Here are some of the papers which show that Whitehall was considering ways to deal with Woodcliff for development a long time ago. They didn’t own the properties so why were they spending a bunch of money on firms to draw up plans and prospectuses for the area? Good question Jerry!

The city of Whitehall has had their fevered egos and grand schemes on these people’s properties now for nearly a decade. When a push is made to say they’re a nuisance and the processes available to our government through our laws, which they abuse, are then used to realize this ultimate dream for city hall, which includes misuse of eminent domain, Whitehall are not innocents, they are avaricious and scheming and designing and corrupt. 

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.“-  John Adams

This information was originally in the blog post:

https://whitehallwatchblog.com/2015/10/30/woodcliff-v-whitehall-part-two-the-pirates-of-whitehall/

Note the date in the bottom left corner

5/2009

This is a screenshot of this document from my blog along with my caption. Everyone wondering where the community pool is might find my point both telling and meritorious.

3rd paragraph, 1st and 2nd sentences

I have spoken with and/or heard from many owners in Woodcliff, what our city’s government is doing to them is unconscionable. I believe most Whitehall citizens either aren’t aware of the truth, are wantonly and self-servingly casting it aside or are simply going on what our government has spoon fed them, trusting the government over the people.

Your government aren’t the good guys, as tough as that is to hear and take, they are abusing the processes available to them and abusing the spirit and intent of eminent domain laws to return valuable property to ground zero to process land for the profiteers and their own fevered egos and vanity projects. It is an incremental chipping away of our rights, our liberty and our laws. Fools are both at the front end and the back end of this assault. When this country no longer resembles America as we have always known it, it will not be the fault of those with reckless and self-serving aspirations, but rather, those who allowed them because they were too stupid, too silent or with willful ignorance, mindlessly supported these attacks. I do what I can to see it doesn’t have to. Ask yourself deep in your heart of hearts what you’re doing to defend the very tenets of our country because allowing this outrage is not it.

This is the contents of an email I was sent:

“The City of Whitehall had no problem issuing permits for all new electric wiring, new roof trusses, siding & roof & windows. These are just the exterior costs. They are now offering $16,000 per unit. We have $65k in repairs (plus purchase price) in it so far..😢
We are just one sad story.. there are many many more..” Cheryl Horn

Along with photos:

This is also something Ms. Horn sent along to me, venting her frustration:

Imagine if you can that you own a condo, that you pay your condo dues to an imaginary condo unit owners association but all the money goes into the pocket of someone the court system appointed (through no fault of your own). That person & many others help themselves to these funds with the courts Blessings. No repairs can be made because the funds are regularly depleted. No further normal functionality of the condo association & no way to know what is actually going on nor a way to say anything about it. No method to complain, no way to represent yourself no voice at all because your are not a defendant, just “an interested party”. The person who is in control signs this negotiated deal with zero liabilities & leaves the scene. Those who are the defendants (and former receiver) then negotiate a settlement with the government entity that has bullied & sought to take control of the property due to it’s prime location. Even though they were/are the problem, they walk away with their cut off the top, their attorney compensated, and then receive close to fair market value for ALL their units even though previously the City called them a slum & a blight. Of course they vote the deal through on a simple majority much like 3 wolves & 2 sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Naturally The City locates a professional licensed & certified appraiser to “drive by the condos” and decide the amount on your purchase price.  The court thinks this is perfectly fine & has no problem with this practice from a “professional appraiser” and approves this unethical behavior.
All the while this has been going on nothing has ever been told to you or the other condo owners regarding the potential seriousness of the situation, that anyone is appraising your home nor that the loss of your property is a very real probability. You are then offered pennies on the dollar for your condo & are expected to fight for your value with all the other condo owners out of a pot of funds that can not cover the balance because those who caused this nightmare have already absconded with the lions share of the funds.
With this scenario you would either think that you live in a socialist/communist country or think you lived in the most corrupt City in the state (possibly the country).
But no, you are in the City of Whitehall, State of Ohio, United States of America. The land with a dual justice system, one for the wealthy & one for the (dwindling) middle class & the poor because this scenario would NEVER EVER occur in Bexley or Upper Arlington… would it…
Actually, there is true & perfect justice. Not in this life but definitely in the next.

Sometime back, in 2009, when the leader of the recall effort against Councilperson Jacquelyn Thompson decided to bring a video camera into the council committee room and film (which was and is a right) I saw how its use was skewed to favor the viewpoint of the one doing the filming, to their own ends. The committee room is where things are discussed amongst each other in regard to issues/problems in the city and the legislation that accompanies them. To that end, I believe a little political space is needed in order to accomplish that goal and yet, on the other hand, everyone there should be able to exert political courage and say what they must, regardless of the camera’s presence. It is really in the hands of the person filming/reporting on things to use a modicum of reason, sense and restraint in the use of what they film, for the sake of our legislative body’s ability to discuss freely what they must for the benefit of the city itself. I don’t believe this restraint was shown, at least insofar as Jacquelyn Thompson and Leslie LaCorte were concerned, because restraint didn’t serve the needs of those leading the effort to recall Councilperson Thompson. It is evident in video titles like, ‘How many Chihuahuas = 1 Great Dane???’, ‘I’m NOT pulling my legislation!!!’ and ‘”Show it to me BOB!”‘

https://www.youtube.com/user/cjot1/videos

Therefore, in the 9 years I’ve been going to city council meetings, while I could’ve taken a camera into the committee room, it was something I didn’t really want to do, for all the above-mentioned reasons. I felt it was corrosive to the process, putting a chilling effect on our elected leaders to do, and say, what they must to get the job done. Then came the March 6th meeting where I expressed concerns regarding the legislation which had to do with peddlers and solicitors. Seen here…

https://youtu.be/Z5shmtwa8zg (starting at 1:04:50)

I made a strong argument for my position which also included questions and concerns, those which weren’t addressed by my representatives on council. That which is well reported on in this blogpost:

https://votedixon.com/2018/03/21/the-bullsht-of-our-whitehall-city-council/

Ultimately my questions and concerns, which included concerns regarding our U.S. Constitution, were not addressed or answered in public for myself and the rest of the citizens to hear. That was the straw that broke this camel’s back. Despite my meritorious and rightful criticism, they still owe the citizens answers to their concerns and questions. It says a great deal about them that they withhold it because this citizen says things they don’t like. Their duty isn’t reliant on what level the electorate praises them or how often they turn a blind eye to their behavior, it is reliant only on their obligation they entered into with free will, that which they owe the people 100% of the time, not just when it suits them. So, sadly, all those years I believed that if I did my duty and went to them with issues, questions and concerns that they would respond in the professional manner their offices required but, it apparently was nothing more than a fool’s game on my part. I, one of the very few people who has his eye on them, sees, knows and publicly reports on their actions and behaviors, is the one person they disrespectfully swat away with impunity. Well, I’ve had it. I have done what I’m supposed to do as an American citizen, by the book. I spoke at council meetings, I protested on street corners, I wrote letters to my government representatives and offices and I’ve sent letters to the editor. All the normal avenues for citizens to ‘petition their government for a redress of grievances’ (as enshrined in our 1st Amendment!) I have respected and honored. It is they then who have not honored their positions and offices and obligation to citizens, all of them, even the critical ones.

So then it is that they simply don’t deserve that consideration I gave them for 9 years. My being considerate of the processes which they willfully ignore and disrespect through their silence, is over. That is why the camera was brought into the committee room. They want silence from both themselves and citizens, for their political aspirations. They don’t respect the citizens rights they’re supposed to be honoring, so then it is they, and they alone, who have furthered this situation. It is they themselves then who have forced the camera into their committee space and they have no one but themselves to blame for it. The memes, the rightfully angrier tone, the move to parody, whatever it may now be, is their doing, that and the sleeping citizen who doesn’t hear the alarm clock going off. This is my hometown, these people, too many of and too often, have hijacked it. They don’t work for you, they work for themselves and as long as not too many people make a fuss and what you speak up about is favorable to them or in line with their ‘visions’, then you will be in like Flynn. Call them out, speak out publicly about their  wrongful behavior and you are persona non grata.

This is a meme I made to thank the citizens who served on the Charter Review Board. To step forward, when asked, is the essence of ones civic duty. These five are to be commended for doing theirs.

What amounts to the final meeting of the Charter Review Commission happened Monday evening, April 23rd. This was the meeting they were going to ‘discuss’ those things which they’d focused on in the previous meetings before sending their recommendations to city council. Jack Soma, Kevin Skinner, Allyson Sharp and Paul Werther were present with the exception of Kim Bentley, who sent her thoughts on matters to the other members. Present in the audience were myself, Councilpersons Larry Morrison, Wes Kantor, Lori Elmore and Council President Jim Graham. I was the only citizen present at this and every single meeting they held.

In the list of things they were considering: there was concern in regard to the use of ‘he/him’ throughout the charter and so they want to make it gender neutral. Language regarding the mayor’s absence and line of power when he/she is gone from the city. Term limits, whether extending them from two to three, ending them unilaterally or, leaving them alone and finally, having future Charter Review members chosen from all Wards and all council members. I will focus primarily on the term limits question but, before I respond, I’d like to say this:

While I am fully aware of these citizens fulfilling a civic duty, and have publicly thanked them for it, they are nevertheless political appointees tasked with a job that deals with our city’s charter. While they are volunteers, their decision-making processes can have impact on our laws and so, still fall under the gaze and notation of the public, those who have a right to a) agree, b) ignore them or c) react in a critical fashion as they see fit. While agreeing with them needs little to no time to justify, a critical response demands the counterargument to make its case. Without anyone playing devil’s advocate or countering their arguments with critical thinking, you simply have a yes-person pathology. No one is completely right and its only through healthy argument one finds the truth and what is best. If I find the failings in their arguments, it is my American right and holy civic duty to add what I feel I must.

At the meeting, the rightly criticized President of Council, Jim Graham, was in attendance and while speaking with them on several topics, he also said something about how difficult their task was, particularly with (paraphrasing) ‘the brunt of criticism’ or something like that. Being that there was no other criticism leveled at this commission other than mine I had to assume he was referencing me. Its sad to think that anyone who accepts this task or enters the political arena doesn’t understand what tenets America entails. In England, you couldn’t criticize the King, that is ONE of the reasons we fought the Revolutionary War and have freedom of speech, so that any leader, anyone tasked with a handle on our governance could be rightly criticized, thereby averting anyone accruing to much power. Jim Graham, because he doesn’t like it, keeps vocalizing in regard to criticism. One member made a note about dissent, that person gets it.  From Brittanica.com: ‘Authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action.’ Mr. Graham should take a refresher course on our Democratic Republic and if not, remove himself from our government’s offices.

First item, gender neutrality in the Charter. While this is all good and fine, each recommendation, if chosen by council to go to the ballot, must each be their own ballot issue. If five recommendations go through, five ballot initiatives are born . One must be Spartan in their recommendations given then as it takes up a lot of space and consideration from the citizens at the ballot.

Secondly, the issue of the mayor’s absence is of no interest to me here so, no comment.

While I have opinions on how Charter Review members are chosen, I would prefer to allow for my time to be spent analyzing the term limits question.

Listening to them, with the slight exception of one member, I felt there was no real discussion, no one playing devil’s advocate in service to the truth or the citizen’s ultimate benefit. It was more what felt like, a perfunctory response. Viewpoints were given, Ms. Bentley’s were written (most felt the language on the ballot might be to blame for the last time it failed at the polls in 2013. Did anyone consider the notion that it failed because people want them kept in place? Why must it’s loss be attributed to anything else?), but no one, outside of one, made counterarguments or offered critical questioning in response to other’s arguments, i.e.- a real discussion. (I had sent the Council office an introduction, argument and summation of my feelings on the matter, that which I just found out today had been too large to send in one email and therefore it had been returned to me and never shared with the Charter Review.) So, outside of two emails slightly laying out opposition to ending term limits and one asking them to end them, the only other argument made was that of Mayor Maggard in a letter to them. 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.

So, there you have it. Giving up the decision on what to do with the hen house, among a plethora of options, to the foxes themselves. Let us pray.

Tuesday evening, just after I published the post regarding Auditor Miller and Council President Jim Graham’s behavior after a Council Committee meeting, I sat down and watched Steven Spielberg’s ‘The Post’. Its the true story of the Washington Post’s decision to publish the Pentagon Papers despite the threat of the Justice Department and the Nixon administration coming down on their heads. We, of course, know the outcome but, its an effective movie and a real history lesson on institutions that have the courage to do the right thing and those who don’t.

In the movie Meryl Streep plays Katharine Graham, the owner of the Post. She is well connected in society but now runs a newspaper left to her in the wake of her husband’s suicide. Tom Hanks plays the newspaper’s editor, Ben Bradlee. One of the major conflicts in the movie has to do with one of Katherine Graham’s most valued friends and confidants, Robert McNamara, the former Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, the years of heavy increased involvement in the Vietnam War. Her editor, Ben Bradlee, has gotten ahold of the top secret Pentagon Papers, those that detail America’s involvement in the war and how they continued sending men off to die in a war they knew they’d never win. It was explosive news and Ben Bradlee wanted to publish them. Katharine Graham then had a difficult decision to make because if she allowed their publishing, it would directly hurt her friend and confidant, Robert McNamara. She was terribly torn over the decision. In trying to convince Ms. Graham of the right thing to do, Mr. Bradlee tells her that these cozy relationships that are shared, which present a conflict of interest (particularly in the service of the truth and right), must end now. It was a different era but in service of the right thing, they must end these things and do what’s right. So then, Katharine Graham has a conversation with Mr. McNamara. It pains her to do so but she must do the right thing. Boys are wrongfully dying in Vietnam and she has an obligation to the people, through her newspaper, to do right by them, her relationships be damned, and so she did.

It’s a great movie with great performances. The Washington Post’s decision to publish the Pentagon Papers creates a judicial case which ends up in the Supreme Court where the justices decide in favor of the paper. The justices stated that the obligation of the press was to serve the governed, not those governing. Truly a great moment in this country’s history and for liberty and freedom over authoritarian rule.

So, if you haven’t figured out the corollary by now, here it is: When the friendships that develop among those at Whitehall City Hall become more important and supersede and/or get in the way of elected officials obligations to their duty to office and the citizens they’re supposed to be representing, it becomes a conflict of interest. How many times must this be said? People complain that I keep writing on the same things but the same things continue to go on. This is most recently exemplified by all these men rallying around Auditor Miller after his behavior with me. Their relationships are such an intrinsic part of their lives at city hall they can’t divorce themselves, professionally, from that to adhere to decency, justice, right, honor and obligation of office. They have foolishly created this conflict which gets in the way of the number one reason they’re at city hall in the first place, the citizens and the law. This is why I call them corrupt. It is a corruption of our esteemed standards of government in this country. Those standards they mindlessly put on the back shelf of their obligations for the sake of having someone to go to basketball games with and drink beer with, etc. First things first: As was my campaign slogan in ’15, ‘Constitution and citizens 1st!’ If I, who is not in office knows the deal, why don’t those who are?

I must assume they didn’t know how to go about, not just governing, but proceeding in an ethical fashion while an elected official in elected office. It’s called the benefit of the doubt. But, I have been shouting out about ethics and conflict of interest now for 9 years, when exactly are they gonna get the message? I think its a matter of not wanting to because no one is forcing them to (that’s not decency). The vast majority of the citizens aren’t paying attention and because of that, coupled with their lacks ethics, they’ll do exactly as they please because its what they want and you don’t care anyway. So, what does it matter? That’s not integrity, it’s the opposite of it. It is knowing the difference between right and wrong and doing wrong anyway. It is a corruption of ethical principles when you ignore the moral obligations of office in favor of self-serving interests. Unlike Katharine Graham, they’re not doing the right thing by the people. Get it?

l-r Whitehall Councilman Chris Rodriguez, Auditor Dan Miller, Councilman Wes Kantor and then-councilman and current Safety Director Van Gregg at a basketball game together.

This election material of Mayor Maggard’s on the left is a stellar example of blending politics with conflicts . When you agree to be on a team, you suspend independence for the sake of the team (note that both Council President Jim Graham and Auditor Dan Miller are both on the literature), that independence which may be needed for the sake of, or in service to something, which may be in conflict with ‘The Team’ (such as a citizen critical of ‘The Team’ who is trying to do the right thing). However, when something threatens to ‘hurt’ the ‘team’ or cause its cohesion to separate, i.e.- a citizen, the safety and solidity of the ‘team’ becomes more important than anything else. For instance: the officer who spoke to Councilperson Conison said she told her that Dan Miller may have said ‘get the hell out of here’. She who was standing no more than 5 feet from him in a small hushed room as he shouted ‘Get the fuck outta here!’, not once, but twice. Now, unless Ms. Conison has major hearing loss, we can only assume then that she softened what she ‘heard’ because Dan is on her ‘team’ or because Gerald Dixon has criticized her for her actions or conflicts and these events threaten both her relationships with her ‘team members’ and her standing on ‘the team’. So, again, conflicts get in the way of truth and honor. Kim Maggard, the Mayor of the City of Whitehall, who was standing 7 or so feet away as the President of Council angrily lambasted me in a small hushed room, didn’t have the integrity or professionalism of her position to at least step in and play referee or tamp the rising anger down, no. Jim is on her ‘team’. Not ‘Team Citizen’ but, ‘Team Maggard’. Again…conflicts of interest. In that moment, these ‘professional’ elected officials were more focused on their shared hatred of Gerald Dixon and his criticism of their team than they were on professional conduct and protocol and doing the right thing. In the final analysis they favored politics over a citizen or honor. It is gross. It is not America and if it is Whitehall, we have to ask ourselves, who the hell are we and what the hell are we both doing and allowing? Is anyone but me asking these questions?

Here is the entire report. I’ll let you look at the entire thing before I write on it.

log,

So, you see that Whitehall’s Director of Economic Development and Public Service (whom I’ve criticized on my blog) and 3 councilpersons (all of whom I’ve criticized on my blog, Mr. Rodriguez most, followed by Mr. Kantor and then Mr. Morrison least) ‘witnessed’ this event and all stand up for Dan Miller whom I’ve also criticized on my blog. Auditor Miller, contrary to my account, says he ‘may’ have told me to “get the hell out”* but it was only because I was ‘obnoxious’ and ‘yelling at people’ (wrong). ‘…everyone involved felt Gerald was the problem’ (imagine that!). Convenient for them that every ‘witness’ who spoke up had been targets of my criticism and that there were no friends of Gerald Dixon to offer up alternative accountings to theirs.

What concerns me even more is that there are people whom I have a greater opinion that were all standing there, both as President of Council Jim Graham ranted above me and Auditor Dan Miller yelled at me in a hushed environment. They know the truth. What are their stories? They have been silent on the matter. Will they choose honor or will they choose politics? What is their character worth to them? Mine is everything to me.

I mean, this is the handwritten list I keep by my desk. Why would I do that and just live contrary to those tenets? What kind of insane bullshit artist would I be? Really!

I can offer up these arguments in defense of my telling of events: In 9 years of going to council and three of them writing this blog there has never been a situation like this arise, until now. If I were going to make things up, why would I have taken so long to do so? Secondly, if it was I who was being ‘obnoxious’ and ‘yelling at ‘people”, why then was it I who called the police? You’d think if I’d done wrong it would have been me who skedaddled outta there quick-like instead of Dan Miller. Instead, I stayed and actually called the police (where, if the others were correct, I might’ve gotten into trouble for my behavior). It doesn’t make sense. As well, all of the writings, including the video of me telling what happened, is there really anything which suggests I’m an immoral character (particularly as I’ve went on and on and on, for years, about immorality?!) or that I’m not a forthright sort or honest? What, heretofore, suggests that I would concoct such an outrageous story? Here are, at least, 5 city officials whom I’ve spoken out about on my blog in a mostly critical fashion saying that it was I (the mean old, terrible criticizer!) who was ‘the problem’. Their familial attachments create conflicts of interest (Dan before truth, Dan before honor, Dan’s our friend, Gerald Dixon’s mean and awful) and their lack of professional distance in the face of this situation shows that bias. It was an ‘Auditor Miller’ situation in which Mr. Miller is a big boy and has the ability                                                                       to handle his own problems, not an ‘our

There it is, taped to the windowsill, in my eye line during everything I write, next to my desk.

friend Dan’ situation where he needs their help.

By my account, he was verbally aggressive to a citizen, that which everyone in the hushed room could see and hear, including Auditor Miller! (UNLESS! He was in a somnambulistic state dreaming he was on a packed subway car in Times Square at rush hour!) and out of respect FOR that citizen and the situation, like the female Council members who respected the division between self-interests and professionalism, they should have simply walked away, but, they didn’t. They stayed and commiserated with their friend Dan. The gulf between their lack of professional boundaries with themselves at city hall (in the case of elected officials) and the vested interest of their friendships at city hall they’ve wrongly given higher priority to than duty and honor and professional obligation to the public trust and the citizens themselves is grotesque. When I spoke of this to my very adroit, very accomplished attorney; that all those I’d criticized on my blog had a differing version of the events, he gave a knowing and sardonic chuckle. Of COURSE they gave an alternate version, of course they did. If that is not enough to convince you on who to believe, no amount of words matter then.

A picture is worth a thousand words…Auditor Miller at a basketball game with l-r, Councilman Chris Rodriguez, Councilman Wes Kantor and then-councilman Van Gregg

*Funny, that was what Councilperson Karen Conison said to the officer after I told her to speak with Karen. Karen Conison, who was standing only 4-5 feet from Dan Miller as he shouted in a hushed room, ‘Get the fuck outta here!‘

This is Whitehall’s Council President (the ‘Vice-Mayor’ so to speak) Jim Graham (left) and City Auditor Dan Miller(right). They have both been criticized individually by this citizen in posts on this blog. Last Tuesday evening, April 10th, just after the meetings conclusion, both had quite a public  ‘moment’ with me, that ‘moment’ which I’ve recounted via the video you see below. It was quite a surprising breach of protocol coming from elected officials towards a citizen.

To preface the video I will say this: It is a complete telling of events as I took them in, from beginning to end. One of my strongest personality traits is my powers of observation. While the events were unfolding I was recording, in my mind, not just what was said but people’s clothing, what I read in their faces and the mood of people and the ‘room’ itself. I wanted to record these events of last Tuesday on video so you could see me telling it, you could see/read my eyes, my inflections and reactions while telling you what happened. Words may tell a story but a face and voice and everything else tell the whole story. I did this so you could decide for yourself the authenticity of what I recount. What judgement you pass will be yours to make, as is your right. I will say this: I may be many things in life but ‘stupid’ is not one of them. Naïve, believing in people’s better natures, trusting? Yes. Stupid, no. When I attend these meetings it is with a full understanding of my place (public critic of elected officials, that which I work so hard to expose and fight) at them. I am in the ‘belly of the beast’, so to speak, therefore I am reserved, cordial and without provocation. To be otherwise; out of order or to cause a ruckus, would be to undermine my own fight, to damage my own credibility as a reasoned critic and champion of ethical principles in government. That would be counterproductive to all my hard work and quite frankly, stupid. To suggest I am ‘off the beam’ is to not have read or understood my years of reason on this blog or in arguments on Facebook and is to bolster and enrich the underhanded wrong going on at city hall, plain and simply. You may think whatever you may about my character but, while I have a fighters spirit directed in the right direction, I’m still a gentleman and highly aware of myself and everything around me. There are several things I’ve never disclosed about certain officials because I deemed them wrong to tell about, non-disclosures even they are not aware I exercised. (As a small example of my thought process regarding my attendance of these meetings: I carry a pocket knife with me most times, as do most men. When it is time to go to the meeting, I leave it at home. I always feel that if there was some sort of trouble, I wouldn’t want them to either confuse its possession’s intent or, more importantly, misconstrue its presence for maximum political self-benefit. So, I leave it at home. Better to be safe than sorry.) So, here is the video…

Post-script (video):

As a note on the week which has elapsed since this event: I was so shocked, I didn’t quite know what to do. Two elected city officials, most unprofessionally, came at me at the same meetings end. It was completely unprofessional, unorthodox and a breach of protocol of elected officials with a singular citizen and in the council committee room on city property. I felt intimidated by the actions of two city officials towards me. I didn’t know where to turn or what to do, so, I sought counsel in the matter. That counsel which I got just yesterday. I knew I would post this situation’s telling publicly, I just wasn’t sure when.

I have thoughts and feelings on the matter but for now its enough to soak in the information given, just as it was for me.

Screenshot of Jim Graham immediately getting up at the close of the meeting to come around and speak to me.

Screenshot of Council President Jim Graham standing over me haranguing me.

After I returned to Whitehall in 2008 and started attending council meetings in 2009, one of the first things I noticed that was awry were conflicts of interest being ignored by elected officials. Heeding conflicts of interest shows trustworthiness by elected officials, that even though they may be Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts with their professional behavior, because conflicts presence shows bias, it is best to err on the side of the public trust and give them the wide berth they demand.

From Wikipedia: “Public office is a public trust. The concept of the public trust relates back to the origins of democratic government and its seminal idea that within the public lies the true power and future of a society; therefore, whatever trust the public places in its officials must be respected.” Well said.

As well, there is this from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clarita University: “…conflicts of interest undermine trust. They make the public lose faith in the integrity of governmental decision-making processes”. That very situation which has engendered so much of the bitterness and cynicism we see in today’s societal climate. This stuff really matters.

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/government-ethics/resources/what-is-government-ethics/conflicts-of-interest-in-government/

So, my point regarding conflicts of interest and their importance is easily made when shown a small fraction of examples found on the internet as to why government officials heeding of them is vital. If elected leaders fail to heed them it is either because a) they’re corrupt and willfully ignore them (because heeding them doesn’t benefit them) or b) they’re not that bright/don’t think it pertains to them/don’t ‘get’ it. All along I was assuming those in office here in Whitehall who were ignoring them were doing so willfully because they needed something done and heeding the conflicts got in the way of that (I still believe that of most of them, they’re not stupid…just corrupt). However, one must then also consider the alternative, that such high-minded concepts like the public trust and integrity might just be over some of their heads. Either way, are these really the people you want ‘leading’ your government, those whose avarice or stupidity are going to leave a scar on your government? As for me, I say, ‘No thanks!’

There is also the argument that because the vast majority of the citizens of Whitehall don’t pay attention to the more detailed behavior of their elected officials, then those officials feel that they don’t need to heed conflicts because no one is paying attention anyway. That by the sheer carelessness of the citizen’s interest in their behavior, trust is not a component they need to worry about. Let’s say this argument is true, then what about personal integrity? It is said integrity is someone doing the right thing even when no one is looking. If that’s the case then how come so many of them have turned a blind eye to so many conflicts of interest for so many years? Why haven’t they simply shown integrity, even though no one was paying attention? My belief is, you either have integrity or you don’t, there is no part-time integrity. So then, using logic and reason through these arguments and behavior witnessed and documented over the years, I am led to believe that they willfully choose not to heed the conflicts because they get in the way of their plans and schemes, and that what they want to do is the most important thing, even above ethical principles. It doesn’t say much for their character, does it? That’s precisely what I’ve been shouting about now for over 9 years.

Given all this, I have to ask, why exactly is it that one cannot come up with an idea and ensure its implementation is completed with respect towards conflicts and ethical principles, particularly among those things they do which are idea-driven? Some of the other things are simply political (like insiders largely funding a recall effort to rid themselves of a peer whom they didn’t like). I have to lay blame where it belongs; they simply don’t have the brain capacities to dig deeper, place honor of ethics above all else (integrity), and come up with something innovative which respects and adheres to the public trust, so instead, they simply jettison the public trust for the completion of their ‘vision’. Their egos are more important than their integrity and absolutely more important than those they’re supposed to be serving. Call me old-fashioned but, to me,  that’s wrong.

A word to the current Charter Review Commission members, some of whom I feel have misunderstood my concerns and thought ill of me as a result. Let me be clearer there as well.

One of the members I’ve known 49 years now. I have known him as a child, a teenager and an adult. Always got along with him and despite some differences here and there, we still do. I like him. Another I met briefly after the Candidates Forum last year when he introduced himself and congratulated me on my forum’s performance. He seemed like a nice man and that was the extent of our relationship. The other three I have never met. So, generally, I don’t really know these individuals and must only assume they are bright, decent and of the highest caliber of upstanding citizen who agreed to exercise their civic duty for the sake of their city’s benefit. Truly. If I have disagreements with what they discuss, what they recommend, etc., it is only as a human being and fellow citizen, nothing more.

When I expressed my concerns with conflicts of interest in their appointments, their relationships with anyone, etc. it was not due to any questions I had about them as individuals but rather due to the factual presence of these conflicts, that which show bias, that bias which raises concerns with the public trust: see above. A word on this: If a man is suspected of robbing a bank and the police go to the home of the suspect’s mother, the police suspect, going in, that the Mother is going  to defend her son, that she may lie about his whereabouts or involvement in crimes. The police feel this way because of the mother’s clear bias towards the suspect, therefore, while his mother may be Mother Teresa, there is still valid, understandable suspicion from the police given ones relationship with the other, how could they not see it? Who could ever disagree with that? I mean, if your mother tells you how great you did in the play at school, while nice, you have to take it with a grain of salt because she has a clear bias.

***Important*** Conflicts of interest throw into question the fairness and integrity of decisions/answers made due to bias the conflict’s presence naturally engenders. It is as crystal clear as that.

So, when there are conflicts present like Council President Jim Graham’s monetary donation to one of the member’s political campaign, it suggests, due to the conflicts presence, that there could be a bias between them and thus, a possible quid pro quo arrangement, spoken or unspoken, that could throw the trustworthiness of the commission’s work into question and, that because we can never really know what the truth is (believing and knowing are two different things), despite any and all protestations by people involved, the entire process must be deemed suspect (It’s conflicts beg that suspicion!). That is why I and everyone else should be untrusting when conflicts of interest are present. It is not the members themselves whom I distrust, it is the conflicts which naturally engender the distrust, those which our council, careless and disrespectful to the public trust (most particularly Council President Jim Graham), failed to heed. That is his wrongdoing, most of all.

As far as my own self, what of a man who would stick his neck out in a public fashion and risk such scorn and derision by not only elected leaders but also regular citizens too, if the work he was doing wasn’t of the highest importance and most honorable of intentions? My goal is to demand the highest degree of ethical fairness in decisions which have the ability to impact the citizens of Whitehall. I feel that should only be expected of me or any other citizen. In the end run, isn’t that what we’re all supposed to be working on, both internally and externally?

In this video the Mayor introduces a draft piece of legislation dealing with police body cameras. As much information as is given or discussed is available right here in the video. This is a major moment for many reasons, one of which is that it takes our little town from the way it always has been to a world that has changed, for good or ill. It begs many questions and concerns, those which I claim the majority of the citizens representatives are ill-equipped to consider or ask. Before I get to that, let me offer a bit of historical reference.

In 2015 and 2017, I, like most candidates running, sought various endorsements. One that is sought after is that of the Fraternal Order of Police. When you go, you sit at the head of a table in front of about ten or so members and answer questions. It can be very intimidating but is part of the process. In that Q & A they addressed body cameras; what my feelings on them were, etc. As a Union representing the police, they had concerns about their use. For whatever reasons they decide such things, I never got their endorsement, but, neither did Mayor Kim Maggard. The only two running in 2015 that did get it were Leslie LaCorte and Wes Kantor. (In 2017 it was again Leslie LaCorte and Councilman Lee Stahley) Sadly, Wes won in 2015 and Leslie did not. Its interesting to note that the F.O.P.’s pick in 2015, Councilman Wes Kantor, says in this video, “I think this is a good idea, I really do.” I don’t know how ‘on board’ the FOP is to these body cams today but in 2015, they seemed fairly reticent and resistant during my interview.

So, back to this meeting, Tuesday March 27th. During these Council Committee meetings, there is great opportunity to investigate and understand legislation through vigorous questions and answers, for the sake of the citizens of the city of Whitehall whom these pieces of legislation will ultimately effect. Dull minds which lack curiosity don’t ask questions (neither do ‘team players’ who don’t want to get on the bad side of the ‘team captain’). I maintain, being that these representatives number one obligation is to the citizens, that they owe the fullest measure of their effort in service to the welfare of the people. Sadly, that is not what the citizens get for them having gotten voted in. During this important moment, they had so few questions, most sat tight-lipped. The exception to this was Councilwoman Lori Elmore. God knows the relationship between the black community and the police has been rightly strained in the last several years and so body cameras and such can be a very sensitive topic within the black community. Sadly, it was the black councilperson only who seemed concerned enough to try and get some questions answered, even bringing up the incident in Sacramento recently. For this I commend her. She seems the only one, really, on council who is proactively engaged and asks questions and seems sincerely interested in doing a good and thorough job.*

So, here are concerns that no one brought up (except for this ‘failed’ council candidate here);

Whenever you speak with the police and the body camera is on, your conversation will be recorded, whether you’re a part of an incident or just the one calling the police. We already have issue with people afraid to get involved, I fear that more calls will be made anonymously because they don’t want to be recorded on video saying what they want to. I probably speak differently to the officer when its just me and him/her than I would if I were being recorded. It has the possibility of sending a chilling effect on citizens speaking/reporting things. No one brought up this concern.

When the police stand at your door and talk with you or you invite them in, it will be video recorded, which means (and this is something the FOP brought up) the interior of your home will also be recorded. All these recordings are public record, as the mayor herself pointed out in the video, so… anyone, using Sunshine laws, will be able to obtain copies of these recordings. Any and all that the videos record, which, outside of breaks or bathroom visits, will be recorded. Isn’t there then a concern that all of this will significantly change the way people report crimes and/or will interact with police officers? Do you want the interior of your home to be available for anyone to see? What of the privacy issues for the residents? Do we have to sacrifice those for body cams? No one brought up these concerns or questions. While I am a proponent of them in light of the Black Lives Matter movement, I have concerns and reservations. Why aren’t our representatives on council addressing these? Do they specifically have to be told concerns in order to address them or do they have a modicum of critical thinking skills themselves, for the citizens they’re supposed to be representing, to ask these on their own? Who is representing you? It really should concern you (When so little information is given during election time by candidates (those miniscule nuggets the citizens accept and then vote them in), is it any wonder then that you don’t know who is representing you. I direct you to this blog post from October of last year. https://votedixon.com/2017/10/27/the-responsibility-of-candidates-to-inform-voters/).

As well, what in Whitehall’s actions have forced this change? Is it just jumping on bandwagons, forcing something that may not need to be, adding things unnecessarily? So too, in the video the mayor says, “I’d like it passed on first reading” to which Council President Jim Graham responds, “I see no reason why it shouldn’t be”. Here’s a good reason Mr. Graham: allowing the public to see it, debate it, respond to it and give them the time to let you know how they feel about it. What is the mayor’s rush?! After all, this is being done in the citizen’s names, shouldn’t they have an opportunity to see what is being done that will effect their lives? But, no, not by these people’s standards, your government representatives. She wants it, they’re her lapdogs, no need to consider the citizenry in this movement. Bypass the people, they’ll just “bitch”** about it anyway and what the mayor wants, she gets. It is a gross misrepresentation of our true democratic processes, those you allow them to get away with.

* With all due respect, it must not be forgotten that Ms. Elmore was Mayor Maggard’s pick (the mayor even holding a conflict-laden, press-covered city event in the candidates front yard!) and so I believe Ms. Elmore has some degree of recompense with the Mayor, that which I believe the mayor likes to collect on. That ‘debt’ is evidenced when Ms. Elmore speaks, sometimes doing so hesitatingly as she looks at the Mayor as if to get confirmation or approval for what she’s saying. Wanting to say what she needs to say without stepping on her benefactor’s toes. As a student of human psychology and behavior, its merely what I’ve observed. You can see it in the video.

**A Councilman Bob Bailey quote regarding his dislike of Town Hall meetings. ‘They always just turn into bitch sessions’.

In meeting #2 I was, again, the only non-governmental citizen in attendance. The attendance outside of myself and Councilman Larry Morrison had grown to include Council President Jim Graham (in the audience this time), Councilwoman Joanna Heck and Mayor Kim Maggard. When I initially wrote about my concerns with the Charter Review Commission I expressed how some of these people who visit it in an official capacity have levels of influence they bring to it. It is no stretch of understanding to say that high public officials bring with them a tinge of impressiveness or celebrity along with the gravitas of their positions. Some people in the room did not disabuse me of this notion. When the Mayor entered the room there was a general sort of excitement as if a celebrity had just arrived. The immediate concern which ran through my head in response was; if decisions regarding term limit recommendations are to be made (which have the ultimate possibility to effect Mayor Maggard), I can only hope they’ll be able to divorce themselves from their excitement shown and glowing remarks about her performance I’ve heard them share and commit to the critical judgement skills needed to discuss and/or make these recommendations, unfettered, from these worrisome exhibitions.

So, while the meeting was generally uneventful, the couple things that stood out were:

• They tabled discussion on the matter of term limits, i.e.- up to three/ending altogether, for another time.

• I spoke when they allowed me at the end of the meeting and pleaded with them to extend the public input time from the agreed on 3 minutes to 6 minutes as when discussing nuance (which no one does anymore) you can’t get across the import of a topic so quickly. I pointed out that no other non-governmental citizen was in attendance that evening or the prior one so if it was their concern that so many people taking 6 minutes a pop of their time was going to keep them there all night, I expressed my doubt of it as a true concern. I then handed out a small packet detailing, to a small degree, why I thought ending term limits/extending them to three was a bad idea. They thanked me, noted the time I’d spent compiling these papers (council never extends that appreciation to me) and thanked me for my time. They then made a motion to vote to keep or extend the public input, which, in the moment, I wasn’t sure I understood what they were doing or what they said. I had to ask one of them at the end what the vote had been and he told me it was to keep it at 3 minutes.

• As an added note, I will extend my appreciation to one of the members for holding the Mayor’s feet to the fire in finding applicants for department heads in a reasonable time. The Mayor herself runs the Public Safety Department and has for a year or more. She acts as the liaison to the safety forces but is also their boss. I believe it creates a conflict whereas the safety forces have to discuss items they may not feel comfortable discussing directly with the Chief Executive instead of a go-between. It has taken too long and so I say kudos to this Charter Review member who questioned this in regard to an item in the Charter.

( I have no doubt the length of time taken is due to the mayor taking too long trying to find just the most amenable sycophant to add to her full compliment of them at city hall. Dissent leads to cracks in that façade she’s taken great pains to construct, that which includes a bunch of yes-people who will help her keep that bullshit structure from coming down around her deserving head).

                        NEXT MEETING:

                    Monday March 26th

                               6:30 pm