Whitehall Watchblog

A week or so ago, Mayor Maggard gave a ‘State of the Community’ speech alongside the Superintendent of WCS and the Whitehall Area Chamber of Commerce. Of the many items regarding development in the city that she highlighted, one in particular stuck out for me. Speaking of the acquisition and development of the former Fairport Apartment complex, of which we’ve all been apprised, she added that the additional properties surrounding the complex would also be acquired and the land would be made part of the development complex.

 http://www.whitehall-oh.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=157

 These are the little shopping center where ‘Shrimp Hut’ is located, the three apartment buildings to the north of it, the old Sunoco at the corner and also in negotiation, the little old building east of Holiday Lanes that houses ‘M Computers’. It was this last one that struck me during her talk and, like ‘The Manor’s’ destruction in Woodcliffe, I couldn’t help but feel sad about this buildings ultimate demise too.

 We all have various natural traits which make up our individual selves, those assets which we bring to the table that are part of our unique offering. One of mine, according to the renowned Myers-Briggs test, is that of ‘guardian’.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_temperament

 I tend to protect and keep things in order. I am a natural guardian of not just buildings and things but also systems and orders, like the ethics and principals I’ve worked so hard to defend here in Whitehall. My blog here is filled with examples of my defense of these things. When they are in danger it, as the Wikipedia article points out, stresses me out. As such, you can only imagine how I felt when every single school building from Whitehall’s history was leveled, particularly given my having lived in NYC where school buildings still stood and were active which had been around when Lincoln was still alive. Something which is a part of the human history of a place, that which had withstood the tests of time. Gone in an instant in the name of ‘development’ or ‘progress’ with little fanfare or mourning. Unique places that had housed the community’s spirits, their gains and losses, their exuberance and happiness and everyday lives. How that can be torn out of a community’s self with no more than a shrug of the shoulders is beyond me. So it is too then with the ‘M Computers’ building.

http://apps.franklincountyauditor.com/ParcelSheet/090-000096-00

 If you look closely, you can see its farmhouse origins. The original frame of the house is still noticeable above the façade’s roofline. It had a north/south westerly side attached to an east/west portion. It was built along the former Columbus-Granville Plank Road and was probably part of a farm (like others still standing further east past Reynoldsburg). The roads widening no doubt brought it closer to the house, as it is today. With houses of this variety, there was usually a porch, probably on the left side which they could watch carriages, and later automobiles, as they passed the house. According to the Franklin County Auditor’s website, there has been a store there as far back as 1920 (any records previous to 1920 were lost in a fire). It was owned by a Charles Spatz for the majority of the Great Depression and has stood for the entirety of the City of Whitehall’s history. It is perhaps the last farmhouse left of Whitehall’s past still standing on Broad Street. That in itself is enough to mourn its ultimate demise but there is more.

 In the early to mid-mark of the 20^th Century there had been a golf course on the north side of East Broad Street. To my recollection (from Ray Downing, who was born in 1920 in a house that stood where the Wendy’s on Broad Street is and who’d worked there in his youth) it was called the Town and Country Golf Club. As a result of this there was a bar at this location on Broad Street called the ‘Par-4 Lounge’. I believe the neon sign out front had a putter and golf ball on the sign, that which may have baffled those who weren’t aware of the defunct golf course the bar took its name from. The bar itself survived long after the golf course, into the late ‘70’s or early 80’s. At one point or another, both my parents bartended there. When my Mother had to work at General Diaper Service in the day and they couldn’t afford a babysitter, I and my two brothers would spend the day at the Par-4 Lounge, slugging back kiddy cocktails, playing pool under the smoke-hazed light suspended over the table and making selections on the mini-jukeboxes located at every booth; Patsy Cline and Ray Price’s music filling the room on grey Saturdays while my Father poured Old Milwaukee and Old Crow for old men at the L-shaped bar. Their music and that bar hold dear childhood memories for me, as does the great pizza made in their kitchen by the wonderful Mary (I don’t remember her last name). My Father used to take us in through the kitchen door and we’d say hello to Mary and it always smelled of pizza. I always felt like an ‘insider’ going in that way with my father. It was a very popular nightspot back in the day when Whitehall had many bars and night life. I remember my glamorous Mother coming home from a ‘night out’ at the Par-4 in her fur jacket and knee high boots smelling of an exciting mix of alcohol, cigarettes and perfume.

After the demise of the Par-4 Lounge, it had different businesses come through, most with little staying power next to the Par-4. Now there is ‘M Computers’ which has been holding its own now for several years.

 My point in writing this blog entry is really not to take issue with the Mayor’s office and the Development Director taking a troubled area and doing what they can and must, in a just fashion, to turn it around for the sake of the community’s health and interest. Nor do I write this to excoriate developers for doing what comes naturally to them. Developers gotta develop. No. My point, which any fellow ‘guardian’ would appreciate, is that sometimes, particularly with cities hungry for change and economic development coupled with ‘developers who gotta develop’, the cost for that change and development is often at the expense of our shared built history, that which makes up the human aspect of a communities experience. No guardian or poet ever looked at a building made of brick and mortar and saw only that. They are the trustees of the dreams and sacrifices and human drama and existence of a community, that which filled those buildings with heart and soul, and when that brick and mortar is leveled back to point zero, they are the ones who most greatly mourn and recognize the community’s larger loss in that leveling. A loss which rarely receives the sensitive consideration due it by those city officials and developers in their singular pursuits. And so it is.

 Mike Wallace, Distinguished Professor of History at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY said, regarding this topic;

“ Since the 1920’s it’s been ‘modern, modern, modern’, and modern means ‘dump the past’, ‘break with the past’, ‘think new’, ‘think art deco’, ‘think streamlined’, ‘think projectile’…tear down the old stuff, not just because, although it may be, a constraint on our ability to make profits but, because its old, the new is intrinsically superior to the old but, Jacobs (Jane Jacobs, renowned critic of bad city planning) says, wait a minute, part of the texture of life in a city is that people are not just connected to each other on the street by virtue of being neighbors but they’re connected in time. There’s some sense in the buildings around you that remain that give you a sense of being part of a continuum, that history isn’t dead, its not something which has been transcended, today is not the first day of the rest of your life. People are beings in time and they need to be surrounded, not entirely but…to some extent, by the legacy of the built environment of the past.”

I would add to Professor Wallace’s wisdom, this; that old farmhouse has been sitting there longer than anyone in Whitehall been alive today. It is older than us; it has survived longer than we’ve been alive. For that alone, outside of any historical importance it may have, it is worthy of a community’s note, certainly as it passes into the dustbin of history. To not give it its due in that is to disrespect and diminish that heart and soul our community’s forbearers imbued it with.

So…if it goes, I guess, it goes. My sadness at yet another building from our community’s past being torn down will remain with me, as it does with so many others now gone. But, my concern ultimately lies more with the community itself, that which allows piece by piece of its shared past to be torn down for ‘progress’ and profit (and grants). Where the landscape has nothing left from its past to inform the identity of the community’s present and all that’s left is a dull, standardized corporate-identity to supplant it. Unless the citizens themselves, with the Whitehall Historical Society leading the charge, stand up and demand their elected officials get on board preservation (and re-use) over development of the remnants of our shared history, it will become ever more elusive for our city to hold onto the identity our shared past has the ability to enrich us with.

In memoriam:

The Manor at Woodcliffe

Whitehall-Yearling High School

Rosemore Junior High School

Etna Road Elementary

Robinwood Elementary

Beechwood Elementary

East Broad St. Elementary

East Main Elementary

Town and Country Cinema

Abram Doney House

George Yearling House

Ye Olde Whitehall Tavern

White gingerbread house on Yearling close to Etna
(gone for 6 parking space

Etc…

Here are Councilperson’s Rodriguez, Kantor and Gregg with Auditor Dan Miller at what appears to be an OSU basketball game. They’re all officials in Whitehall City government, elected to represent the citizens interests, first and foremost. Their gathering here or anywhere together socially is a conflict of interest. How so? Let me explain.

Let’s say you, the citizens, elect me to represent your interests, in whatever capacity; as a legislator/watching your money we took from your paycheck, whatever it may be. Now, lets say upon election I get into City Hall and start getting to know people. I and they are affable and friendly and one day one of them asks me to have a beer with them. I think, ‘We sure do deal with alot of stuff together in various forms and there’s definitely some stuff I’d like to discuss further but time at City Hall is so limited. I’d really like to pick so-an-so’s brain on that thing’, so, you see no harm in having a beer with them. Of course, beer time is not City Hall time and so, things are more casual, and chatting and shooting the bull is definitely more fun and relaxing. Within this realm one starts to feel more friendly with your heretofore professional colleagues and so more walls start to come down and you start to perhaps side and empathize and agree more and more on a variety of topics with your colleagues as individuals. Then, one day you feel downright good about them and your relationship with them. That starts to build bonds and feelings of mutual appreciation which develop into friendships which forms a conflict now between your personal relationship with your friend and your professional realtionship with your independently elected colleague. Certainly your bond with this person you’ve come to befriend is stronger than any old citizen and so then, this is where the conflict of interest begins. That conflict between your devotion and increased allegience to this person you really like and appreciate and who has your back, and that of the nattering nuisance of a citizen who ‘wants somethin’ or doesn’t like your ‘friend’. That citizen who you have no bond with and/or may have issues with you. Of course you like to think you are unbiased and will always do the right thing by the citizen but then one day your ‘friend’ is in trouble or feeling the heat or is opposing something and now they really need a friend in their corner, to back them up. Your feelings are strongly with that colleague now, not with the person or entity causing the heat or the thing ‘attacking’ him now or that he’s opposed to. Time and time again I have seen this scenario play out at City Hall. People elected to represent the citizens and their interests siding with their friends over citizens in the face of so much evidence and weight against them/their behavior/legislation, etc.

Many is the time, in driving past Councilman Bailey’s home after a meeting I have seen him and Auditor Miller sitting on the porch, near the driveway, sometimes with a fire going, sitting and drinking. One night recently, after Mr. Rodriguez made his prepared speech about Leslie LaCorte calling his absences out, I and Treva Imler drove past Mr. Bailey’s house and there was Mr. Rodriguez getting out of his vehicle with a 12-pack of beer. (Was there a designated driver?) One time I rode my bicycle past Mr. Rodriguez’ house and there was Mr. Bailey sitting with him drinking beer. They offered me one and I declined. Sittin’ around, drinking alcohol and building friendships/alliances.

This makes one wonder then about Mr. Rodriguez’ absences being overlooked by council the last 4 years. By the most recent count he has missed some 75 meetings in the last 4 years, out of 192 (That’s over a year and a half missed). The time has long since passed for him to do the right thing by his obligations to council and the citizens. However, at no time during this has council themselves chosen to do anything about this affront. If his job has gotten in the way of his obligations to the citizens and council, that which he freely entered into, then that is simply what it is but it doesn’t, nor should it be, an excuse for the rest of Council to ignore its own obligations to the citizens. Yet, their obligation seems to be more with their friend and so they’ve chosen to do nothing and remain silent, apparently allowing him to turn his back on honor and respect and obligations without themselves stepping in to do the right thing for the citizen’s sake. Time and again they make a motion to excuse him, usually led by his friends Bob Bailey and Wes Kantor. They have chosen their friend over the rightful priority of the citizens thereby helping him to take nearly $7000 of the citizens money for nothing in return. Apparently their friendship with Chris Rodriguez is more important to them than doing the right thing by the citizens.

It is important to avoid conflicts of interest that could undermine your objective judgment.

It is a conflict of interest to socialize with people you may have to disagree with when it comes time to represent the citizens. Your ability to compartmentalize your feelings and professional obligations are in question then, particularly when you go to sporting events and drink with people you then have to oppose for the citizens sake. Will they do the right thing by the citizens even if doing so opposes or hurts his ‘friend’ on Council? Is it enough to simply trust them to do the right thing with these conflicted relationships or must we demand moral and ethical accountability of those who ask to serve us? I think it is the latter. I’ve said it before and certainly enough in my campaign last year (It was in my campaign slogan. ‘Constitution and Citizens 1st!’) You are there for one and only one reason, the citizen’s. You do your job ethically, professionally and without bias, with a moral compass for the citizens and the citizens alone. It is how you show good character and trustworthiness to the public, those whom you asked to place their faith and trust in you in the first place. Anything else is ego and vanity and has no place in the people’s government.

Finally then, again, there is this;

http://votedixon.com/2015/07/04/why-ethics-in-public-office-matter/

In October of last year I published this post; http://votedixon.com/2015/10/29/woodcliff-v-whitehall-what-lies-beneath/ discussing the City of Whitehall’s relationship with the Woodcliff area in Whitehall. In that post I mentioned how the city was spending around $25,000 a month for legal fees related to their pusuit of the land at Woodcliff, as mentioned in this post; http://votedixon.com/2015/10/30/woodcliff-v-whitehall-part-two-the-pirates-of-whitehall/.

I recently received the copies of the emails related to that expense and so wanted to share them here. This file contains the emails between Mayor Maggard and Auditor Miller which Mr. Miller claims are costing the city $25-$30 thousand dollars a month per charge. They also write about writing legislation to get a supplemental appropriation to pay for these. Thay also make an assumption of getting it approved, as if that is not the council’s prerogative, to approve or not approve. It also suggests they know who is on their side (council) and that there will be no fight because of the nature of their relationship. (Team members/buddies/colleagues/friends) I’ve been there when these supplemental appropriations come up, often with generic titles for their usage, that which I’ve rarely ever heard the council question and demand understanding and paperwork, ala the Manor House at Woodcliff. All the council members, during the shit storm from the community, the press and the historical society when it was torn down, all claimed they’d never heard anything about this happening and I’m certain then that the money appropriated for its demolition was in one of these generically opaque appropriation legislations. I’d asked Leslie LaCorte about these pieces of legislation which contained generalized sums of money and she said they really didn’t inquire about them and simply trusted those bringing forth the legislation that they were doing above-board things with the money but that deeper accounts of the activities and the spending were not proffered. Which again shows how foolish and/or biased council can be in not adhering to the separate branches of government set up so that no one branch has too much power. I say these people are untrustworthy and so every action they take, every piece of legislation they ask council to approve must be questioned and investigated, which they really don’t.

Their bias for their friends over the people has been apparent for sometime now and this is really just another indicator of that. As Dan Miller himself writes in the email, “I would like to get that on tonight’s agenda so I can get that approved…”, not ‘hope to get that approved’ or ‘try to get that approved’, an assumption on his part that it WILL be approved by a separate branch of the government, one whose priority and obligation are to the citizens themselves, first and foremost. Here then is the link to the emails;

SKMBT_C55415110510300

Here is Mayor Maggard’s budget for the City of Whitehall for 2016. There is much to look at and process so for now, I’ll allow you to do just that without my thoughts. In a few days I’ll have a couple things to say, as may you. Remember, this is your money they’re playing with, if its not being spent reasonably or wisely, you certianly have a right to speak up. For now though, enjoy the read.

SALARY CAPS

I am told that these ‘salary caps’ represent the amount that they could parse out to various employees/offices/appointees but that what has been appropriated (in the budget above) will probably be the actual numbers so, don’t let these anger you.

This is the council meeting that Councilman Rodriguez made his prepared statement in regard to Councilwoman LaCorte not approving of his 76th absence in the last four years. Here is what he said, as best I was able to transcibe it from the staticky/noisy audio;

“Its come to my attention that the Nov. 17th meeting one of my colleagues took an issue with the fact that I’m required to travel for work. In fact I read in the Whitehall News that, I quote, ‘have not fulfilled these obligations since being re-appointed to council in 2011.’ I’d like to remind my colleague that the voters re-elected me in 2013 with full knowledge of my work commitments. I also find it increasingly…increasingly…incredibly interesting that this was not an issue for the past two years. It was not an issue last year or even this summer. It was not an issue for my colleague until I supported her opponent and she lost the election for mayor last month. This sounds like sour grapes. (LaCorte laughs) (to LaCorte) I have the floor.”

“I want you all to know that I do take my public service very seriously. I’m available to my constituents. I speak with neighbors and residents who (inaudible) issues that remain important and on items of note on the agenda. I bring their issues and opinions on matters to committee and (inaudible). Lastly, I do want to thank the people in my ward for their continued faith in me. I want to thank the rest of my colleagues for their support and I look forward to continue to work with them after January 1st.”

Here it is again then, with my rebuttal in red…

“Its come to my attention that the Nov. 17th meeting one of my colleagues took an issue with the fact that I’m required to travel for work. (She doesn’t take issue with your requirement to travel for work, she takes issue with that fact taking you an inordinate amount of time away from your duties as the citizens elected representative. That is a huge and distinct difference.) In fact I read in the Whitehall News that, I quote, ‘have not fulfilled these obligations since being re-appointed to council in 2011.’ (The entirety of what she said was this; “(Rodriguez) has missed too many meetings and council has a lot to do,” LaCorte said, adding he had not fulfilled his obligation since he was appointed to council in 2011, nor decreased his business-related travel requirements.) I’d like to remind my colleague that the voters (216 of them) re-elected me in 2013 with full knowledge of my work commitments. (As a Ward 1 citizen I saw no information to give me any, let alone ‘full’ knowledge, related to his ‘work commitments’.) I also find it increasingly…increasingly…incredibly interesting that this was not an issue for the past two years. It was not an issue last year or even this summer. (The wrongness of it existed whether someone took issue with it or not. The fact that no one spoke up, in particular Mr. Rodriguez, says alot about their priorities.) It was not an issue for my colleague until I supported her opponent and she lost the election for mayor last month. (Mr. Rodriguez has a valid point here. If he was absent 75 times, why the ‘no’ vote to excuse his absence on the 76th? I know for myself that I had noticed his absences over the last couple years but said nothing publicly. I felt, for one, that it was his and/or his colleagues on council to remedy this situation. I even looked up the rules on absenteeism in the charter and expressed my feelings privately. This was done out of respect. Secondly, everyone knew Mr. Rodriguez had a job which required travel. If he is not in council meetings, its not out of spite or is on purpose but rather due to the demands his job puts upon his time which were chiefly responsible for his time lost on council. That certainly deserves a reasonable modicum of patience and consideration, that which I, Leslie LaCorte and others gave him for those previous years. However, that patience and understanding doesn’t ultimately take away from the fact that he is being paid to perform a duty and a service for citizens which he is not, due to his work demands, able to sufficiently serve those obligations, not to mention taking money for a job he’s not able to do as properly as if he were here as it requires him to be. It has been and is a problem and a wrong on Councilman Rodriguez’ part to ignore this, that which can no longer be ignored. If he cannot properly serve the residents of Ward 1 with a reasonable expectation of attendance and stop collecting a paycheck from taxpayer dollars for massive absences, then he needs to do the right and honorable thing and simply step down. That would be the right thing to do by the citizens of Ward 1 which, by the record, he has only been representing two/thirds of the time.) This sounds like sour grapes. (That is for Ms. LaCorte to answer)  (LaCorte laughs) (to LaCorte) I have the floor.”(One can react to things being said, that is not wresting control of someone elses time.)

“I want you all to know that I do take my public service very seriously. I’m available to my constituents. (I know of residents of Ward 1 who would disagree) I speak with neighbors and residents who (inaudible) issues that remain important and on items of note on the agenda. (If he can’t attend 76 meetings in four years, where does he have the time to go and talk with the ‘neighbors and residents’?) I bring their issues and opinions on matters to committee and (inaudible). Lastly, I do want to thank the people in my ward for their continued faith in me. (It is easy to say that the people in your Ward have faith in you but proof is in the pudding. Citizens rarely come out to meetings, let alone voice their opinions. As of this writing, I would like to know how many registered voters there are in Ward 1 compared with the 216 people who voted him in running unopposed. (Sometimes I think he’s in there because ‘he’ll do the job’ that no one else wants to do. He’s ‘good enough’ because he’s willing to do it.) They all talk about ‘our citizens’ and such but when the council meetings and civic functions are too often so barren and I hear the sighs and the disappointment in so many of the disconnected, apathetic and unengaged Whitehall populace from the elected leaders*, I wonder just exactly how deep this faith and attention and interest of ‘their citizens’ goes. It is fine and good to say such things but the manifestation of that is rarely seen.) and I want to thank the rest of my colleagues for their support and I look forward to continue to work with them after January 1st.” (Here it appears he’s signalling that he has no intention of dropping out and will continue to take taxpayer money for not doing his job.)

*At the end of the meeting Council President Jim Graham says, “I want to thank everyone for coming out this evening. Appreciate you being here. We always enjoy having as many people in here as we can get. Like to see the place be totally full, standing room only would be really nice.” I have heard this so often I can’t count. They all know this but rarely say anything past a sighing disappointment, but its true. The entire reason this sort of governing exists in City Hall is due to the citizens lacks interest and engagement, that which they don’t really or fully adddress, afraid they’ll alienate voters who may send them packing.

Tuesday evening, Dec. 1st, at the regular council meeting, Councilman Chris Rodriguez took Councilwoman Leslie LaCorte to task for having voted ‘no’ to approve his latest absence at the last council meeting. That action which prompted a mention in the Whitehall News along with a retort from Chris Rodriguez. In his prepared remarks Councilman Rodriguez essentially lambasted LaCorte, calling her actions “sour grapes” because he endorsed her opponent (Kim Maggard) and stated that Ward 1 residents were fully apprised of his job constraints when they elected him back into the Ward 1 seat in 2013. (As a Ward 1 resident I saw no such literature nor heard any such information in 2013) He also said that he serves the residents of Ward 1 well.                                                                         As soon as the council meeting was finished I went up to Mr. Rodriguez at the dais and reminded him of the letter I’d sent him, dated Sept.3rd, asking for his resignation based on his attendance record. He suggested my letter’s timing was political (Which he then apparently used as an excuse to not respond to my simple and respectful request). I reminded him that I am a Ward 1 resident and he chose not to respond to me either by mail or phone. He mentioned some remark he’d made alluding to my letter as if it were in the paper or something and I told him I’d never seen any such response. Regardless, a constituent who takes the time to write and mail their elected representative a letter deserves the respect of a response, if not in kind, then at least, at all. I then told him he was disingenuous for making it seem as though Leslie were the only one bringing the issue of his lacks attendence up in light of the information I had just reminded him of. He said, “See, there ya go.” Given Mr. Rodriguez’ prepared remarks then, let me offer up a few bits of information as rebuttal to the case made by him for his position; that he does such a terrific job for Ward 1 citizens.

Firstly, here is the letter I sent him;

As you can well see, it is clear, concise and respectful. This isn’t calling into question his record of service as a representative, it is just based on truth and truth alone. By his own admission he has missed alot and I feel, as a citizen and Ward 1 resident, that it has become wrong for him to continue to occupy the seat given the amount of time he’s missed. Do the right thing and step down honorably, allowing another resident (not me)* to take the seat who can give to the citizens the time their situations and needs and wants deserve. Apparently though, as I’ve stated so often in this blog, because its me, Gerald Dixon, and because I’ve been critical of him and his donor friends in City Hall in the past, then anything I bring up is ignored regardless of its solid truth. Truth is the truth is the truth and a wrong is a wrong is a wrong, regardless of who serves it up. As such then, it seems Mr. Rodriguez is less concerned with abiding by the truth and doing the right thing than he is with his own feelings and interests and allegiance to ‘The Family’, exactly as I keep shouting from the rooftops. (Apparently I’m gonna have to buy a bullhorn next!) This is why I was then compelled to reveal publicly, in my post regarding Mayor Maggard’s endorsements, that I had sent the letter at all. (a full month after the date of my letter in response to his silence as well as a month and a half before Leslie LaCorte voted ‘no’ to approve his absence from council) See:

http://votedixon.com/2015/10/02/the-argument-against-mayor-maggards-endorsements/

So then, if Councilman Rodriguez chooses self and familial allegiance over truth and right then he leaves me no other choice, as a citizen and as a public clarion, to inform you exactly of what Mr. Rodriguez’ record on council is.

Firstly, there is this, from my post arguing against Mayor Maggard’s endorsements;

“Councilman Rodriguez doesn’t understand the true nature of public service. He has served so long I’ve lost count. The charter says one may serve two consecutive four-year terms. Once the last term expires, they can either be appointed if a vacancy opens up or have to wait until the election for the next seat, which could be two years. The spirit of the charter is often dismissed by running for another office halfway through the term. Mr Rodriguez has been elected, appointed and ran from Ward to at-Large and back to Ward again. Thanks in part to being appointed after he lost his run for Treasurer. It has been much more than the consecutive 2 terms of four years each. This is a quote from him in a Dispatch article from the last effort to end term limits was defeated in 2013. See if you can spot the ironic inconsistency in his statement;”

“This is the third time it’s gone down. The people want them kept in place, and we have to respect that,” said Councilman Chris Rodriguez, who was re-elected to his fourth term. “We had three races go unopposed, mine being one of them.”

FACTS SCHMACTS

The other day I sat in the Clerk of Council’s office for about two hours and went through the records of the council meetings, committee and regular council meetings, to check on who has brought forward legislation and what the attendance record has been. As far as attendance of Mr. Rodriguez (that which I had noticed long before I became a candidate for Council at-Large in 2015) I went back to January of 2012 when he’d been appointed back to his old Ward 1 seat after losing his bid for the Auditor’s job to Dan Miller. He later ran, unopposed, for that same seat and, obviously, won it in Nov. 2013. So, January 2012 was where I started.

There are essentially 48 meetings to attend in a year. I started my count on the 17th of that month as that seemed to be Rodriguez’ first meeting back after his appointment so, as such, for 2012, he had the opportunity to attend 46 meetings. The following years, ’13, ’14 and ’15 were all the normal 48. This is a grand total for 4 years of 190 meetings (to the end of Dec. 2015). Of those 190, per the public record,Councilman Rodriguez has missed 76 meetings…76! To put that number into context, that amounts to 19 missed per year or nearly 5 months out of the 12, every year. It is nearly half the meetings, totaling over a year and a half of missed meetings for which he still received a paycheck from the taxpayer’s pockets. In 2012 and ’13 he was making $4000 a year. In 2014, after he was duly elected on his own, his salary went up to $4600 a year. Balancing the two sums against the amount of time he missed (His attendance actually decreased after 2012 but for the sake of argument for this post we’ll divide it equally, even though he made less in 2012) the amount of taxpayer dollars that Councilman Rodriguez has taken for doing absolutely nothing in return, is $6451. Free money, straight from the citizen’s pockets. And so, given these facts, straight out of the record itself, it is Lelsie LaCorte and myself who are wrong here, per Councilman Rodriguez? So, the truth doesn’t exist? Doing the right thing, as outlined in my letter to him, is not the priority for Councilman Rodriguez? The reality and facts and truth of his situation are washed clean simply because he claims Councilwoman LaCorte and I brought up this truth for political reasons? Seems convenient for him. I think he’s the one with the sour grapes due to the fact that we brought this to the public’s attention in the first place, those who, in not paying attention, didn’t know this situation existed. Of course now it makes him look bad, and rightfully so.                                                                                       Mr. Rodriguez is not guilty of having a job or having it be so busy that he can’t make meetings he might otherwise have been at. No. He is guilty because he chose not to do anything despite the clarity of the situation as it was right there in his and everybody else’s faces, where its wrong and its conflict was as clear as a bell. And…all this while continuing to take the citizens money for it. Wrong. wrong, wrong. Guilty, guilty, guilty. (As it was for the rest of council who had the ability to do something about this wrong but chose not to. Everybody looked the other way and nobody did anything in light of this wrongdoing. Choosing their friendships and associations with Councilman Rodriguez over ethics and doing right by the citizens who they’re supposed to be there for). Shame all around for that one.

For this alone, he should resign.

I also looked at the legislative record, to see if he was creating legislation, as is made such a big deal of when people are running for office. If someone has created zero legislation, they’re deemed lazy, careless, bad legislators. (For the record I believe a legislator is there if legislation is needed or something merits it or they have an excellent idea but, shouldn’t be done just to do so or because ‘legislator’ is right there in your title. We have enough laws on the books strangling us daily, we don’t need legislation just to please others politically or to please your own ego. That is actually a bad legislator)

There are apparently two types of legislation, one is repealing some or all of past legislation or creating ordinances/laws (as best I’ve been able to understand it). The other is ‘resolutions’. These generally don’t have teeth and seem to generally be used to recognize citizens and entities and create things. Mr. Rodriguez used a resolution to recognize a citizen, as did Ms. LaCorte. Councilperson Conison has used resolutions to recognize the wrestling team and Toastmasters. As such then, for this examination, I am not including these as ‘legislation’ as there were no laws made or something was done to better the community through those laws. So then, going back to 2010, Councilmans Dan Miller and Larry Morrison are the only two who ever introduced legislation individually. Not one other ever has. There were several legislative actions put forth in a group effort (When every council member jumped on one, I outcluded it from this analysis) There were three pieces of legislation that Councilman Bailey introduced with others, one of which was Mr. Rodriguez. It had to do with something they had to change due to a court ruling that said no government could compel citizens to clear their sidewalks of snow. Because our laws still compelled them to do so, they had to draw up legislation recognizing the court’s decision, that which took three of them to accomplish this simple but necessary act. Kantor, Bailey and Rodriguez. Outside of this, since 2010, Councilman Rodriguez has brought forth zero legislation on his own to help out Ward 1 citizens. Dan Miller introduced two pieces of legislation alone in his short time on council! Otherwise to round it out and for clarity, Bailey has co-sponsored three, Kantor co-sponsored two and LaCorte, Conison and Knoblauch, none.

Conversely, after a great deal of work on my part trying to do something about massive trucks coming down small streets in the ‘Woods’ section of Whitehall, at my request, I sat down with Councilman Rodriguez to draft a change to the ‘Truck Routes’ legislation.We got the bare bones of it and after he left I solidified and finished it and delivered it to his house. He dropped it off to the city attorney’s office and I waited. After an inordinate amount of time I finally pressured the city attorney to tell me of its fate. He said, as to form, he approved it. Mr. Rodriguez wasn’t around and it didn’t seem as though this legislation for Ward 1 citizens and the rest of Whitehall was a top priority for him, so, knowing this, I told them at a council meeting he actually attended that it was finally going to be introduced (after, like, 6 months!) Mr. Rodriguez had not been apprised of my announcement as I was sick and tired of him doing nothing to push it along. If I’d waited for him to do something, nothing would have ever happened. The look on his face was priceless. I knew I’d thrown him a bombshell and he looked surprised and scrambled to look like he was a part of this decision, and of course, he had to scramble to prepare and present this for next week’s committee meeting. The end result was that the assistant city attorney Matt Roth and Mayor Maggard put up alot of poo-pooing and eshewing roadblocks to the legislation because, in reality, it would’ve meant a Dixon win, that which they couldn’t possibly allow. (To them, a ‘Dixon win’ connotes a ‘Maggard loss’) The sheep on council then placidly complied with their Shepard Mayor Maggard and the legislation died as Councilman Rodriguez carelessly and without full effort for the citizens he represents placed it in the coffin which he built out of his bias and inaction, pounding the nail into it with a “Does anybody have anything else” to finish things out. To this day, when there is a wayward large truck delivering to Target, it is myself, a private citizen of Chris Rodriguez’ Ward 1, who has to personally go and talk with the General Manager about the situation. Therefore it is I, Gerald Dixon, who has done right by the citizens of Ward 1, not their governmentally-elected representative on City Council, Chris Rodriguez. That is a shame on him and another reason he should resign.

In essence then, Councilman Rodriguez is a part of these familial proceedings that go on down at City Hall, that which I’ve been so outspoken against now for several years; the inter-donating, the beer-drinking socializing after meetings, the ignoring of wrongdoing and corruption and immorality in office that surrounds them. Mr. Rodriguez has taken $6,451.00 of taxpayer money in return for doing absolutely nothing and yet has not expressed any shame or remorse or mea culpas for having done so, particularly when any decency and morality he might possess should have motivated him to do the right thing when the wrong thing was happening in the first place. But no, he didn’t nor hasn’t. It is wrong and he hasn’t copped to that. As a public official and people’s representative, this is unacceptable. But, what I have witnessed consistently from this group is a strident arrogance with no shame or apology or admittance of any wrongdoing, particularly so when its truth is apparent even to a Dalmation. So, I suspect that this post and any future repudiations of their behavior will also be met with the same stubborn silence, refusal to acknowledge me and/or the charges I’ve leveled and fingers merely pointed back at the messenger to divert attention away from themselves. For their heel-digging, stonewalling, back-turning response in the face of truthful and factual charges knows no morality, decency or humility.

*I cannot or will not be the one to call Councilman Rodriguez out, have him/see him resign, only to then apply for and/or take the seat he leaves empty. It is wrong six ways to Sunday and I won’t preach conflicts of interest and public ethics and morality only then to ignore it myself. I may make the movements to call him out and demand he do the right thing but I will not then take advantage of my own actions to benefit myself. I’m calling him out because its the right thing for me to do, not because I’m trying to take his seat.

“Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations that’ve long since bought and paid for, the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pocket, and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and the information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them.”                                                                                                                     -George Carlin                                                                                                              (Whitehall Mayor’s Court Magistrate Sean Maxfield has donated a total of $600 to Kim Maggard, he that rules on people’s lives that Mayor Maggard compels into court through code enforcement who are part of the Service Department who act at the pleasure of the Mayor)

“The manager accepts the status quo, the leader challenges it.”- Warren Bennis

For your consideration…here are three post-election comments leaked to me that I wanted to share with you and respond to. I’m afraid I’m late in reporting these only because I’ve been busy post-election and the amount of time spent writing, referencing, checking, etc., can be lengthy and so I’ve written it as I’ve been able. Forgive me it’s tardiness.

Two of these are from Facebook posts made by Whitehall Auditor Dan Miller with commentary by Mayor Kim Maggard. There was some fun commentary by others (calling me “the boil on the butt of humanity”) but my overall beef is not with these non-public citizens so I chose not to include their comments. Another one is from Cheryl Jo Thompson who you may remember as the leader of the effort to recall democratically-elected sitting councilperson Jacquelyn Thompson back in 2009 with Issue 32. Their claims are so simple and without creedence that they’re really not any kind of argument at all. They are a prime example of an irresponsible string of illogical, hyperbolic, juvenile, debasing, simplistic claims and retorts.

Firstly, in our society there is something called argument. It is how you make your case for or against something. In the spirit of argument and in order to win it, using critical analysis, one makes their case in a reasoned, educated manner from ones viewpoint, using details, facts and logic. The point is to sway others to accept and side with the argument being made. Without this roundly-accepted and socially-respected avenue for swaying minds, we are left with only simple accusations and flaccid points sufficing for argument, leaving us with only enough room on that downward slide for the apoplectic screaming, fist fights and hair-pulling as witnessed on ‘The Jerry Springer Show’. Thus then, offering up arguments in-kind which respectfully respond to reasoned, well-researched arguments made, is the correct and civil response, that which saves us from sinking back to a level with the animals. In the over 45,000 words of argument in which I’ve offered evidence and observation and examples to bolster my charges that there is much corruption and underhanded wrongdoing in Whitehall City Hall, there were no counter-arguments made in return. None. I believe this was for two reasons; Firstly, I believe my arguments were so well constructed that they felt intimidated and impotent in their ability to offer up a strong counter-point or they felt they lacked the depth in which to do so (notice I was the only candidate for council to ask for a debate amongst my candidate peers). Secondly, I believe these viewpoints or anyone’s feelings regarding my writings were kept to themselves until after the election lest I expose the holes in their arguments (which would’ve further bolstered mine) and because something they said or added could’ve had the power to cost someone votes. (Something you’ll notice that never caused me to withold my views) So too, while this is an opportunity to actually rebut something, it is also a look into a thought process and mindset which further illustrates some of the points I’ve made.

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”
― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

While this quote is apropos, I’ll nevertheless offer up responses to their arguments as made, such as they are, for both their edification and yours, those which they never offered up to me in response to the actual arguments I made. First it will be their argument/comments, followed by my analysis/rebuttal. First up;

CHERYL JO THOMPSON’S POST:

Issue 32 leader and friend of Kim Maggard, Cheryl Jo Thompson, filming me (foe of Kim Maggard and Issue 32) peacefully and lawfully protesting the inherent conflicts in Issue 32.

Okay, first, here she reveals that Mayor Kim Maggard is her friend (not friendly, not an acquaintence but friends). With this statement I must deter from this post’s intent for a moment due to the importance of an issue her declaration above now informs.                                         In 2009 Cheryl Jo Thompson led the effort to oust Councilperson Jacquelyn Thompson, accusing her with a number of offenses, both on her blog dedicated to the topic and in a flurry of fliers leafletting the city. That effort which was heavily funded by government insiders and unions, making it by that funding, not a citizen’s revolt but a political campaign. That conflict and ethical wrong which I spoke out on and protested over at the time. (As you can see by Cheryl Jo Thompson actively filming me protesting, at left). This declaration then shows a clear bias in her feelings as well as confirms my original concerns and beliefs in regard to her efforts as the leader of Issue 32; that the conflict of interest in her running the recall effort as funded in part by her friend Kim Maggard, made its truth spotty and motives suspect, thereby suggesting its leader was merely a political hack. Serving not as a voice of the people but rather as a mouthpiece for friends in government. In that alone, the veracity of any piece of information offered during the recall effort as factual or explosive in order to exact the result she/they wanted must be called into question given the relationship the leader has with one of her efforts’ governmental benefactors, Kim Maggard. She (Maggard) who was quoted as saying in a Dispatch article regarding Jacquelyn Thompson, “Thompson is a bitter woman” “She’s probably the most negative influence anyone can have on Whitehall”. And while that may or may not be true and is representative of Kim Maggard’s opinion, this was stated in the article dated Oct. 5, 2008, sometime before Cheryl Jo Thompson turned in the paperwork in 2009 to begin the recall effort of that very woman her friend Kim Maggard had such strong feelings against. As such, given the relationship between the person leading the recall effort and one of the persons funding it within the government itself, we simply can’t know if this was a clean and honest effort or if it was merely about insiders and unions with vested interests settling scores and using Cheryl Jo Thompson as a means to rid themselves of someone who might get in the way of those vested interests. None of which is really their ethical place or business to pursue. (More on this at the end of this post).*

She then suggests that my political writings which were in opposition to Kim Maggard failed to address the Mayor’s humanity, that which she, as her friend, seems to focus on. I can only believe that Kim Maggard has feelings and loves kittens and enjoys the smell of cinnamon but none of these things are my concern as someone who is fighting troubles within city hall regarding mine and others elected officials. Her humanity is irrelevant in that pursuit, that which I leave to her family and friends, like Cheryl Jo Thompson, to tend to in a personal, not professional or public, manner. They want me to be nice to their leader but I have to ask, who precisely does that benefit? Her humanity and personal self is none of my concern or business in a rightful critical analysis of that which harms the public’s interests. If she doesn’t/didn’t like what I had to say then perhaps she shouldn’t have sought elected office and then done untrustworthy, troublesome things as that elected official. This argument regarding her humanity in my pursuit of critical exposure is irrelevant. She also says I told “lies” but offers up no specific, detailed examples or cogent arguments as to how or why she claims this is so. Simple hyperbole for simple consumption by people who don’t require facts or in-depth analysis is not a well-constructed argument and doesn’t adequately support a viewpoint.

She then calls the Howard family and LaCorte family thugs. Never specifying certain members, or one or two but, “the Howard family and LaCorte family”. They complain that I am so terrible because I rightly criticize elected/public figures and yet extrude this kind of offal. Does not Cheryl Jo remember or did she not see when some Maggard supporters were ganging up on Leslie LaCorte impugning her intelligence or suggesting she was going to take every citizen’s dogs from them? While I have certainly been publicly critical of Brent Howard and his son Brandon in their time, even I have to say that to characterize any of the Howards or LaCortes as ‘thugs‘ is beyond reason and is simply a perfect example of Cheryl Jo Thompson’s talent for irrational distortion.

She then suggest that the election’s outcome had to do with karma, justice and truth as opposed to other factors like preference, Democratic ballot samples handed out at the polls, sticking with the status quo, ignorance of the truth of some in elected office or low information voters. If karma, justice and truth were factors in the outcome of things, they surely would’ve factored into Cheryl Jo’s life in 2009 after she headed up an effort to kick a democratically-elected, sitting councilperson out of city hall largely with elected official’s and union’s money. In my opinion, it was a dastardly coup primarily funded by these two groups to rid thmselves of someone who wasn’t towing lines or was exposing their wrongs, that aspect which wasn’t mentioned in their flurry of fliers papered across town (those which Kim Maggard helped fund and which kept voters in the dark as to the whole truth of the matter (the monetary backers), the exposure of which might’ve hurt their efforts).

Finally, Cheryl Jo claims this is Kim Maggard’s hometown, simply because she won an election. Sorry, but in the ‘place of birth and/or raising’ definition, no, this is not her hometown. Not that I have any issue with people from anywhere else being a part of a place. (I was not born and raised in New York City but felt it was my home and cared for it as much as natives) However, when you throw this up in such a snotty fashion at people who were born and/or raised here, it tends to get the ‘Ram’ blood up. Bob Bailey, Leslie LaCorte, myself, Karen Conison and many, many others were born and raised here and know what that was like. We lived it. Our parents built and supported and sustained this town in its youth and halcyon days, like Bertie LaCorte, when Kim Maggard was enjoying her childhood and youth in Kentucky.

DAN MILLER’S POSTS:

Dan Miller:   “Jerry makes up his own reality and then leaves out anything that doesn’t conform to that reality. That is a lie of omission. When he says Council is corrupt, that is a lie. No one on Council has received anything in return for their vote. He calls the former Mayor a tyrant. He never forced me to do anything against my free will or anyone else for that matter. What part of the word lie don’t you understand. I read his entire blog and it is full of crap!” Like · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs

Dan Miller:   “Don’t get me wrong, through the years Jerry has had some good ideas but he lacks the ability to present them in a way that doesn’t offend. He needs to work on his delivery. He also needs to understand that in a democracy no-one gets everything they want. He has to learn how to accept that fact. He has had partial victories in code enforcement, litter and law enforcement. He should have used those to his advantage this election rather than slinging mud in every direction“. Like · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs

Dan Miller: “Let’s play a game. You decide to borrow your parents car without permission. You Dad looks out the window and notices the car is gone and calls the police to report it stolen. The police arrest you and charge you with grand theft auto. You call your dad and he comes and bails you out and drops the charges. I can make you look bad by saying, you were charged with grand theft auto. I can make the police look bad by saying you stole a car but the police dropped the charges. And lastly, I can make your dad look bad by saying he had you arrested for borrowing the car. These were all true statements but without the rest of the story they are lies of omission“. Like · Reply · 5 · 56 mins · Edited

Kim Barker Maggard:   Great example Dan. Not only are there lies of omission, there are crystal ball gazing lies. In other words, lies regarding possible future events. His lies intertwine with his obsessions. Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr

Dan Miller:  “I’d like to thank Jerry Dixon for proving once again that negative campaigning does not work. His hate filled ramblings were a stain on Whitehall politics. Made up charges, outrageous accusations and outright lies do not reflect well on the person who spews these barbs. He attacked every candidate, even those that have not held office. I was highly offended by his assault on Michael Bivens character. This is a man of integrity, a marine, a godly man. Shame on you Jerry!”

Like Comment Share
Kim Barker Maggard, C A R and 16 others like this.

Kim Barker Maggard:   Agree 100%.
Like · Reply · 2 · November 5 at 6:24am

MY REPLIES: (IN RED)

Dan Miller:   “Jerry makes up his own reality and then leaves out anything that doesn’t conform to that reality. That is a lie of omission”. Here he suggests that I “make up” my own reality, that none of the critical thinking I used; the many things which I’ve personally observed, used the brain God gave me to ascertain or all the paperwork and leg work and interviewing of citizens I’ve done is true or reality and that there are things I know which I’ve intentionally left out in order to inflate my arguments and make them look bad. If there are things which they know of which I’m not privy, how am I to write on them without that information? If I do not have additional information not privy to me then how have I omitted what I don’t have? I gave all I had and left out nothing intentionally. In that then, Mr. Miller makes a baseless claim which he doesn’t give examples of in order to solidify his claims, thereby making his statement one of hyperbole for the purpose of minimizing my claims and voice, that which will directly benefit himself and his friends/monetary patrons (chief of which is Mayor Maggard who has donated, at last notice, $200 to Mr. Miller and whom Mr. Miller, at most recent notice, has donated a total of $550 to)

“When he says Council is corrupt, that is a lie. No one on Council has received anything in return for their vote“.  Firstly, I am not a liar. I am a homosexual male and if you can even say that sentence, particularly in the time I grew up, it shows an unflinching, unwavering dedication to truth. I may be many things but a liar is not one of them. Secondly, there are several types of corruption Mr. Miller is apparently unaware of. According to Elaine Byrne in her 2007 PhD Thesis; ‘The Moral and Legal Development of Corruption: Nineteeth and Twentieth Century Corruption in Ireland’, there is Systemic Corruption, Sporadic (individual) Corruption, Political (Grand) Corruption, Grand Corruption, Petty Corruption and Legal and Moral Corruption. What I have written mainly on is a moral corruption in public office, that which pays little heed to the public trust and how its lack of integration by them in their behavior causes an erosion in our government’s processes, as outlined in my ‘crap-filled’ blogpost;

http://votedixon.com/2015/07/04/why-ethics-in-public-office-matter/

In Ms. Byrne’s thesis she writes, “Although an act is committed within legal parameters it may lie outside moral boundaries”. (also known as ‘the law according to those applying it’, i.e. code enforcement standing on a neighbors roof to photograph down into a neighbor’s private backyard, photographing someone’s private property through the spaces in fences, photographing property from a bucket truck…) “A corrupt act can be camouflaged by lawful justification”. (checking for rat feces. Perfect example found here); http://votedixon.com/2015/10/23/the-petty-tyranny-of-whitehall-code-enforcement-part-two/                                                                                “…corruption encompasses undue influence over public policies, institutions, laws and regulations by vested private interests at the expense of the public interest.” (Issue 32 comes leaping to mind as well as the familial influences) “Cultural change, rather than legal change, may be necessary to impede corrupt behaviour”. (Exactly that which I’ve been trying to change with all these writings, protests, speeches, letters to the editor, etc.) ‘Non-corrupt actions may be within the letter of the law but do not account for the spirit of the law’.(This very point I’ve made several times in writing and over the years. Working their way around term limits comes to mind)

We must assume that the default position for all humans is one of sound ethical and moral behavior, so, when one shows that they have diminished ethics and morals then we must assume that somewhere along the line these character traits have been corrupted, by whatever means. Being though that they are public officials running the governmental affairs of our lives, special alarm must be given in our reaction when we see that they’ve been corrupted in this manner, for their actions have great power over the public’s lives. When one notes underhanded dealings and familial considerations over ethics, principals and the citizens (particularly given the amounts of money shared between each other in donations), and too often experiences silence and stonewalling in response to legitimate concerns and calls for help or change, then that is an outright corruption, not only of their character but the processes put into place for the citizens benefit in regard to their interests.

“He calls the former Mayor a tyrant. He never forced me to do anything against my free will or anyone else for that matter.”  (smacks forehead with palm of hand) His ‘tyranny’ didn’t have anything to do with elected officials, those he had no true power over anyway (see: checks and balances, three branches of government). Rather, my concerns have been in regard to how Whitehall citizens have and do suffer under the tyranny of these ‘leaders’. When a leader exacts undue punitive measures against those they’re ‘leading’, ala Dave Deluca, among others (please see the several blogposts regarding these in which I’ve written), that is tyranny. Dictionary.com defines tyranny as “oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler”. Mayor Wolfe certainly did exert ‘oppressive’ measures in code enforcement, as has Mayor Maggard. They used the power of their office to immorally oppress, abuse and harrass citizens using the law at their command. As well, a citizen may have free will but lets see that free will go up against the authority, red tape and judicial power of government, that which both Mayors have utilized to abuse and harrass citizens. The singular citizens comparatively tiny free will would’ve been crushed by the hammering fist of the Goliath of City Hall. See;

http://votedixon.com/2015/11/01/the-petty-tyranny-of-whitehall-code-enforcement-part-four/

“What part of the word lie don’t you understand. I read his entire blog and it is full of crap!” Like · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs  Keeping it classy Auditor Miller, “crap!” And not only ‘crap’, but full of it! Btw, I understand the word ‘lie’ very well (The actual saying is, ‘What part of the phrase don’t you understand?’, not “word”). What you’re suggesting is that I have information which I twist in order to benefit myself, that which I’ve never done, and if I have, prove to me what statements and sentences and paragraphs I’ve done so and how specifically I consciously lied. One can say, ‘lies, lies, lies’ all they want but if it is not backed up with specific instances and the reasons why they are lies, then one has made a thin and fallacious argument. That which I say is done by Mr. Miller to degrade my growing influence here in Whitehall (1230 people is nothing to sneeze at), the diminishment of which would only benefit the likes of Mr. Miller himself and his patrons and ‘team’ within city hall.

Dan Miller:   “Don’t get me wrong, through the years Jerry has had some good ideas but he lacks the ability to present them in a way that doesn’t offend. He needs to work on his delivery”. I don’t give a hoot if they don’t like my delivery. What I don’t like and which is more damnable, is their actions and behavior in office which abuses and harms the citizenry which they swore to serve. Which is worse, my telling my public officials how I feel about them doing things wrong while in office which hurts the citizens or, their doing things wrong in office which hurts the citizens? I think the answer is crystal clear. They don’t answer me out of spite for telling them they’re corrupt to their face and because admitting to anything would then prove me right and we can’t have Mr. Dixon be right because then, if he’s right about one thing, then he must be right about other things too and maybe…everything! His excuse is a cheap deflection of what the true problem is; not me, but them.

Dan Miller: “He also needs to understand that in a democracy no-one gets everything they want. He has to learn how to accept that fact.” This is not something I don’t understand. What I do want is for many I’ve mentioned in this blog to get their ethical ship righted and stop with the selfishness, familial backslapping and intra-monetary patronage that is harmful to the citizens and the processes designed to help them, not those in City Hall. Then we can start talking about them not using their power and the processes of government and law to immorally abuse and harrass citizens through various means.

Dan Miller: “He has had partial victories in code enforcement, litter and law enforcement. He should have used those to his advantage this election rather than slinging mud in every direction”. Like · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs Ummmm, no one told me I had ‘partial victories’. How come I wasn’t made aware of these and what are they specifically? Would they have helped me get elected or bring more people over to support me? Mr. Miller writes of these things post-election but doesn’t mention I wasn’t aware of these things or perhaps only assumes that I was.                                                                Also, ‘slinging mud’ suggests I am writing about someone’s alcoholism or extra-marital affairs or drug use or inappropriate personal behavior or calling someone ‘full of crap’, rather than the truth of what it is; offering critical information regarding elected officials actions which are wrong and harm the citizens and which citizens should be apprised to make the most informed decision for the best possible outcome for the health of the city itself. If we cannot expose the truth about wrong behavior in City Hall for fear someone will accuse us of ‘mud-slinging’, then how are we ever to know what is going on wrong in our names? As well, do those who are the targets of the exposure use simple terms like ‘mud-slinging’ and ‘negative’ merely as a construct to silence critics and veer citizens away from further investigation into the truth of the matter? Well-researched, educated, in-depth critical analysis of government officials is not mud-slinging, it is the backbone and underpinnings of the health and vitality of our country, its government and its processes. Mr. Miller’s cheap and degrading characterization of my efforts shows not what Mr. Dixon is about but rather what Auditor Miller is about.

Dan Miller: “Let’s play a game. You decide to borrow your parents car without permission. You Dad looks out the window and notices the car is gone and calls the police to report it stolen. The police arrest you and charge you with grand theft auto. You call your dad and he comes and bails you out and drops the charges. I can make you look bad by saying, you were charged with grand theft auto. I can make the police look bad by saying you stole a car but the police dropped the charges. And lastly, I can make your dad look bad by saying he had you arrested for borrowing the car.” Mr. Miller’s point here is about perception of a story from a particular angle and the interpretation one takes from that. That when one looks at a situation from one angle one sees one thing but when looked at from another angle, one sees another. That without the whole story, there are missing pieces vital to one’s understanding. And while yes, that is true and all right and good, I am a citizen, looking out for the well being of my fellow citizens. That is my point of view. When I see the Whitehall city guide (which uses tax dollars pulled from people’s wallets) publish a website within the guide with a link to a blog on which a sitting councilperson’s character is assassinated who’d brought an ethics complaint against the guide’s author, it sets off an alarm in me concerned that power and tax dollars down at city hall could possibly be being used politically to harm and settle scores with enemies. Then, when I try to get to the bottom of it and am only shuffled around and met with ultimate silence by the big boss himself, Mayor John Wolfe (not given alternate viewpoints to help me with my perception, Mr. Miller), then I’ve seen all there is to see or be given to see, and so, all I’m left with then is just some excuse-making by council people. (After my taking loud issue with this situation, in the next City Guide issue in Fall, ’09, they added a disclaimer that said, “Opinions expressed by any organization contained in this publication may not represent the opinions or views of the City of Whitehall and the City of Whitehall in no way is responsible for any content those organizations publish”.)                           So yes, while there may be alternate ways to see a situation, it was I who brought up the problem as I saw it (which one should always do if one perceives trouble. Nobody in elected office should get a free pass) and so, asked for and demanded answers. Those ‘alternate viewpoints’ and answers no one offered in return. Which leads to the other part of this statement;

Dan Miller: “These were all true statements but without the rest of the story they are lies of omission”. Like · Reply · 5 · 56 mins · Edited Here Mr. Miller suggests that I indeed know all the angles but intentionally leave others out simply to bolster my point of view and to hurt others. That, I claim, is a lie by Mr. Miller. In all that I wrote, I want him to go through it piece by piece and say specifically what and where I was given information that I then intentionally manipulated by omitting it for a lie. Without this then, I say Dan Miller is not making an argument but only flinging simple  accusations about. One cannot lie if one has never received the information in which to then lie about knowing. One can say that I know or knew but it is another to prove that I was told things and then omitted them. I might be naive or trusting or foolish or sometimes simple about things but my integrity is iron-clad. When I made charges I backed them up with examples and proof and personal observation. I didn’t just say things and leave it at that. Mr. Miller has though. He needs to go through my ‘crap-filled’ blog and point out specifically where I lied, how I lied and why specifically they are lies. Until then, Mr. Miller is the liar.

Kim Barker Maggard:   “Great example Dan. Not only are there lies of omission, there are crystal ball gazing lies. In other words, lies regarding possible future events. His lies intertwine with his obsessions“. Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr                                                                 This makes me smile at its absurdity. Mr. Miller may make a point of sense in his example but it didn’t truly fit the bill as evidenced by their constant silence offering no ‘alternate viewpoints’ of situations I bring up. As well too, the charge of ‘lies of ommission’. Unless Mayor Maggard offers specific examples, as I asked of Auditor Miller above, in calling me a liar, then she herself is a liar too and I demand she offer up specific proof of what, how, when, etc. She also suggests that, while looking into the future, I have knowledge of the existence of things which I then intentionally leave out in order to advance my cause**, again calling me a liar. If I know things about plans or the movement of future things then I am free to make observations and hypothesise on those things, based not on what I don’t know but on what I’ve seen, read, observed and understood about plans and officials, their behavior and actions in the past as well as their character and morals. These ‘lies’ she speaks of are not based on prediction,(which is what I’ve given at times) but rather on an ommission of facts (some of which I never had). And yet, all the charges I’ve made, not one peep from the Mayor herself or anyone else at City Hall answering the details of my many concerns and queries regarding their policies and actions and behavior which may have answered questions and brought more understanding to issues .                     Finally, Mayor Maggard only offers up juvenile name-calling as ‘arguments’ (see: The Jerry Springer Show) In response to the Dispatch asking her about Jacquelyn Thompson she said, “Thompson is a bitter woman”. When the Dispatch asked her about me protesting against her downtown she said, “Mr. Dixon is a bit of a performance artist”. And here she debases my efforts by calling them, “obsessions”. Never offering up understanding through intelligent, respectful, reasoned, cogent counter-arguments. So then, she calls my concerns and demands for ethics and morality for the public trust (which benefit the citizens and our govenmental processes themselves), as well my alarm over misuse and abuse of power to harm said citizens merely, “obsessions“. She does this, as I’ve said too many times, as a means to denigrate, marginalize and minimize my voice, that which sheds light on her harmful, abusive administration (that which she doesn’t want!) as well too, because I don’t believe she has a true capacity for educated argument. Its easier for her to make of her detractors straw-men for public consumption than to offer up detailed, in-kind rebuttals. Regardless, this kind of simple response also (foolishly on her part) spits on the underlying decency which inform my pursuits for those admirable concerns and their ultimate benefactors, the citizens and their well-being themselves. Those who seem to get in the way of her climb to power and her dogged pursuit for the glorification of Kimberly J. Maggard.

Dan Miller:  “I’d like to thank Jerry Dixon for proving once again that negative campaigning does not work. His hate filled ramblings were a stain on Whitehall politics“. I don’t hate people. Calling out elected and public officials is my duty to my city and my country. If I have to call you out in the first place its either because you’re dumb as a box of rocks and doing stupid things which harm the public or you’re duplicitous, both of which are superior reasons to call out elected and public officials to begin with. Hate had nothing to do with it. Anger? Yes. Outrage? Yes. Hate? No.                            As far as my writing’s ‘rambling’ character, I say they are detailed criticisms, the topics and the citizens they impact I respected enough to take the inordinate time necessary in which to present them as their natures called for. They were not written for Reader’s Digest or as panels for Mad magazine. They were intelligent discourses on a number of topics, none of which can be properly communicated in 100 words or less. (and if they could’ve, I would’ve!) Conversely, if I hadn’t given them the proper depth and heft I did, critics like Mr. Miller would have surely lambasted me for a lack of thoroughness. Either way, reason, thoroughness or getting it right are not something people like him care about, their aim is to see me diminished for his and their benefit, plain and simply (see: George Carlin’s quote at the top of the post). Also Mr. Miller, what precisely leaves a larger ‘stain’ on Whitehall, my calling out the misdeeds of elected officials or the misdeeds of elected officials itself?

Dan Miller: “Made up charges, which ones did I make up? And did I ‘make them up’ or were some of them observations and viewpoints? outrageous accusations what specifically makes them ‘outrageous’? and outright lies Prove that I lied Mr. Miller, specifically, what, where and how and the process in which I was duplicitous so as to create the lie. Saying ‘lies’ is not proof of the lie. do not reflect well on the person who spews (‘spews’ is a disparaging verb I’ve heard often from the likes of those in city hall and some of their supporters. Myself or my writings are not legitimate, nor are they well-said or eloquent or on-target, they are merely vomitus spewing from Beelzebub’s mouth) these barbs. He attacked every candidate, even those that have not held office. Did I “attack” Mr. Miller, or did I criticize and take to task? There is a difference. May I say, my criticism’s were with reason, that which I made clear and which illustrated and brought together my well-made points. I brought up the Quincels political donations as a means of showing a larger problem which I spelled out succinctly in that post. Mr. Quincel is/was a political candidate and Mrs. Quincel is a political appointment (by Mayor Maggard) to the Parks and Recreation Board. They are both then political figures and so the use of their public donations to political figures makes them fair game in using their monetary support as a clearly acceptable example of a point being made for the advancement of my argument presented. Let me be clear on things, there are elected officials, political figures and public figures. I have the right to bring them up if their actions, etc. are a part of an argument being made. I have no personal beef with the Quincels, I’ve met Mr. Quincel and thought him a very nice person, I liked him and while my inclusion of him and his wife in my argument may have caused tension and resentment between us now and in the future, my first alignment is not with people themselves but rather, principals, the steadfast championing of which I’m willing to pay such an unhappy price for. As well, being a candidate for elected office, it brought me a weightier bully pulpit than I had as just a citizen, therefore I used that to my public argument’s advantage to inform even more people of what I’ve found and my viewpoint on these matters, which has worked. That is why some things were brought up that didn’t seem to do with candidates or my race but which ultimately better served the citizens.

Dan Miller: “I was highly offended by his assault on Michael Bivens character“. Let me show you then the entirety (62 words total) of this “assault” I wrote in regard to “Michael Bivens character” in the over 45,000 words I otherwise wrote on Whitehall; “(he) Didn’t take one dime from any ‘Family members’. Although has now endorsed the endlessly corrupt and awful Mayor Maggard as well as Councilpersons Bailey, Conison and Kantor. If this trend continues I’m afraid (not a word connoting certainty) his reputation (a good one) will become soiled by his allegiance to party and associations over truth and conflicts of interest, and with them, the public’s trust of him, and (note that this is an ‘if’ it does, then it will be…) rightfully so” (not one solitary word “assaulting” Mr. Bivens’ character, not one). If Mr. Miller would take such “high offense” with my “assaulting” any person’s character in this small paragraph I would think it would chiefly be his ‘team leader’ Kim Maggard’s (and what would’ve been more correct for him to have characterized this as would be, ‘criticizing political figures‘). But, that doesn’t serve Mr. Miller’s means which is to use a man of Mr. Bivens decent character as the height of goodness in order to manipulate the reader’s perceptions to make it appear that anything I wrote about him which wasn’t simply gushing praise, was some sort of heretical attack on his divine “character” (thereby skirting the true issues and manipulating those in the public who are uninformed or unparticipatory into believing what he wanted them to believe of me, making me out to be some awful jerk in their eyes; the ones who vote). Mr. Bivens is a smart enough man that he doesn’t need Mr. Miller to exaggerate my words to maximally misinterpret my intent and meaning in regard to how I feel about his character. It is clear from the simplicity of my words that it is not Mr. Bivens himself who I have the issue with but rather whom he freely chooses to endorse and associate, which of course is his free will to do so. However, from the reams of evidence and concerns and testimonials I’ve given, it is clear that those he has chosen to support, in particular Mayor Maggard, risks his own peerless reputation by doing so. As he has a right to do, but, so too do I have a right to criticize that decision, particularly as it effects the citizen’s experience in Whitehall by those who aim to lead them. I remind Mr. Miller then of my publicly-stated feelings toward Mr. Bivens with my words used after the conflict-apalooza called the ‘Candidates Forum’ in 2011, “I saw only one leader up there tonight and his name was Michael Bivens”. So lets not get up in a froth Mr. Miller and mischaracterize my actual words. Their meaning is clear to anyone with a brain and a modicum of sense and reason.

Dan Miller: “This a man of integrity, (you notice he didn’t protest this argument about one singular other person I criticized, not one. Apparently none of the rest have integrity) a marine, a godly man. Shame on you Jerry!” (Easy to say that in a Facebook post that I’ve been restricted from seeing. Was he preaching to the choir or assumed it would be leaked to me) ‘Goodness gracious’, as my Grandfather used to say. Firstly, I again refer you to my above explanation. Secondly, since when does ones voluntary entrance into service in the Armed Forces force the rest of us to treat them with kid gloves and like a saint rather than the human and political figures and elected representatives that they are? Mr. Bivens is entering public office, not entering the priesthood. As well, I’m sure if Mr. Bivens fought for anything it was not the cutting into of free speech rights out of holy reverence for a person running the affairs of the citizens simply because they chose to serve in the armed forces. To suggest that their be no criticism of elected officials, for any reason, is not to understand and appreciate the principals and tenets of our country and its freedoms, that which Mr. Bivens served to have properly protected, not undercut by the likes of the foolish and hyperbolic Mr. Miller. I am then reminded of this Teddy Roosevelt quote,

 “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Let’s insert “marine’ or “Godly man” instead of ‘President’ and you see my point. This also reminded me that when I criticized and accused Mayor Wolfe (a former Marine) of several wrondoings and character failings (as spelled out in a four-page flier I handed Dan Miller himself in 2011 entitled ‘How Mayor John Wolfe is Corrupt’) and loudly protested about the harrassment of Navy veteran Dave Deluca and his subsequent move from Whitehall as a result, that Councilman Miller was as silent as a church mouse, making his current outspoken outrage regarding former Marine Michael Biven then, specious. Apparently it wasn’t until I loudly criticized his ‘team leader’ Mayor Maggard…I mean…Michael Bivens, that suddenly Auditor Miller’s ire rose to such levels as to publicly shame the likes of me.  Truly, this is only a disingenuous assault on me to undermine my voice and character in order to contain the damage to his team leader, Mayor Maggard and others, from my loud and angry public criticism of them, nothing more. Mr. Bivens has been made well aware of all my feelings towards him by none other than myself, in person. If there is shame to be had it should be by Mr. Miller who cared not a lick that a citizen/veteran he represented as his voice on council was being systematically harrassed out of his home and Whitehall, that which he lifted neither public finger nor voice in defense or opposition to. No, Mr. Miller’s voice was only raised when a citizen and opponent of candidates he backed and aided in their campaign criticized public/elected officials, some of whom he is tied to with monetary donations. Therefore, it was my criticism of elected officials that upset him most, not Mr. Deluca (who sometimes had no more than peanut butter and crackers for dinner) being harrassed out of his home. Mr. Miller’s principals and so many officials called out in this blog are what are being rightly called into question. It is in too many ways shameless people who are running our city, not all, but too many. How they got their hands on the throttles of power in Whitehall is grist for another post but regardless, it is up to the decent people of this town to take them back. This kind of careless immoral behavior in public office as leaders of the citizenry is inexcusable and unacceptable. It is and has been my drive to expose it and do the right thing about it. And so I have as I’ve been able.   

Like Comment Share
Kim Barker Maggard, C A R and 16 others like this.

Kim Barker Maggard: (Team Leader)   “Agree 100%”. Of course she would, one of her ‘team’ is defending her and the rest of the ‘team’. Apparently, Whitehall Auditor Dan Miller is a good team player.
Like · Reply · 2 · November 5 at 6:24am

Simply said, Dan Miller is a ‘team member’ as evidenced by this piece of literature by Kim Maggard’s political campaign (…As odious as it is. )Anyone who would agree to allow their photo/name to be mentioned on this heresy to our democracy and its seperation of powers is no friend of the people. The only ‘team’ any of these people should be on is ‘Team Whitehall’ or ‘Team America’ not ‘Team Maggard’. Their offices are independent of each other and must remain so for the sanctity of serving the public good, not each others. The fact that there are two of the citizen’s voices, their representatives on council, on here is shameful. Does this mean that if I don’t like something their ‘leader’ is doing that they’ll ignore me rather than go against the ‘team’? And if so, that makes them her representatives, not mine. Bailey and Consion should be ashamed to even say they’re there for the people of Whitehall, its disgusting. This is not how our government is supposed to work.) So, when I call the ‘team leader’ a “pirate” and “Captain Kidd”, is there merit in Dan Miller’s thin arguments and hurled insults or is he just being a good ‘team player’? As well, just as I said in a blog post, that if you oppose them then you’re ‘persona non grata’, so it is with me and so it is with Wes Kantor for supporting the ‘enemy’, Leslie LaCorte. Notice he’s not listed as part of ‘Team Maggard'(But yet has to sit with them for the next four years…)

*I don’t believe this was a citizen’s revolt to recall Councilperson Thompson but rather a political coup. In my estimate, they played a dirty game and this just underscores it. I maintain that 78% of the funding to oust an elected official could be viewed as political, largely coming from elected officials and unions themselves. Those representing the government have NO business, NONE, funding an effort to remove a colleague and elected official from the government they both serve in from a citizen’s effort. (Whereas an actual citizens revolt funded and rallied entirely by the citizens themselves is completely legitimate and clean and right and fine). It says, with enough money, we the elected officials can decide who stays and who goes in government, not the people alone. That they and not the citizens wield the real power. 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 is absolute political corruption; did she not do as pleased them? Did she do things which brought forward things they didn’t want to, etc.? This is all well said in my four-page flier detailing my claims of Mayor Wolfe’s corruption that I handed out at his last council meeting. I quote;

“When there are concerns and alarm amongst the citizenry regarding their democratically elected officials and they gather together to address those concerns and/or take action, that is as it should be and of which I’m in complete agreement with. However, after the success of the recall campaign, the leader of that effort proclaimed, “THE PEOPLE OF WHITEHALL HAVE SPOKEN!!!!!” What her shouted statement failed in was its accuracy. What would have been more appropriate to shout would have been, ‘POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT AND UNIONS!!!!!’ because that is who did the majority of the financing of that campaign, thereby making them the strongest drivers of it.

When the regular citizens have an issue with their elected officials it is their responsibility to attend to it as they see fit, after all, it is a people’s democracy, not a government’s democracy. If there were issues the citizens had with Councilperson Thompson behaving in a wrongful manner, legally or otherwise and unbefitting an elected official of the people as they alone saw it, then it is the people’s responsibility to unseat her with their aid and their money alone. This is not what happened. 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.                                                     So then, in order to keep our democracy ever clear of encroachments and dangers to its health and vitality, we must always monitor these sorts of actions and behaviors and assume them to be threats to our democracy (particularly so when government officials so cavalierly and disrespectfully ignore clear conflicts of interest) and give them the scrutiny, scorn and wide berth they so rightly attract and deserve. 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. Therefore I don’t believe in the least it was a true and organic people’s revolt. 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. Why else would these two entities care so deeply as to contribute so heavily toward’s a people’s campaign, one that concerned how an elected official behaved towards citizens or what legislature she deemed worthy to introduce as a legislator? The tale is in their inappropriate patronage of a purported citizen’s revolt.                                          When we start allowing our government and organizations with vested interests to decide who stays and who goes in the people’s democratically elected positions, it is then named something other than a democracy. In that then, it will be the people, this very country and its democracy that will lose. If she was worthy of ouster for the supposed ultimate benefit of this city’s health and well-being, I ask you; what price shall we pay for such ‘justice’ if we have to sacrifice the very sanctity and strength of our democracy to achieve it, and attain only in the aftermath the ruination of that which we held so dear?”                                                         

** And what precisely is that ’cause’ I advance and what “crap” exactly is it that I wrote in my blog?  Here is what I compiled after combing through its entirety;

I gave positions on being a legislator… Spoke out against patronage and cronyism…Dedicated an entire post on why character matters in public office…Offered my views on crime and safety… Suggested championing organic growth and movement in Whitehall…Gave a list of seven admirable attributes for ethical and good living…Stated that the Constitution and citizens should be priority #1…Deeply fleshed out ethics, trust and morality in public office…Warned against opression of freedom of speech and the need and right for reasoned adult criticism and shared adult views…Gave uplifting positive speech about what is possible for Whitehall’s future…Broke down and exposed fallacies over political tools used falsely to win…Suggested character matters more than experience…Exposed how code enforcement is used as a weapon and political tool…Claimed Mayor Maggard has no actual vision…Suggested hiring more police officers to battle crime and speeding…Pointed out harmful behavior by elected officials and why it’s wrong…Pointed out how Councilperson Conison misuses her time on council detrimentally to the citizens benefit…Called out so many’s unwillingness to heed conflicts of interest…Praised Dan Miller for correcting bad legislation (guess that was ‘crap’)…Called Mayor Maggard and Councilperson Conison selfish for doing for themselves over heeding conflicts of interest and building public trust…Tied Bailey’s silence over Wolfe’s corruption to Wolfe’s $500 contribution to Bailey’s campaign…Called Mayor Maggard “endlessly corrupt and awful”…Suggested their donation-orgy acts as a conflict of interest when they won’t act in the name of citizens who oppose them…Pointed out my opponents silence in responding to the League of Women Voters questionnaire…Offered detailed examples of City Hall and Council’s disrespect and lack of action to correct problems and right wrongs…Gave explicit examples of how salaries at City Hall aren’t reflective of Whitehall’s true poverty…Expressed thoughtful, educated opinions…Gave clear and deeply investigative examples of code enforcement abuse with government minimizing those charges and concerns and offering only silence or obfuscation as a response…Gave verbatim transcripts of council meetings and gave detailed arguments against their foolishness, showing their lack of logic and making an argument against code enforcement and their misuse of it…Properly placed blame for actions squarely on the doorstep of those I find responsible and rightly called the turd a ‘turd’…I compared them to pirates…I called Mayor Maggard “Captain Kidd”…Exposed their corruption with code enforcement with detailed incident after detailed incident…Spoke out against bothering poor senior citizen veterans with wallet-depleting code hassling…Spoke out against throwing self-sustaining fathers of six children into jail over grass and weeds…Championed poor veterans and their sacrifice over a slavish devotion to elected officials…Gave a thoroughly examined argument as to why Mayor Maggard is untrustworthy and gave several examples on how she is not a good mayor, and…I spoke truth to power.

Well, there’s all the “crap” in its entirety. As you can clearly see by this list, I’m quite an asshole. Mr. Miller is an astute man to be sure.

The election is over and all the hard work and machinations of that will soon fade from memory. The people who voted made their choices and that is what it is. I congratulate everyone that won regardless of how they did so or what efforts they put in. However, I want it known that all issues I had with them up to this point, retain their merit and still exist. I haven’t forgotten nor I hope will any of my supporters.

I spent around $1500 of my own money with a little help from co-workers and associates. Not one penny came from any elected officials. I walked countless miles and distributed over 3000 pieces of literature and talked countless hours with a variety of fellow citizens. Dogs of every stripe and size were ‘good dogs’ alerting their masters to my approach and knock. I wrote some 65,000 words for the citizens in which to utilize to make an informed decision. Perhaps some took it in and used it to not vote for me and conversely they read it and used it to vote for me. I’m convinced I would’ve gotten more votes if only I’d gotten word out to more people door to door but, my 54-year old hip and funds ran out. So it goes.

 Autumn Rehl and Treva Draper-Imler were my two chief assistants. We had several meetings to formulate strategies and hash out ideas. Their brilliant minds and contagious enthusiasm were a bubbly tonic to my exhausted and sometimes acerbic self. (To be fair, I also held them up sometimes to and made them laugh) They were the lynch-pins that held this train together and kept it from derailing. God bless them and thank them for their help. It was immeasurable.

Scott Wright, Deana Hutchison, Shelly Willis, Autumn Rehl and Jim George were helpful in getting literature passed out, as mentioned before, and I thank them for that and their support.

For all those on Facebook who supported me by ‘sharing’ and ‘liking’ things and all their kind and supportive words, I thank-you all.

 I think I well-explained how I felt about Leslie LaCorte and why I supported her. I don’t just believe she is people-centric, I know she is. She is a good person and that is key in a true leader. Without that you’re just going through the motions. Going through the motions is simply an inorganic portrayal for some inner reason not related to that which you’re pretending. If Leslie is the queen of malapropisms or isn’t a walking dictionary or thesaurus (like me), it doesn’t matter because she’s genuine and true blue. That is where you start, that is the beginnings of good things. Without it you’re just a pretensive shell and that to me, is not worth the gas to drive and cast a vote for. I congratulate and applaud Leslie on the hard work she put into her campaign and giving it her all and striving to reach the destination in the first place, not allowing Kim Maggard to feel once again like she was the annointed heir-apparent of Whitehall. Good for Leslie LaCorte she didn’t allow Kim Maggard to run opposed. For that alone she deserves a standing ovation and a level of respect and admiration that should never abate.

Growing up, I watched alot of movies. Of them I always enjoyed Frank Capra movies. He was most known as the director of ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’, the idealic tale of a man finding redemption for himself in coming to understand the power and impact of one’s life on the world around him through his actions. Capra’s takes on humanity were always kind of corny (called Capri-corn) but highly idealistic and  so American with heroes and bad guys. My favorite of his was ‘Meet John  Doe’ starring Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper. Its the story of a reporter who makes up a letter printed as a story before leaving her job at the paper. She writes of a man who’s going to commit suicide at midnight on Christmas Eve by jumping off City Hall tower to protest man’s inhumanity to man and the general awful state of things. The letter is printed and it touches off a firestorm of interest in saving this ‘John Doe’. Because he doesn’t exist, they hire a hobo, played by Gary Cooper, to pretend he’s John Doe and suddenly a movement arises. Its one of the kindest, sweetest, most generous movies I’ve ever seen and is the one movie closest to my heart. You really want to know me? Watch ‘Meet John Doe’. I watch it every year on Christmas Eve.

I believe in my fellow man, all of them and we have an obligation to each other. I believe we have an obligation to bring light to the dark and that the only reason to look down on someone is when you’re bending to give them a hand up. I believe that our fellow of God’s children are and should be our chief focus. Anything else is a slap in the face of our creator. Soooo, when people do things for selfish reasons or forget our #1 focus, I take issue with it. When the pursuit of billions of dollars takes precedence over that of our fellow human beings, that is a sin (unless you use those billions to help them). I believe if we can’t live up to principals we espouse and believe in regarding humanity then we might as well stop kidding ourselves, bullshitting others and let the careless, inhumane, genocidal slaughtering begin, because there are no half measures. You either care or you don’t, you either do or you don’t. When people derisively complain, ‘They need to tear out those Fairport apartments!’, I remember that those complaints weren’t heard when they were filled with white people. I also consider the fact that they are currently filled with human beings, people who have their lives and are trying to find happiness within poverty. When I travel through Woodcliff, I see nothing but 10 boys playing football in a front yard or kids chasing each other around the tree, finding happiness in their lives despite any circumstances they may be mired in that may not be like mine. To not first acknowlege that is sinful. To say that people are in the way of progress or someone’s self-interested plans at city hall or a self-aggrandizing call for a ‘War on Blight!!’ is not to lead people but profit from their misery and your community’s downfall. Without acknowledging poor people are human lives too and they need/want food and shelter and happiness just like you and I and finding alternatives for those needs/wants before chasing them out to be someone else’s problem, is to prize the wrong things in our time on God’s green earth. To place developers and builders and political machines and property values ($$$$$$!) above people is to participate in the truer and more lasting degradation of our planet and society and mankind. While it is a noble gesture to fling yourself off a city hall tower to protest the madness in society (On Yearling Road I would surely only break a leg and bruise my coccyx) it is more lasting to stick around and fight, against the dark and to see that others are being pulled up and to ensure that human beings rights and dignity are always prized over that of money and possessions. That is one of the reasons I fought Mayor Maggard as exhaustively and strongly as I did. My writings in this blog serve my point of view well on that topic and so there is no reason to repeat it all today.

I have, for a long time, insisted that I be myself, whatever that may be and at whatever cost that brings to me in whatever form. As I told Autumn Rehl with advance warning, “I’m a bawdy gay man with a salty tongue” and so it is. I am also a true blue individual with a heart of gold and a true deep care for my fellow man, all of them. I make it a priority in my life and have strove to honor God’s gift of my life by fighting against man’s inhumanity to man, for his children, as my gift back to Him in my return. That is my quest, that is my goal, that is everything to me. I hope that in my demand for my individuality I have always only been a good person but realize, as a flawed human being, that I have my faults, those which I should also forgive others for in their strivings. I realize when you have to point out troubles as I have for civic betterment, that egos and feelings get hurt but, if you don’t do so, the dark will never be cast aside and that is the price one has to exert for that endeavour. It is never my desire to hurt, be impolite or mean to anyone and if I was outside of my goal, I apologize. Even those I fight are my brothers and sisters of God and I see and value their human worth but if they’re causing mayhem and destruction and human degradation for others, I’ve got a bone to pick with them. And so it goes.

I thank all 1,229 of you (the 1230th person was me) for all your support and interest and kindness and humanity.

post script: I did not win election and yet, there is still work to be done. That which I don’t believe the ‘winners’ do or have focused on. My intent is to keep doing it, to keep pushing back against the darkness. In that I will keep this blog open and entreat you to stay. If you also agree that the fight that I waged with words that you supported with your votes is worthy of a forward momentum, then I ask you to stay tuned. If there are efforts you and I can address and work together to solve for humanity and for Whitehall and its communities, then I hope you’ll help us see those through. Thank-you most wholeheartedly.

Jerry

Just for fun, here is the part of the flier mailed to citizens in, I believe it was 2009 or 2010 convincing them why they should pass this income tax increase and look, its the much-promised (this flier is evidence), much ballyhooed Recreation Center. This was before Kim Maggard was Mayor and yet, in the four years its been in her hands…NOTHING!

As well, if I didn’t hit your door with literature, I apologize. I truly tried my best to hit it all. I passed out, by hand, door to door, nearly 3000 pieces of literature, alot on my own but there was help and I wanted to thank them for that, Deana Hutchison, Shelly Willis, Jim George, Scott Wright and Autumn Rehl. My 54 year old hips are weary.

A special shout out to my two right-hand gals who were there with me the whole way and helped so tremendously. Bigger thanks will be forthcoming but thanks now to Autumn Rehl, the lady with the short, stout pony, ‘Bullseye’, here in Whitehall and the Honeydew to my Whiplash, Treva Draper. If they hadn’t been there I’m certain I’d be in a special care unit somewhere out at Arbors East. Huzzah!

I must also say that I am acutely aware that I am one person practically fighting an entire city. That is not without its dangers, risks or trepidation on my part. I’m awaiting the blast when I start my car or the blow dart to my neck. My blinds are drawn more these day. I ask myself not if they’ll seek revenge, but when, and, in what form? I have watched these people for six years now and its not pretty. The ultimate question that must be asked if I’m elected is; ‘can they possibly get away with two recall efforts?’ I ask you to stay tuned because if that becomes the case, I need all of you who supported me during the election to back me up against retaliation. If its important to put me in there, its important to not allow them to manipulate you or something in order to get rid of me. Truly. That’s why I intend to keep this blog going, perhaps a name change, whether I’m elected or not. To keep you apprised of various doings. I hope you’ll stay tuned.

As far as this blog is concerned, I wrote over 18,000 words just on my personal life. I wrote over 47,000 on my stances and analysis of Whitehall, 18,216 of those about code enforcement solely (shame and more on them). With an overall total of 65,241 words expressed to help the citizens make informed decisions. Whew! My fingers are claws now but, thats not your concern.

As far as the numbers for this blog in views and visitors, its amazing. This last week alone I’ve had 950 visitors with 1610 views…in seven days. Wow. Fantastic! Since I started the blog back in May, there have been a total of 2,451 visitors with a total of 5,318 views. Thats amazing! What I hope that means is that not only I’ll have people’s votes but that more people are getting angry and upset at whats going on here in Whitehall and stand up to it and say its gotta stop. I pray.

Leslie LaCorte for Mayor

Gerald Dixon for at-Large Council

and if you can remember, please, David B Nixon as a write in for at-Large Council too.

Thanks! Go vote!!