).

5. Argument: (Jim Graham’s) Voters have used term limits to not inform themselves of their elected officials. “They figure, ‘the most I gotta put up with is, 8 years at best, and then they’re gone.’ I honestly do think that’s why people aren’t in favor of eliminating term limits altogether.”

Counterargument One: While this indeed is Council President Graham’s opinion, his argument is nevertheless so nonsensical. People would actually make a physical and mental effort to vote on something which then allows them to be lazy, uninformed voters?! There might be many reasons why voters don’t care to vote (none of them truly right), however, to suggest that they would pull themselves out of their lives to actually go vote so they don’t have to pay attention shows the kind of thinking that exists at City Hall. I say, we can do better than this, we must.

6. Argument: Letting elected officials get to ten years allows them to qualify for pensions.

Counterargument One: And that is important to the voter….why?

7. Argument: If people only have two terms, they’ll be lazy and kick back knowing it doesn’t matter if they try because they’ll have to leave anyway.

Counterargument One: And if they’re the kind of lazy bum that would do that with a two term limit, who’s to say they’d perk up and not be lazy with a third term? The argument is silly. As well, if the voters couldn’t tell this about a candidate from the election, what self-investigative work did they not do to discover this before they elected the lazy bum?!

8. Argument: Going from 2 to 3 terms should be separated on the ballot because council should have new blood.

Counterargument One: If having ‘new blood and ideas’ for council is a good idea, then close the loophole that allows council members to travel from Ward to at-Large and back which disrespects the spirit of the law the voters affirmed three times. Then maybe ‘new blood’ might have a chance to get in.

Counterargument Two: This is in direct conflict with the idea that the mayor and a ‘team’ are getting things done together which you need cohesive momentum for. If you have new blood then that new group might not agree with or go along with the plans already set in motion.

Bits and pieces  Overall, listening and watching I noticed two things; One, they were very reticent to begin talking about this issue, an awkward part that was lost due to my camera only recording 8 minute intervals. Knowing how they like to keep publicly silent on matters, lest it cause a brouhaha which may then cost them their seat (silence among candidates for office is deemed a virtue…In a city of disinterested voters, its political gamesmanship), I felt that my preemptory comments on this topic, warning of this subject, made them all skittish about what is obvious; that yet again, they have been handed a decision to make which is packed with conflict, the sending along to the ballot of which makes them look suspicious and self-serving (which I believe, most are). As well, their comments are now up for scrutiny. If they appear uneducated or senseless or unprepared or dimwitted, those out there who are watching who aren’t these things, will see them for who they are. That kind of pressure has its toll, but, that’s too bad. You should rise or sink on your merit, not climb and stay seated based on disinformation regularly served to the populace (as too many have).

I have to once again praise Councilperson Elmore. While it was her and Councilperson Morrison who brought up the most forceful and distinct arguments of anyone at the table, it is Ms. Elmore who consistently asks questions and brings an eager vivacity for our community to the table (sometimes to the risk of making Councilperson Bailey sleepy-eyed).

While Councilperson Heck did bring something short to the argument at the end, my camera once again went off while she spoke. My apologies to her. Councilperson Bailey fairly only brought up the concern for the 10 year requirement for elected officials pensions. Councilperson Rodriguez only briefly clarified Councilperson Conison’s split term limits advice and Councilperson Wes Kantor merely, briefly, reiterated what others had said but neither he nor Mr. Rodriguez brought anything to the conversation. No opinions? Fear of sounding foolish? No doubt Mr. Rodriguez will merely nod his head yes to what the others agree with and he’ll continue to be part of the fleshy humanoids… I MEAN… ‘The Team’, moving Whitehall forward. There is nothing honorable about a person in power holding their tongue for self-interested safety’s sake.

I thought it ha-ha funny that Ms. Conison, who had a sign for Mr. Rodriguez in her yard in 2017, said that she’s both a huge proponent of having new blood and ideas brought into council and term limits, while Mr. Rodriguez, himself in his 17th year on Council, sat across from her as she vocalized these hypocrisies. Perhaps that is why Mr. Rodriguez chose not to talk about the term limits question because he’s the king of disrespecting the laws intents.

Throughout their arguments it seemed like they were strenuously arguing in favor of ending or extending term limits to three. One of the excuses they keep finding (which the Charter Review also brought up…) is that perhaps the ballot language was so convoluted as to confuse people and that is why ending term limits didn’t pass (that language the City Attorney is responsible for crafting and which the Board of Elections maintains or amends). They’re not getting their way so it must be some outside issue that’s causing them this problem (eye roll). ‘The hens keep saying no to the foxes but the foxes won’t accept their answer or say they answered wrong because the ballot language was flawed, etc.’ Any argument which will bolster the chances to keep their death grip on power in office.

Why wasn’t there one single citizen’s representative arguing for the citizens having affirmed them three times already and keeping it as such? (Could it be that no one goes against ‘The Team’?). Why is it that those who would directly benefit from the changes passing at the ballot are the ones most strenuously arguing why they should be amended or ended? Its beyond curious at this point. When they refuse to heed conflicts of interest they then forego earning the public trust. They cannot say conflicts and bias in government affairs don’t matter and then when they hold out their hand for you to take it, suggest that they are to be trusted in these affairs which directly benefit themselves. And if the public then does simply give them their trust they don’t deserve, then its shame on those who are helping to erode our democratic processes, as well-outlined in this blogpost:

Why Ethics in Public Office Matter

My argument is this: While they build up business they are also chipping away at our community’s moral center and spirit as a people. When tax abatements to businesses (Opportunity is here!) are given out like candy, who are the real winners and losers in that giveaway?

When they finagle and abuse processes and the spirit of laws to grab at people’s rightful property for business, who suffers? The Constitution as well as our right to say we respect law and its spirit and the citizens and property owners themselves. While there are citizens who don’t care how they look for allowing their city, in their name, to abuse our processes and the law to steal from citizens, there are many others who I like to think possess the true heart and spirit of this community who do care how their city operates in their name. Who value morality and ethical principles and the U.S. Constitution above greed and profit and yes, even business and development. For what are we left with when the cash is falling out of people’s pockets, business is booming, they’ve put the ‘white’ back in Whitehall and there’s a golden statue of Kim Maggard at the entrance to our city? Will we still be Whitehall? Will we still be made in God’s image? Will we have the respectability to hold our heads high as human beings and know in our heart of hearts that we’re a good and just and kind community? Or, will we simply represent the worst of mankind; rapacious, avaricious, hateful, divisive, self-serving and selfish? There is a way to go about things and this is not the way. Pro-business, pro-greed, pro-profit and anti-law, anti-human and anti-morality. As a Whitehall native whose parents helped to build this community in its youth and who has dear memories when it was about community and the people in it, I say that is NOT Whitehall and so I reject any argument that gives the people who are driving its moral standard into the ground more time in which to do so.

Post-script: The difference is startling between what our city’s motto was and the things it represented to now, where its simply a business slogan; ‘Opportunity is here’, that which I say sounds like a beggar’s come-on.

From the public record: